Reading Motivation: Exploring the Elementary Gender Gap Barbara a. Marinak

Full Text:

It would be hard to imagine a group of individuals more vitally interested in a child's literacy motivation than simple school reading teachers. As a grouping, they are intensely and intimately familiar with the array of personal and bookish rewards that a high level of reading motivation can bring most in the life of a child. Withal, the fact remains that teachers may take a wealth of knowledge and experience and a full repertoire of proven teaching strategies at their disposal, but if a child cannot or will not muster the motivational resources to answer, and then there is virtually cipher that teachers can do.

Given those circumstances, it is not surprising that motivation to read has evolved into one of the most intensely studied of the factors contributing to overall success or failure in the elementary school. In fact, reading teachers identified creating interest in reading as the research issue they nearly cared near in a survey of members of the International Reading Association (O'Flahavan et al., 1992). But motivation to read besides has deep roots in classic motivation theory, specifically what has come to be known as the expectancy-value theory (Eccles, 1983).

Expectancy-value theory suggests that motivation is dependent on 2 central factors:

ane. The extent to which an individual expects success or failure in an undertaking

2. The value or overall appeal that an individual ascribes to the task

Research has also suggested that the positive aspects of these two qualities are possessed in abundance past individuals who are engaged readers--those ideal readers who are intrinsically motivated, and who read regularly and enthusiastically for a diverseness of their own purposes (Guthrie & Anderson, 1999). Research into engaged and motivated readers has found that they read more than than their less enthusiastic counterparts (Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), attain higher levels of accomplishment in reading (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Guthrie, Schafer, & Huang, 2001), perform better on standardized tests of reading (Gottfried, 1990), and receive higher grades in schoolhouse (Sweet, Guthrie, & Ng, 1998).

In our review of the literature on engaged reading, we found one peculiarly intriguing line of inquiry into the link betwixt motivation and achievement. Schiefele (1991) institute that university students who regarded the topic of a text every bit intrinsically motivating and interesting outperformed their less-interested classmates in an assessment of comprehension. Nonetheless, it was not the recall of factual information that distinguished interested and less-interested readers. Instead, it was responses to questions that required deep and complex comprehension, the detection of relationships between and amid ideas, or the application of ideas to new situations.

We wondered whether this result of involvement on higher level comprehension was reciprocal. In other words, if interest level is related to the inclination to think deeply nearly text, would this tendency toward thoughtful response to text also be related to motivation to read? Specifically, would children who achieved higher scores on a mensurate of thoughtful literacy be more motivated to read than their lower scoring counterparts? And would that relationship hold true for children of elementary school age?

Consequently, we gear up out to identify 2 distinct groups of uncomplicated school children:

1. Those who could recollect what they read and who demonstrated the inclination to remember deeply about it

ii. Those who could recall what they read but who did not demonstrate the inclination to answer thoughtfully to the text

Our straightforward research question was whether these two groups would differ with respect to their overall motivation to read, the value that they ascribed to reading, and their perceived cocky-efficacy every bit readers.

Gender and Age Differences in Motivation to Read

Of course, very little is straightforward when we attempt to address an issue as overwhelmingly circuitous as human motivation. For instance, research has constitute that the reading motivation levels of females are consistently and significantly higher than those of males (Durik, Vida, & Eccles, 2006; Gambrell & Marinak, 2010; Kush & Watkins, 1996; McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995; Merisuo-Tempest, 2006).

To complicate matters even further, several researchers have found that at that place were no gender differences with respect to self-efficacy as readers, but only for the value assigned to reading (Durik et al., 2006; Gambrell & Marinak, 2010; McKenna et al., 1995; Pecjak & Peklaj, 2006). Conspicuously, our research would be incomplete if we did not also examine the links between gender and motivation and effort to determine if motivation levels for males would be lower than those of females, even if those males demonstrated an inclination to react thoughtfully to text.

At the same time, nosotros needed to be mindful of the fact that researchers accept plant that motivation to read decreases with historic period, even among simple school children. Several researchers have suggested that the turn down begins at or well-nigh the fourth-course year (Durik et al., 2006; Kush & Watkins, 1996; McKenna et al., 1995). Consequently, we needed to investigate whether this human relationship might exist linked to the inclination to respond thoughtfully to text.

And then with two potential complications factored into the study, we arrived at a threefold research question:

1. Would the inclination to respond thoughtfully to narrative text be related to the overall motivation, the value ascribed to reading, and the reading self-efficacy of elementary school children?

2. Would motivation thus assessed be systematically related to gender and the inclination to respond thoughtfully to text?

three. Would the value ascribed to reading decrease in relation to class level and the inclination to answer thoughtfully to text?

Assessment of Motivation and Thoughtful Response

To deport out the report, nosotros needed to identify a measure of reading motivation and a perfect fit was the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP; Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996). Because the MRP is modeled on the basis of expectancy-value theory, information technology yields measures of both reading cocky-efficacy and value ascribed to reading. And it does then with adequate reliability (Cronbach's [blastoff] = 0.75 for self-efficacy and 0.82 for value), no pocket-sized feat for the assessment of a construct as complex as human motivation. All children in this written report were given the reading survey of the MRP, a 20-item Likert scale musical instrument, with hall of the items dedicated to the assessment of self-efficacy and the other one-half to value of reading.

To appraise the inclination of children to respond thoughtfully to text, we chose the Critical Reading Inventory (CRI; Applegate, Quinn, & Applegate, 2008). The CRI is modeled on the 2007 Framework of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Assessment Governing Lath, 2006), and allocates threescore% of its comprehension items to assessment of the reader's inclination to reply thoughtfully to the ideas and issues embedded in text. Thoughtful comprehension in the CRI involves both the ability to link feel with text to make it at a logical conclusion and the ability to grasp the larger significance of text and to use the text to support a stand that the reader has taken. The remaining forty% of the items in the CRI are directed to the measurement of text-based comprehension.

Sample Characteristics

The sample for this study consisted of 443 children (202 males and 241 females) ranging from grade 2 through course 6 anal residing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware (see Table i). Eighty-vi percent of the children were Caucasian and 14% were members of minority groups. Public school students accounted for 63% of the sample, while parochial students (26%), individual schoolhouse students (10%), and abode-schooled children (ane%) accounted for the remainder. More than fourscore different schools in the tri-state surface area were represented in the last sample.

The children in the study were tested between 2006 and 2009 at their current course level on two narrative passages from the CRI (1 was read orally and the other silently). Comprehension of the ii passages was assessed by means of open-ended questions, with a total of 8 text-based and 12 college social club items. Testing was carried out by graduate or undergraduate students as office of their coursework in pedagogy. All examiners were trained in the administration anal scoring of the CRI via classroom demonstrations and Spider web-based tutorials for the scoring of comprehension items, miscues, and retellings. Scoring for each of the responses was cross-checked past two experienced CRI users, and whatever differences were resolved by discussion.

On the basis of their comprehension item scores, all students were assigned to either the Red Group or the Bluish Grouping. To qualify for inclusion in the study, all students had to score at least 81% in text-based comprehension. The hateful text-based comprehension score for the Red Group was 88.two%, but their mean higher order comprehension score was simply 44.9%. Thus, the Red Group consisted of children strong in text-based but weak in college social club comprehension. The hateful text-based comprehension score in the Blue Group was 91.9%, and their mean higher order score was 85.1%. Thus, the Blue Group consisted of children strong in both text-based and higher order comprehension. On average, both groups scored at an independent level with respect to text-based comprehension. Nevertheless, only the Blue Grouping was also independent in thoughtful response; the Carmine Group tested at a frustration level in thoughtful response to narrative text.

We should note at this fourth dimension that nosotros take and will continue to have pains throughout this commodity to describe our findings as the inclination to think deep]y almost text, and not as the ability to practise so. We believe that all children engage in their real lives in the kind of thoughtful analysis that enables them to size up people, situations, and life events with frequently disconcerting accuracy and insight. Many of these children have but not yet encountered a situation that demands that they practice the same type of thinking about what they read. Consequently there is a disconnect betwixt their world of ideas and their world of text, a disconnect that nosotros hope can be mended at least in part by the discussion of the results of this report.

Results

Our first research question was whether the inclination to respond thoughtfully to text would affect the reading motivation of elementary school children. The data in Table 2 suggests that the answer is a resounding "yes." In terms of total motivation (t= -11.11, p < 0.0001), value ascribed to reading (t = -10.02, p < 0.0001), and self-efficacy as a reader (t = -9.10, p < 0.0001), children with high inclination to respond thoughtfully to text were significantly more than motivated to read than children who excelled only in text-based comprehension.

In our attempt to accost our second research question (Would motivation be systematically related to gender and group membership?), we broke downward the data on the basis of gender (encounter Table iii) and beginning examined the Ruby Group. Equally had been noted past several previous researchers, nosotros constitute that females were significantly more motivated to read in terms of total motivation (t= -3.28, p < 0.001) and value ascribed to reading (t = -4.23, p. < 0.0001), only non so in terms of self-efficacy as a reader (t = -1.47, p = not meaning). When we examined the Blue Grouping as a whole, we constitute that among children skilled at responding thoughtfully to text, in that location were no significant differences between males and females in any dimension of reading motivation, including total motivation (t = -ane.69, p = not significant), cocky-efficacy (t = -1.22, p = non significant), or value of reading (t = -1.02, p = not significant).

To address our third research question (Would the value ascribed to reading subtract in relation to form level and group membership?), nosotros examined grade-level motivation figures in the Cerise Group and the Blue Group in turn. Every bit tin can be seen in Table 4, the decrease in value of reading was pronounced and pregnant in the Red Grouping, for females even more than so than males. Nevertheless, for males in the Blue Grouping, the decrease from 2nd to 6th class was only 42% of the decrease seen in the Red Group. In the example of females, the decrease in the Blue Grouping was only 21% of what information technology had been for the Red Group.

Discussion

Question I: Will the Inclination to Respond Thoughtfully to Narrative Text Be Related to the Reading Motivation of Unproblematic School Children?

In many respects, this question is a archetype no-brainer. If the inclination to think deeply about text is related to reading date, then it stands to reason that those who think about what they read will detect their reading more rewarding and valuable. But prior to this study, niggling or no empirical evidence existed to support the link betwixt thoughtful response and motivation to read. Maybe even more than of import, we must caution against the interpretation of these findings as causal. This report has not established that the inclination to respond thoughtfully to text volition have an result on motivation, bur only that the two factors appear to be related.

That is not to say that in that location is non a sure intuitive logic involved: Engagement in reading and the motivation to read seem instinctively to go hand in hand. Nevertheless, the field of literacy research is replete with examples of correlational data that accept been interpreted as causal. We are of no mind to participate in another example of a rush to judgment. But that said, these findings open the door on many more issues, problems unlikely to be resolved without the intellectual inquiry and action enquiry carried out by classroom reading teachers.

Chief among these bug is classroom instruction that promotes thoughtful literacy. In this study, nosotros had no way of knowing how some elementary school children became thoughtfully literate; we only knew that some had and some had not. We had no style of establishing whether information technology was past classroom educational activity that made the deviation in a significant number of these readers' lives. We have not even established that successful teaching in thoughtful literacy in the future will be able to transform children from lukewarm to engaged and enthusiastic readers.

Even so, it seems that widespread teacher involvement in instruction designed to engage and motivate young readers may position the field to go far at an answer to some of these crucial questions long earlier traditional researchers can. For when we examine these data, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that a disturbingly large number of uncomplicated school children accept little use for reading and a limited inclination to call back deeply about what they read. That is a status with which literacy educators in this country tin can never brand peace.

Question 2: Is Motivation Systematically Related to Gender and the Inclination to Respond Thoughtfully to Text?

We were frankly startled to find that the oft-researched reward in favor of females in the value ascribed to reading was so obviously present in the Crimson Group but so completely missing in the Blue Group. This finding was all the more surprising because in this study, we used narrative text exclusively, flying in the face up of the conventional wisdom that identifies advisory text as the odds-on favorite of elementary schoolhouse males. Only unlike many of the studies that preceded this 1, we did not examine the direct effects of gender on reading motivation, Instead nosotros examined gender effects through the lens of a mediating variable that we described as thoughtful response to text. And when we did that, nosotros arrived at what is arguably our near of import finding: that it may be the inclination to approach narratives equally thoughtful links between human experience and text that determines whether children of either gender feel impelled to engage in the activeness of reading.

Our findings likewise support the observation that it is not self-concept equally a reader that distinguishes the motivation of males and females. In retrospect, nosotros should not have been surprised. After all, our sample consisted of students with very high marks in word recognition (Reading Accuracy Index = 98.62) and oral reading fluency (Mean CRI Fluency Score = 16.02 out of a possible 20), coupled with the power to reply very effectively to text-based questions virtually the stories they had read. Such students are frequently singled out by their teachers for specially high praise for their reading skill (Applegate, Applegate, & Modla, 2009). And given the primacy of text-based comprehension in the typical state accountability measure, and even the standard informal reading inventory (Applegate, Quinn, & Applegate, 2002), information technology is not hard to imagine large numbers of students flight nether our assessment radar who can reproduce only not effectively engage with the texts that they read. Nosotros were both surprised and dismayed by the number of children in our report who viewed themselves every bit "good readers" but who harbored such palpable disdain for reading itself and for the role that it might play in their lives.

The fact that there are significantly more boys than girls among these unfortunate students has led numerous educators and researchers to advise adjustments in, for example, the subject area affair, genre, or activities associated with literacy instruction for males. Our findings suggest, even so, that it is only as likely that the level of intellectual challenge and the raising of expectations for deep thinking are the factors that can plough the tide and false the motivation of readers of both genders.

Question Three: Would the Value Ascribed to Reading Decrease in Relation to Grade Level and the Inclination to Respond Thoughtfully to Text?

Our findings advise that the inclination of children to think about what they read does not eliminate the attrition of motivation to read among elementary schoolhouse children, but it may contribute to the slowing of the erosion. A cursory overview of the nature of those private MRP items that distinguished the Red Group and the Bluish Group may shed some light on the nature of this finding.

Amongst those Value of Reading questions that distinguished groups at a very high level of statistical significance (p < 0.0001) were items related to the enjoyment of reading, a willingness to talk about 1'due south reading with friends, and a respect for individuals whom 1 regards equally readers. Blue Grouping members were far more likely than their Carmine Grouping counterparts to express an appreciation of the value of libraries, to envision reading every bit an integral part of their future lives, and to express pleasure at the idea of receiving a book every bit a gift. Consequently, we did non find it peculiarly surprising that children inclined toward these sentiments about reading would continue to run across reading as a valuable dimension of the landscapes of their lives, and would be more than successful in resisting social forces that tend to devalue literacy achievement.

Implications

We acquired our professional preparation in an era when enquiry into literacy was regarded as collaboration betwixt researchers and professional person educators. Information technology was a time of symbiosis when theoreticians could advise ideas with full confidence that basic educators would test those theories, put them through their paces, and provide invaluable feedback that enabled the expansion and clarification of theory. At some point that relationship was lost and enquiry came to be viewed as a means of encouraging educators to movement in the direction of rigid and frequently scripted literacy programs. It is our hope that these findings and others like them will help teachers to regain their voices and rejoin the dialogue that surrounds American literacy education.

Instructor voices are particularly important because neither instruction nor assessment in literacy in the U.s.a. may exist particularly conducive to addressing the issue of thoughtful literacy in the course of broad-based enquiry projects. In the first place, comprehension is non consistently taught in the boilerplate American literacy classroom (Durkin, 1978; Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston, & Echevarria, 1998; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 1999), despite the fact that information technology was named as ane of the five pillars of reading past the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2001). And when comprehension is taught directly, it is frequently treated equally an do in memorization of details. Allington (2001) has cited a string of researchers who report that "in the typical classroom, assigned tasks overwhelming]y emphasize copying, remembering, and reciting with few tasks assigned that engage students in thinking about what they've read" (p. 94). Needless to say, this is not the stuff that sets children'south hearts afire with enthusiasm and appreciation for the rewards of reading.

In the assessment loonshit, the proportion of children in the U.s. identified as skillful readers on country accountability measures is encouraging. However, when one compares these numbers to reading proficiency based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)--the "Nation's Report Carte du jour"--the disparity is huge (Wallis & Steptoe, 2007). On average, NAEP labels xl% fewer children equally proficient readers, compared with state level tests. Much of this discrepancy is rooted in the huge difference betwixt NAEP's accent on thoughtful literacy and the state assessments' focus on literal comprehension (Applegate, Applegate, McGeehan, Pinto, & Kong, 2009).

Thus it appears that neither widespread literacy pedagogy nor statewide literacy assessment is emphasizing the reader'due south ability to respond thoughtfully to text. Given that prepare of circumstances, it is both surprising and ironic to find that in that location is non a single fourth-grade state assessment framework that defines proficient reading as the mere ability to reproduce the factual information embedded in text. Instead, educational leaders throughout the entire country place a very loftier premium on the ability of children to call back deeply about what they read (Applegate, Applegate, McGeehan, et al., 2009). Consequently, teachers with the will to extend the literacy horizons of their students, and show them how to think nearly text every bit they think about life, volition never be without theoretical or practical support.

In fact, simple classroom teachers have at their disposal a full repertoire of enquiry-supported teaching strategies designed to appoint and challenge their students to think about text (Block, Gambrell, & Pressley, 2002; Block & Pressley, 2002; Tierney & Readence, 2005). Nosotros have found that many teachers who enjoy some measure out of curricular freedom seize the moment and opt for thoughtful literacy educational activity in their classrooms. These are the individuals who are counted amongst the influential teachers (Ruddell, 1995) who stimulate the intellectual curiosity of their students, and motivate their desire to solve problems. They engage in meaningful progress monitoring of reading skills, encourage thoughtful response to text, and promote their students' motivation to read.

Ultimately, we believe it is gifted teachers such as these who will answer the questions that our research has raised and who volition make up one's mind whether education in thoughtful literacy volition promote children's motivation to read. It is our hope and expectation that the data they assemble in their classrooms will position these teachers to add their findings and their voices to the articulation of higher level thinking goals in their communities and in the nation as a whole. The fact remains that no other group in American education is in a better position to judge the effectiveness of their pedagogy than teachers. And no group is more acutely aware than literacy educators of the difference betwixt lessons that engage and claiming thinking and those that stultify and deaden the mind. The widespread use of programs that encourage children to recall just non call back virtually what they read may succeed in producing sizeable numbers of children who appear technically expert in reading. But if the children who pass through these programs are not engaged in thoughtful response to what they read, nosotros run the risk of producing huge numbers of children who come across no use for reading in their lives. That illusion of educational success may come at a very high price indeed.

Suspension AND PONDER

* Differences in reading motivation related to gender may disappear if all children are challenged to respond thoughtfully to text. How could you lot and your colleagues test this thought, and how could you lot monitor the progress of all children equally they engage in thoughtful response to text?

* The authors believe that it is the inclination and not the ability to think most text that characterizes the thoughtfully literate child. What strategies could y'all use to promote children'south ability to think nearly text in the same means that they think about life? What are some practices used in your schoolhouse or district that might orient children to regard reading as nothing more than an practice in the Iii Rs (Retrieve, Recognition, and Recitation)?

* Instructor voices can make valuable contributions to the national dialogue near curriculum standards. How tin can you and your colleagues find your voices to promote thoughtful literacy in your schools and districts? How tin can you branch out into local professional organizations? What organizations at the state, national, and international levels could serve equally outlets for your ideas about thoughtful literacy education?

Take ACTION!

Influential teachers engage students in the thoughtful exploration of text. The first stride in that process is detecting significant underlying themes, or messages about the man condition, embedded in text. The 2nd footstep is using those themes to develop questions that depict students into lively and engaging give-and-take. This is easier said than done, specially for teachers who have learned reading as literal recollect, as so many of us have. Nosotros have challenged teachers to take upwards the pursuit of thoughtful literacy in their classrooms. In response, we accept constructed a website (www.thoughtfulliteracy.com) for teachers who want to explore thoughtful literacy as office of their professional development program. Included are samples of underlying themes from several classic children's books and practical tips for unearthing those themes. Users can compare and contrast children's responses to thought-provoking questions and explore criteria for distinguishing audio thinking from unsubstantiated links to personal experience.

The website features lesson plans and video demonstrations of their implementation, with commentary designed to focus the viewers' attention on key lesson elements and to promote independence in the development of similar plans. Teachers tin can explore boosted reading via an annotated bibliography and an extended discussion of the nature of cogitating reading. The site also includes applied advice for assessment and progress monitoring of growth in thoughtful response to text. Pedagogy to promote thoughtful responses to text is a challenge that promises rich rewards to those who take it up. Our hope is that we can contribute to the professional growth of these influential teachers.

DOI: 10.1598/RT.64.4.ane

References

Allington, R.Fifty. (2001). What actually matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Applegate, A.J., Applegate, M.D., McGeehan, C.Thou., Pinto, C.K., & Kong, A. (2009). The cess of thoughtful literacy in NAEP: Why u.s.a. aren't measuring up. The Reading Teacher, 62(five), 372-381. doi:x.1598/RT.62.five.one

Applegate, Thou.D., Applegate, A.J., & Modla, V.B. (2009). "She's my all-time reader; she just can't comprehend": Studying the relationship between fluency and comprehension. The Reading Instructor, 62(6), 512-521. doi:10.1598/RT.62.6.5

Applegate, Thou.D., Quinn, K.B., & Applegate, A.J. (2002). Levels of thinking required past comprehension questions in breezy reading inventories. The Reading Teacher, 56(2), 174-180.

Applegate, Chiliad.D., Quinn, K.B., & Applegate, A.J. (2008). The disquisitional reading inventory: Assessing students' reading and thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, North J: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Block, C.C., Gambrell, L.B., & Pressley, M. (2002). Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Block, C.C., & Pressley, Chiliad. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Inquiry-based all-time practices. New York: Guilford.

Cunningham, A.E. & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early on reading conquering and its relationship to reading feel and power x years after. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.

Durik, A.M., Vida, 1000., & Eccles, J.S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs equally predictors of high school literacy choices: A developmental assay. Periodical of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 382-393. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.382

Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observation reveals nigh reading comprehension pedagogy. Reading Inquiry Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533. doi:x.1598/RRQ.14.4.2

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.), Accomplishment and accomplishment motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.

Gambrell, L., & Marinak, B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementary gender gap. Literacy Inquiry and Educational activity, 49(2), 129-141.

Gambrell, L.B., Palmer, B.M., Codling, R.1000., & Mazzoni, S.A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533. doi:10.1598/RT.49.7.2

Gottfried, A.E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in immature uncomplicated school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525-538. doi:x.1037/0022-0663.82.iii.525

Guthrie, J.T., & Anderson, E. (1999). Engagement in reading: Processes of motivated, strategic, knowledgeable, social read. In J.T. Guthrie & D.Due east. Alvermann (Eds.), Engaged reading: Processes, practices, and policy implications (pp. 17-45). New York: Teachers College Press.

Guthrie, J.T., Schafer, A.D., & Huang, C.-W. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAEP. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 145-162. doi:10.1080/00220670109599912

Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J.L., & Cox, Thou.Due east. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(iii), 231-256. doi:x.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3

Kush, J.C., & Watkins, G.W. (1996). Long-term stability of children's attitudes toward reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(five), 315-320.

McKenna, G.C., Kear, D.J., & Ellsworth, R.A. (1995). Children'south attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Enquiry Quarterly, xxx(four), 934-956. doi:10.2307/748205

Merisuo-Storm, T. (2006). Girls and boys like to read and write different texts. Scandinavian Periodical of Educational Research, 50(2), 111-125. doi:10.1080/00313830600576039

National Assessment Governing Board. (2006). Reading framework for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved December xviii, 2007, from www.nagb.org/ publications/frameworks/reading_07.pdf

National Establish of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Study of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An prove-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

O'Flahavan, J.F., Gambrell, L.B., Guthrie, J., Stahl, S., Baumann, J.Due east, & Alvermann, D.East. (1992, August/September). Poll results guide activities of research centre. Reading Today, 10(ane), 12.

Pecjak, S., & Peklaj, C. (2006). Dimensions of reading motivation and reading achievement in 3rd and 7th grade students. Studia Psychologica, 48(1), 11-29.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, 1000. (1998). The nature of literacy instruction in 10 fourth course classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(two), 159-194. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4

Ruddell, R.B. (1995). Those influential literacy teachers: Pregnant negotiators and motivation builders. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 454-463.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&four), 299-323. doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep2603&4_5

Sweet, A.P., Guthrie, J.T., & Ng, MM. (1998). Teachers' perceptions and students' reading motivations. Periodical of Educational Psychology, xc(two), 210-223. doi:x.1037/0022-0663.90.2.210

Taylor, B.Grand., Pearson, P.D., Clark, Grand.F., & Walpole, S. (1999). Effective schools/accomplished teachers. The Reading Teacher, 53(2), 156-159.

Tierney, R.J., & Readence, J.E. (2005). Reading strategies and practices: A compendium (sixth ed.). Boston: Allyn & Salary.

Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007). How to fix No Child Left Behind. TIME, 169(23), 34-41.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Periodical of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420-432. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420

More TO EXPLORE

IRA Books

* Essential Readings on Motivation edited by Jacquelynn A. Malloy, Barbara A. Marinak, and Linda B. Gambrell

* Inspiring Reading Success: Interest and Motivation in an Age of High-Stakes Testing edited by Rosalie Fink and S. Jay Samuels

* To Exist a Boy, To Be a Reader: Engaging Teen and Preteen Boys in Active Literacy (second ed.) past William One thousand. Brozo

* Agreement and Using Reading Assessment, K-12 by Peter Afflerbach

IRA Periodical Articles

* "Assessing Motivation to Read" by Linda B. Gambrell, Barbara Martin Palmer, Rose Marie Codling, and Susan Mazzoni, The Reading Teacher, April 1996 Reading Teacher

* "Making a Case and a Place for Effective Content Area Literacy Instruction in the Elementary Grades" by Barbara Moss, The Reading Teacher, September 2005

* "Modeling the Effects of Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Amount of Reading, and Past Reading Achievement on Text: Comprehension Between U.Southward. and Chinese Students" past Judy Huei-yu Wang and John T. Guthrie, Reading Research Quarterly, April/ May/June 2004

Anthony J. Applegate teaches at Holy Family unit University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, The states; e-mail service tapplegate@holyfamily.edu. Mary DeKonty Applegate teaches at Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; e-mail service mapplega@sju.edu.

Table i Report Sample and Characteristics by Grade Level and Gender  Course       n     Males   Concluding  two           91     46      45 a           60     xxx      30 four           90     45      45 5           105    38      67 vi           97     43      54 Total ii-half dozen   443    202     241  Table ii Motivation to Read as a Part of Grouping Membership  Mensurate                    Group          Hateful score   t value  Full motivation to read   Ruby group        73.59                            Blue group       83.06                              Divergence      9.47      -11.eleven Value of reading           Scarlet group        70.95                            Blueish group       81.nineteen                              Difference     ten.24      -10.02 Cocky-concept as a reader   Red group        76.38                            Blue grouping       84.95                              Difference      eight.57       -nine.10  Measure                    Significance  Total motivation to read                             p < .0001 Value of reading                             p <.0001 Cocky-concept as a reader                             p <.0001  Table 3 Gender by Group Membership Differences in Motivation to Read  Measure             Group        Males mean   Females mean   t value  Value of reading    Red group      68.01         71.56        -4.23                     Bluish group     eighty.32         81.69        -1.02                     Combined       73.13         78.85        -5.19  Self-concept as a   Red group      75.42         77.57        -1.47                     Blueish group     83.23         85.94        -ane.22                     Combined       78.66         82.61        -3.90  Motivation to       Red group      71.69         75.92        -3.28 read                Bluish group     81.86         83.77        -ane.69                     Combined       75.92         fourscore.64        -5.02  Measure             Significance  Value of reading      p <.0001                         n.s.                      p < .0001  Self-concept equally a       n.s.                         n.south.                      p < .0001  Motivation to         p < .001 read                    n.due south.                       p <.0001  TABLE 4 Gnoup Mean Score on Value of Reading by Grade Level and Gender                Blood-red Group   Red Group   Bluish Grouping   Blueish Group Grade level   females     males       females      males  2               lxxx.47       73.16       82.93        83.07 iii               78.36       67.10       88.38        84.89 four               76.35       70.59       81.12        76.69 five               71.16       65.95       81.32        77.75 6               66.20       61.12       79.x        78.26 Difference     -14.27      -12.04       -3.03        -five.01 Grade 2-six        

allentoonow.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A245034440/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=AONE&xid=216cb65d

Share this post