Support for Learning

Reading engagement and motivation

Given the central importance of motivation to learning (Pintrich, 2003), it is logically a crucial factor in learning to read (Verhoeven & Snow, 2001) with evidence indicating that students with lower motivation usually demonstrate poorer performance in reading activities (Chapman, Tunmer & Prochnow, 2000). Guthrie and Davis (2003) noted that struggling readers may have low reading self‐efficacy, be extrinsically rather than intrinsically motivated (e.g. driven by grades rather than enjoyment), and demonstrate lessened reading effort. Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) reported that reading motivation was a predictor of participation, which may impact on engagement and performance. Clark and De Zoysa's (2011) large‐scale survey of students aged 7‐11 years concluded that reading behaviour and enjoyment had a direct relationship with attainment.

The Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986) described the impact of poor motivation on reading development. Limited desire to read leads to less time spent reading text, which can impact on literacy acquisition. Additionally, struggling readers can develop low reading self‐efficacy (Bandura, 1997), which can also impact on an individual's attitude becoming more negative (Jeffes, 2016).

Mckenna, Kear and Ellsworth (1995) suggested that low reading motivation may result from frustration and repeated experience of reading failure, resulting in lowered achievement expectations (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). By contrast, those with positive and successful experiences are likely to perceive themselves as capable readers and expect success to continue (Henk, Marinak & Melnick, 2012). An individual's reading identity is likely to be shaped by their reading proficiencies (Hall, 2012) and impacts on what they read (Richardson & Eccles, 2007), how they engage in class discussions about text (Hall, 2012) and how they attend, commit to and persevere with reading (Henk et al., 2012).

Affective reading factors in adolescence

While both successful and unsuccessful experiences impact on reading engagement and motivation, research has also identified that attitude toward reading changes as students move towards adolescence (e.g. Unrau & Schlackman, 2006). This was recently reflected in outcomes from a large‐scale literacy survey, investigating reading behaviours and attitudes of 30,000 UK students aged 8–16 (Clark, 2014a), which indicated notable differences in reported reading enjoyment across key stages. Only a third of Key Stage 4 students (14–16 years) reported enjoying reading, compared with nearly half of Key Stage 3 students (11–14 years) and just under two thirds of Key Stage 2 students (7–11 years). The same report found considerably fewer Key Stage 3 and 4 students reported daily reading outside school (28.4% and 24.6% respectively) compared with their Key Stage 2 peers (40.7%). These findings appeared to illustrate a pattern of reading decline into adolescence. Clark (2014a) also found that students reading below their expected reading age reported reading considerably less than same‐age peers reading at or above the expected level.

Cassidy, Valadez, Garrett and Barrera (2010) reported that 75% of responding literacy leaders in the United States agreed that addressing adolescent reading motivation ought to be a ‘hot topic’. Additionally, recent Department for Education guidance (DfE, 2015) notes that to develop mature readers requires a need to instil in children ‘a passion for reading’ (p.17). However, advice on how to enable this appears limited to early intervention in primary school, overlooking the needs of the adolescent population.

Atkinson (2009) suggested that the reading development of adolescents may not always consider motivational factors, highlighting a potential role for educational psychologists to support schools by raising awareness of, and developing affective methods to facilitate, reading engagement. Similarly, Torgesen et al. (2007) stated ‘evidence‐based methods for improving student engagement and motivation should have a high priority in efforts to improve adolescent literacy outcomes.’ (p. 53). However, to date there has been no published research exploring how practitioners might directly work with students to explore and address affective factors in reading. The present study sought to explore the use of an affective reading intervention with adolescent readers and to investigate some of the factors which potentially inhibit and facilitate reading development.

Participants

The study took place within an urban mainstream high school in the West Midlands. The majority of students are White British with a high proportion being eligible for Pupil Premium.

School staff identified three students who would potentially benefit from an affective reading intervention and met inclusion criteria. These were that students were:

• In Year 8. The rationale behind this was students had had time to settle into high school; were early enough in their secondary career for the intervention to have an impact; and were not facing key examinations.
• Had a primary reading difficulty and were reading at National Curriculum Level 3 (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2010) and/or age equivalent approximately 9 years. For guidance, teachers were provided with Level 3 literacy criteria taken from Manchester Educational Psychology Service (2004) guidance. As the intervention was affective as opposed to technical, the researchers felt it best to engage participants who had reached this level of reading proficiency.
• Perceived by school staff to be disengaged or low in motivation toward reading.

Participants were one female (Eva) and two males (Joshua and Tyler). School assessment data indicated that all were below the expected reading age, as illustrated in Table 1. All students took part in the Accelerated Reader programme as part of a whole school approach, along with daily reading practice. Accelerated Reader is a computer‐assisted programme designed to measure the frequency and accuracy with which students read. Assessments are used to determine students’ reading levels (Clark, 2014b). Participation in the current research was voluntary. Parental consent was gained prior to contact and a face‐to‐face meeting was arranged with the student to gain informed assent.

Intervention

The intervention was structured around a Motivational Interviewing (MI) based programme (Atkinson, 2013), with resources adapted so that the target behaviour was reading engagement. Questions from the Adolescent Motivation to Read Profile (AMRP; Pitcher et al., 2007) were used before the first session so the programme could be individualised to address student needs and priorities. Atkinson and Woods (2003) discussed the use of an ‘Intervention Cycle’ illustrating psychological techniques and approaches potentially useful within an MI‐based approach. Accordingly, some techniques from Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT), Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) were additionally incorporated where this was deemed appropriate to the needs of the student (further details available on request from the corresponding author). Five sessions were delivered on a fortnightly basis, by the first author, a local authority trainee educational psychologist, with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes.

Data collection and analysis

For each student, quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the following sources:

• Student responses to the Motivation to Read Questionnaire (MRQ; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) (pre‐ and post‐intervention and three month follow up).
• Semi‐structured interviews to elicit student views about the intervention, post‐intervention and at follow‐up.
• Completed materials from the sessions.
• Researcher diary, incorporating observations and reflections made immediately following each session.

While the focus of the intervention was promoting reading engagement and motivation and changes in reading efficacy were not expected within project timescales, the importance of noting any secondary impacts on reading performance was recognised. For this reason, reading assessments were conducted at all time points using the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension: Passage Reading (YARC; Stothard, Hulme, Clarke, Barmby & Snowling, 2010). Because reading efficacy measures were not central to the desired intervention outcomes, scores are not published here, although further details are available on request from the corresponding author. Results for post‐intervention reading efficacy revealed no discernible effects and no particular trends were evident regarding improvements. However, this was perhaps not unexpected given the short timescale of the intervention and follow up; and that reading performance was not the primary focus of the intervention.

Semi‐structured interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, then analysed using Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis. Session data and the researcher diary were used to contextualise findings.

Measures

The MRQ (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) used in this study measures different aspects of reading motivation for children aged 7–13. The motivational constructs can be grouped into four aspects; self‐efficacy, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and social motivation. The questionnaire consists of 54 items that are rated on a four‐point Likert scale (1 = very different from me, 2 = a little different from me, 3 = a little like me and 4 = a lot like me). The measure was chosen due to its established breadth, reliability and validity data (Wigfield & Guthrie 1997).

Vignettes

Eva presented as a quiet, shy girl. Her activities indicated high motivation but poor confidence, particularly when reading aloud in class. Sessions focused on identifying strategies for promoting reading self‐efficacy and reading engagement. CBT approaches enabled Eva to understand that thoughts and feelings about reading might impact on performance and she valued discussing coping strategies, including breathing techniques and goal setting.

Joshua was a confident young man who did not enjoy school and found reading ‘boring’. He presented as ambivalent, stating during one session that, ‘I want to read more but I don't want to at the same time’ and, ‘it's interesting but it's boring’. Activities which encouraged Joshua to consider reasons for and against change enabled him to explore and develop discrepancy between his present and desired behaviours.

Tyler mostly engaged well with the sessions. Eliciting his views on the good and less good things about reading suggested that he could be embarrassed by his reading difficulties. Other activities enabled understanding of what he enjoyed about reading and the barriers to greater engagement. While facilitator observations and follow‐up interviews indicated that Tyler responded positively to the intervention, these views were not supported by self‐report MRQ scores.

MRQ scores

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics from the MRQ at pre‐ and post‐intervention and at three‐month follow‐up. Scores in bold represent a positive change from pre‐intervention scores. Results indicate that Eva and Joshua reported increased intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and total MRQ scores. Eva additionally reported improved self‐efficacy and Joshua's social motivation score increased. However, Tyler's data were not indicative of self‐reported improvements across the four domains.

Semi‐structured interviews

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted immediately after the intervention and again three months later with each student. Emergent themes and subthemes are shown in Table 3, with those identified by at least two students prioritised for discussion. In the sections below, superordinate themes are presented in bold and subthemes in italics.

All three students reported positive changes in reading engagement and motivation, specifically to their enjoyment of reading. Eva reported that she was able to engage more with what she was reading and that this had contributed to improved understanding. Both Joshua and Tyler initially reported little interest in reading, but post‐intervention reported finding it more interesting and enjoyable.

In terms of engagement, all three students said that they had been spending more time reading, specifying that they were now reading most days, both in and out of school. Joshua stated that he was choosing to read when he had opportunities to do so:

Erm…sometimes when I get bored…like I was ill the other day, so I went to my head of house, and I got my book out and started reading then. And then sometimes when I have detentions I read. So I think that, that's improved.

Tyler reported that the sessions had helped him to find ways of maintaining interest:

The strategies help me to keep reading because like, the other day I said I would practise, but not for too long because it will get boring and then you will just stop after that day, so I just want to take short times each day to read and then I will read each day.

All of the students referred to seeking out reading material. Tyler had been to purchase Diary of a Wimpy Kid books, while Eva reported wanting to read more books by her favourite author, Jacqueline Wilson. Joshua explained that, for the first time, he now visits the library.

Identifying strategies and resources was particularly important for Eva. The intervention enabled her to find helpful methods for managing class situations that required reading aloud, noting, ‘When we did the bit where we talked about ways to calm myself down [CBT activities] ….and then I tried it when we did the poem [in class] and it worked so I did it again because it was working’. Tyler recognised that if he was not enjoying his reading material, he could locate something different.

The students all reported changes in self‐efficacy and noticed improved confidence. Eva felt the intervention had helped her achieve her goal of becoming a more confident reader, while Tyler was able to specify how the sessions helped:

Erm…because before, I didn't really like reading out of class but like we did those [strength] cards, like brave, confident, erm…working hard and I don't know, they have just helped me like read out loud in class…and reading more in class.

This may have been associated with reading efficacy, as Joshua reported that his reading age had increased on a recent reading assessment and felt his comprehension skills had developed. Tyler reported he could ‘read faster and don't struggle on as many words’. Both Tyler and Joshua recognised that there was a link between engagement and reading efficacy and felt greater engagement had contributed to their reading improvements.

Discussions also highlighted a shift in perceptions of reading and its importance. Tyler discussed the impact of reading on future prospects and how this had slightly changed his attitude toward reading:

I liked it how I could relate it to the future. If you don't practise you won't like, you might not be good at your job, because if you have got a job and you have to read something you might not be good at that so, you don't do your job properly.

The usefulness of supportive processes through having an informal dialogue around reading was highlighted in the interviews. All students identified personal barriers which affected their reading engagement and motivation. Eva's homework demands restricted the amount of time she wanted to spend reading, while Joshua stated, ‘It takes some time, like family time off me’. Tyler had previously found asking for support difficult: ‘I put on this sheet that I wasn't like… I was bit nervous of saying I needed help in lessons, because it's embarrassing’.

In comparison, the students also identified what motivates them. It was important to Eva and Tyler that reading material grabbed their attention immediately and both enjoyed books by familiar authors. Tyler reported more interest when ‘you can watch the movies as well as read the books’. Joshua stated that reading to improve his reading marks and reading level was important to him.

Limitations

Despite qualitative data indicating increased reading confidence and engagement, Tyler's MRQ scores indicated a decrease in overall motivation at post‐ and three‐month follow‐up, with the greatest decrease in self‐efficacy. Tyler recorded the lowest reading scores of the three students, although given that he was reading at National Curriculum Level 3 it was unclear whether he experienced severe and persistent reading difficulties (dyslexia). Melekoglu (2011) contended that addressing the needs of those with more marked difficulties appears to be more challenging, whilst Quirk & Schwanenflugel (2004) noted: ‘Merely having interesting books available, an appealing place to read, and discussions around reading may not be enough for struggling readers who probably cannot read such books or participate in these discussions’ (p. 2).

None of the students within this study were receiving a targeted technical reading intervention. For students like Tyler, a solely affective intervention may be insufficient to promote reading performance, which in turn may limit engagement. Increasing self‐efficacy and engagement is critical, through providing varied and accessible texts to promote interest, alongside targeted reading instruction to address cognitive components of reading (Alvermann, 2002; Quirk & Schwanenflugel, 2004). As mentioned, despite the dearth of technical reading interventions for adolescents (Brooks, 2013), there is some evidence to suggest the efficacy of targeting primary reading skills such as phonic decoding in improving reading proficiency amongst this population (Jeffes, 2016).

The methodological limitations of the present study included its reliance on self‐report measures. Ho and Guthrie (2013) noted that students may feel obliged to answer questions about reading behaviours favourably. As Tyler's interview and self‐report responses were not consistent, additional data would have been helpful in ascertaining whether he offered positive verbal feedback merely to please the facilitator. A methodological improvement would be to include other proximal measures of motivation (e.g. teacher report, observation). However, there are inherent difficulties in motivation as a construct due to its subjectivity and lack of stability (Lee & Reeve, 2012).

The intervention was individualised to reflect the needs of the students involved. Durlak and DuPre (2008) argue that school‐based programmes are often adapted to meet individual needs, and while this may be perceived as ‘implementation failure’ in terms of not achieving fidelity (Durlak & DuPre, 2008), adaption of interventions can often contribute to positive outcomes as it modifies procedures to match individuals’ needs. However, as delivery was not consistent across cases, inferences in causality of positive outcomes are limited and replication potentially difficult. For this reason, session details were explicitly recorded and are available from the corresponding author. Nevertheless, it could be argued that the quality and appropriateness of the interventions varied, and as a consequence, outcomes differed.

The present study was exploratory and involved only a small number of students. To measure impact further, it may be beneficial to consider implementing the intervention with a larger sample and ensuring greater consistency of delivery across samples.