Developmental aspects of reading motivation and reading achievement among second grade low achievers and typical readers
Abstract
This investigation examined developmental aspects of 155 second‐graders' intrinsic reading motivation and reading achievement at the beginning and end of a school year. Reading motivation remained at the same level through the school year, while reading achievement was significantly higher at the end of it than at the beginning. According to word reading skills, low reading achievers (n = 63) and typical readers (n = 92) evinced significant differences in reading motivation. The former scored lower in overall reading motivation and self‐concept as a reader, as well as in reading achievement. Throughout the school year, low reading achievers showed a decline in overall motivation, self‐concept as a reader and literacy outloud, and did not improve in reading comprehension achievement. Reading motivation in typical readers remained high and steady during the school year. Implications of the results are discussed in relation to previous studies.
Highlights
What is already known about this topic
- There is a relation between reading motivation and reading achievement in upper‐elementary school graders.
- Intrinsic reading motivation is one of the factors related to success or failure in reading.
- Low reading achievers tend to show a decline in reading motivation together with the negative experience in reading.
What this paper adds
- Decline in motivation appears at a young age (second grade) and is related to reading achievements.
- Self‐concept as a reader is the most sensitive factor of the three reading motivation subfactors regarding changes in reading success and failure.
- Young low reading achievers appreciate the value of reading but show a decline in self‐concept during second grade.
Implications for theory, policy or practice
- The decline in motivation seems to appear at a relatively early stage of reading development. Therefore, educators should consider implementing motivational reading programmes along with the process of reading acquisition.
- The subfactors of reading motivation show different developmental patterns. Throughout the school year, low reading achievers showed a decline in self‐concept as a reader and literacy outloud but not in the value of reading. Educators should pay close attention to these different developmental patterns in reading motivation while encouraging their students to practice reading.
- Low reading achievers should be given special attention in integrative activities aimed at increasing the three reading motivation subfactors in reading acquisition programmes.
Some children dislike reading so much that they do everything in their power to avoid it. In less proficient readers, these negative feelings seem to develop during the early years of schooling, when they face reading failure (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Lepola, Poskiparta, Laakkonen, & Niemi, 2005). As a result, young children who face failure in reading are less engaged in reading activities than their more proficient peers. Research suggests that the first years of elementary school are a critical window in reading development and that less proficient young readers usually continue to struggle with reading in future grades (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Spira, Bracken, & Fischel, 2005; Stanovich, 1986). However, despite the importance of reading motivation for the development of reading, research conducted with younger readers is sparse (Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield, Tonks & Perencevich, 2005; Mata, 2011). In this study, we examined the relation between reading motivation and reading achievement among low and typical young Hebrew readers in second grade.
Developmental changes in reading motivation
Overall, previous findings suggest that children's reading motivation declines through the elementary and middle school years (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996; Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992; Leeper, Corpus, & Lyenger, 2005; Mata, 2011; Pajares & Cheong, 2003; Pajares, Valiante, & Cheong, 2007; Wigfield, 1997; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). For instance, third graders showed higher reading motivation than fourth and fifth graders (Watkins & Coffey, 2004). Moreover, children's beliefs in their own competence declined over time (Eccles, O'Neill, & Wigfield, 2005). Similarly, fourth graders earned higher scores on several motivational to read dimensions (efficacy, recognition and social reasons) than did fifth graders (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Fifth graders scored higher than sixth graders on recognition and social reasons components (Baker & Wigfield, 1999). Mata, Monteiro and Peixoto (2009) reported a decline in five motivational components: enjoyment, importance, social recognition, social reasons, competence and self‐perception, from third to ninth grades.
The decline in reading motivation in older children is explained by changes in school and classroom environments that children experience in the transition from elementary school to middle school (Wigfield, 1997) and by changes in students' ability to evaluate their own performance (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Second grade is a critical age in this regard because reading motivation is high in preschool and kindergarten children and their reading attitudes are stable (Sperling & Head, 2002). Stability in reading motivation was also found among firstgraders. However, Mazzoni, Gambrell and Korkeamaki (1999) found a decrease in reading motivation in second‐grade students as compared with first graders.
Reading motivation and reading achievements
Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) define reading motivation as values, beliefs, individual and personal goals that encourage a person to read. The desire to read for pleasure, interest and curiosity, or the reader's finding value in reading, are considered intrinsic reasons for reading. Research suggests that intrinsic motivation is more beneficial than extrinsic motivation for long‐term learning (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Marinak, Malloy, Gambrell, & Mazzoni, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Children with high intrinsic reading motivation tend to engage in reading activities more often and to practice their reading skills (Guthrie, 2004; & Fuchs, 2007; Verhoeven & Snow, 2001). The relation between intrinsic motvation (reading confidence, enjoyment from learning to read) and reading skills develop at the early age of 6 years (McGeown et al., 2015). Also, different components of reading motivation have distinct influences on reading (Coddington & Guthrie, 2009).
Morgan, Fuchs, Compton, Cordray and Fuchs (2008) found that less efficient first‐grade readers perceived themselves as less competent readers and perceived reading as a hard and negative assignment, unlike high reading achievers. Similarly, fourth and sixth graders with low intrinsic reading motivation were found to be struggling readers (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). These findings suggest that although low achievers need to practice their reading to become skilled readers, they try to avoid reading activities because of their low reading motivation (Morgan et al., 2008; Stanovich, 1986). Indeed, a large body of evidence confirms the linkage, and probably causal relations, between motivation, task engagement and academic achievement (Eccles & Wang, 2012). Reading motivation seems to serve as a mediator between task engagement and reading academic achievement (Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012).
Reading motivation and reading achievement of low achievers and typical readers
Some studies on the relationship between reading motivation and reading achievement have reported different results for students at different reading proficiency levels. Low reading achievers show lower intrinsic reading motivation than typical readers (e.g., Lau & Chan, 2003; McGeown, Norgate, & Warhurst, 2012). Logan, Medford and Hughes (2011) found that among 9‐ to 11‐year‐olds, intrinsic reading motivation (curiosity, involvement and challenge) predicted poor but not good readers' sentence‐level reading comprehension, controlling for verbal IQ and decoding ability. Likewise, Sideridis, Mouzaki, Simos and Protopapas (2006) found that intrinsic reading motivation dimensions correlated positively with poor but not with average and above average second and fourth graders' word reading efficiency. Also, reading motivation (reading self‐efficacy and reading task value) positively predicted reading comprehension in fifth‐grade low reading achievers but not in high reading achievers, controlling for word reading, nonverbal ability and listening comprehension (Solheim, 2011). Bates, D'Agostino, Gambrell and Xu (2016) found similar reciprocal connections between reading motivation (self‐concept as a reader, value of reading and literacy outloud) and reading achievement in first graders. Reading motivation mediated an intervention–achievement relationship, emphasising the role of reading motivation in the development of reading skills. Also, children showed higher reading motivation after participating in a reading intervention programme.
Conversely, Saarnio, Oka and Paris (1990) found that reading motivation positively predicted reading comprehension for fifth graders scoring above the 50th percentile on a standardized comprehension test. It did not predict reading comprehension for students scoring below the 50th percentile or for third graders at either comprehension level, controlling for decoding, recall, cloze performance and strategy knowledge. Klauda and Guthrie (2015) similarly found that advanced seventh‐grade readers showed stronger relations of motivation (intrinsic and undermining) and engagement with achievement than did struggling readers. However, motivation predicted concurrent engagement and growth in engagement for struggling and advanced readers alike.
Most research on the reciprocal connections between reading skills and reading motivation has been conducted with upper‐elementary and middle‐school students. Less is known about these reciprocal relations in younger children (Sperling, Sherwood, & Hood, 2013).
Reading motivation subfactors and reading achievements in young children
Relatively little attention has been paid to the role of intrinsic reading motivation for young children from preschool to second grade and the factors associated with young children's reading motivation. Prior research (Marinak et al., 2015) identified three factors associated with young children's reading motivation: self‐concept, appreciation of the value of reading and literacy outloud. Self‐concept as a reader denotes one's belief and perception in one's ability to perform reading tasks and is strongly related to achievement and reading activity (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Marinak et al., 2015). The value of reading is the belief that reading is important and useful for one's future (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, & Niggli, 2006) and it is particularly linked to students' academic choices (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Literacy outloud refers to children's literacy interactions involving reading aloud to others and reflects the social aspects of literacy commonly seen and heard in primary grade classrooms (Marinak et al., 2015).
Several studies have examined young children's self‐concept as readers and the value of reading in relation to their reading achievement. Aunola, Leskinen, Onatsu‐Arvilommi, and Nurmi (2002) investigated the developmental of reading skills and self‐concept of reading ability in 105 first‐year primary‐school children aged 6–7 years. Reading skill and self‐concept as a reader were measured three times during the school year. In the middle of first grade, children's reading skills contributed to self‐concept as a reader. In another longitudinal study, Chapman and Tunmer (1997) examine the emerging causal relation between reader self‐concept and reading performance for 3 years in 112 children who entered school aged 5 years. Reading‐related experiences in school were found to correlate with the development of self‐concept as a reader within the first 2.5 years of elementary school.
Another longitudinal study, by Quirk, Schwanenflugel and Webb (2009), examined the relationships between self‐concepts as readers, goals for reading and reading fluency skill in second graders through the school year. Students' reading motivation and reading fluency were measured at its beginning, middle and end. Students' goals for reading were found related to self‐concept as readers, but only self‐concept as a reader was significantly related to reading fluency at each time point. Namely, students who started the year with a higher score in reading fluency skill also showed higher self‐concepts as readers at all time points. Moreover, students with high self‐concept as readers at the beginning of second grade developed their reading fluency skills more rapidly during the year than their peers who started the year with low self‐concept as readers. By contrast, students who began the year with relatively low reading fluency skill levels also exhibited a lower level of self‐concept as readers at the middle of the year.
Clearly, further investigation of developmental aspects of reading motivation and its relation to reading skills is needed, especially in second grade, which seems to be a critical point in the development of children's attitudes to and skills in reading. Reading motivation and reading skills are not yet fully formed at this stage of development and are subject to changes that might determine future reading behaviour and achievement (Quirk et al., 2009). Additionally, only a few longitudinal studies have examined this relation (Quirk et al., 2009). Also necessary is an examination of the specific intrinsic motivational changes in struggling readers (Forbes & Fullerton, 2013) and their relation to reading achievement and a comparison of data from various writing systems. In this study, we examined developmental aspects of intrinsic reading motivation subfactors (self‐concept as a reader, value of reading and literacy outloud) in relation to reading achievement in the beginning and at the end of second grade in typical and less typical Hebrew readers. As far as we know, this research is the first of its kind to examine these issues in young Hebrew readers.
The present study
This study investigates whether there are developmental discontinuities in the connections between reading motivation and reading achievement in pointed Hebrew for low reading achievers and typical readers in second grade. Pointed Hebrew is considered a very shallow orthography, which sustains the correct pronunciation of written words in a straightforward manner through the application of a grapheme‐to‐phoneme conversion procedure. It presents the consonant information of words using letter graphemes and presents the vowel information primarily by diacritical marks (pointing) below or above the consonantal letter string (the word pear, for example, is represented in pointed Hebrew as אַגָּס). Around third grade, children shift to reading in unpointed Hebrew, which presents the consonant letters alone (the word pear, for example, appears in unpointed Hebrew as אגס); it is therefore considered a deep orthography (Shimron, 2006). First and second graders learn to read in a shallow orthography, which is considered easy to acquire. At the beginning of second grade, children are expected to read 72 familiar words in 1 minute with high accuracy of 93% (Shani, Laxman, Shalem, Bahat, & Zaiger, 2008). Because of the transparency of pointed Hebrew, gaps between readers appear relatively early and may also be reflected in some aspects of reading motivation. That is, children falling behind the readings norms in Hebrew may perceive themselves as bad readers already in second grade and show low levels of reading motivation.
This study aimed to address the following research questions:
- What is the developmental pattern of reading achievement (orthographic word recognition, phonological decoding and reading comprehension) and intrinsic reading motivation (self‐concept as a reader, value of reading and literacy outloud) in the course of the school year in low reading achievers and in advanced second‐grade readers? We expected both groups of readers to improve their reading achievements through the year, but we expected low reading achievers to exhibit a decline in reading motivation because of the bidirectional relations between reading achievements and reading motivation that have been reported in previous research (Morgan et al., 2008). This will be more emphasized in Hebrew because of its shallow orthography, which may highlight low reading achiever's difficulty more than that of their classmates.
- Is the relation between students' reading motivation and reading achievement at the beginning and at the end of school year similar for low achievers and typical readers? In keeping with the Quirk et al. (2009) findings that children still shape their intrinsic reading motivation through second grade, we assumed that differences in reading motivation between the two groups of readers would be found at the end of the school year but not at the beginning of the year.
Method
Participants
Participants in the study were 155 second graders, 81 boys (52.3%) and 74 girls (47.7%), from four different schools in northern Israel. They attended seven classes, and their age range was between 7 and 8.5 years (M = 7.74 years, SD = 0.32 years). All were native Hebrew speakers with no known language or developmental problems. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (2014), the schools were located in neighbourhoods mainly of middle socioeconomic status. Children are assigned to a specific school according to their home address, so all children in the same neighbourhood attend the same school, usually without the opportunity to choose differently. All children learned their first grade in the same school and with the same teacher.
Materials
Reading motivation assessment
The children's reading motivation was assessed by Me and My Reading Profile (MMRP; Marinak et al., 2015), an assessment tool designed for teachers from kindergarten through second grade to use. This 20‐item, multiple‐choice instrument, which is administered individually to each child, comprises three subscales: five items for the child's self‐concept as a reader, 10 for the child's appreciation of the value of reading and five for literacy outloud. The teacher reads to the child each statement, followed by three choices of answer on a Likert scale for the MMRP from most positive to least positive. The child was asked to circle the choice that represented his or her feelings and thoughts regarding the statement. Two practice items acquainted the children with the instrument's format. Also, rather than a number for each items, each was paired with an animal icon in the left‐hand column. The teacher guided the child from item to item by placing his or her finger on the icon as he or she reads the MMRP aloud. Cronbach's alpha ranged from .66 to .91 (overall reading motivation: α = .91,.90; self‐concept as a reader: α = .77, 78; value of reading: α = .86,.85; literacy outloud: α = .70,.66; beginning and end of the school year, respectively). All items contributed to the overall scale reliability. The test yielded a high‐reliability Cronbach alpha coefficient (α = .88). Performance was calculated according to the child's responses to all 20 statements, and the maximum score was 60.
Standardized reading tests
Elul, the Hebrew assessment battery of group reading measures (Shatil, Nevo, & Breznitz, 2007), consists of tests for orthographic word recognition, phonological decoding and reading comprehension. This battery was developmentally designed, with age‐appropriate versions from first to ninth grade. It was developed and validated with 495 second‐grade students (Shatil et al., 2007) and has been used in numerous studies on reading achievements at elementary schools (e.g., Bar‐Kochva, 2013; Horowitz‐Kraus, Cicchino, Amiel, Holland, & Breznitz, 2014; Nevo, Brande, & Shaul, 2016; Vaknin‐Nusbaum et al., 2016a; Vaknin‐Nusbaum, Sarid, & Shimron, 2016b). All tests are presented in pointed Hebrew orthography.
Orthographic word recognition test
Students were instructed to identify and circle words that named animals. The test consisted of 80 familiar words in the second‐graders' spoken language; 25 of them represented animals (maximal score). After a time limit of 2 minutes and 14 seconds, the students were asked to stop. The score was the percentage of identified animal words out of the total words. Cronbach's α was 0.94.
Phonological decoding test
Out of the 78 homophonic pseudowords presented to them, students were instructed to identify and circle those that sounded like food items (an example in English would be bred). The pseudowords sounded like familiar words from different semantic categories, 22 of them like food items (maximal score); after a time limit of 3 minutes and 5 seconds, the students were asked to stop the assignment. The score was the percentage of identified food items out of the total number. Cronbach's α was 0.89.
Reading comprehension test
Students were instructed to read two texts in the allotted time and answer true/false questions about their content. The first text (‘Ofir and the dog’) contained 61 words, and the time limit was 3 minutes and 15 seconds; the second (‘Efrat and her father’) contained 79 words, and the time limit was 3 minutes and 15 seconds. Students were asked to answer eight questions following each text. Comprehension scores were the percentage of correct answers. Cronbach's α was 0.88. The correlation between the scores of the two tests was r = .47 (p < .001), so their mean was used.
Procedure
The reading motivation questionnaire and the reading tests were administered by four research assistants who had a Master's degree in education. Each class was divided randomly into two groups to deliver the package assessments in a small group of children, and each group was assessed separately in the class homeroom by two research assistants. Each student was tested on the same motivation questionnaire and reading tests at two‐time points: the start of the school year (November, 2015) and at the end of the school year (May, 2016). The tests were given in the order orthographic word recognition, phonological decoding, reading comprehension and after a short break the MMRP questionnaire. The percentage of correct answers was calculated for each test separately. The motivation questionnaire was administered with no time limit and took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Each student was given a package containing the assessment materials and was asked to listen carefully to the instructions of the test. The examiners explained to the students that the reason for administering this questionnaire was to determine how they feel about reading. Students were encouraged to answer according to their feelings and thoughts, and the examiners explained that there were no right or wrong answers. Then each of the 20 statements was read aloud by one of the examiners, and the children were asked to answer them.
The reading tests were administered with a time limit and took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Each student was given the assessment package and was asked to listen carefully to the instructions for each part of the test. For each reading test, written examples were presented first, and the test began after the training items had been answered correctly. When the time limit of each test was reached, students were asked to stop their work.
Data analysis
Gender differences and correlations of the study variables with age were first examined to assess the required use of control variables during hypothesis testing. Multivariate repeated measures analyses of covariance were used to assess change in the study variables between the beginning and the end of the academic year. Next, K‐means clustering was used to divide the students into two sub‐groups, based on their initial scores. Regression analyses were used to calculate adjusted residual gains, representing change in the study variables, from the beginning to the end of the academic year, while controlling for the initial scores. Multivariate analyses of covariance were used to assess change according to sub‐group of readers. Finally, Pearson correlations between reading motivation and reading achievements among the two sub‐group of readers were calculated.
Results
Preliminary results
Reading motivation was found higher among girls at both the beginning and the end of the year (M = 2.53, SD = 0.32, and M = 2.48, SD = 0.32, respectively) than among boys (M = 2.33, SD = 0.39, and M = 2.32, SD = 0.33, respectively; t(153) = 3.47, p < .001, and t(153) = 2.94, p = .004, respectively). No gender differences were found on the reading tests, nor any significant correlations with age. Thus, gender was controlled for in analyses pertaining to reading motivation.
Time differences for the total sample
Time differences for the total sample were assessed with multivariate repeated measures analyses of covariance (Table 1). The analysis for the three subscales of reading motivation was nonsignificant (F(3, 151) = 0.61, p = .607, η2 = .012), as was the analysis for the total score, showing no change throughout the year. The analysis for the reading tests was found significant (F(3, 152) = 45.86, p < .001, η2 = .475), revealing a meaningful increase throughout the year in all measures.
| Beginning M (SD) | End M (SD) | F(1, 154) (η2) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall reading motivation | 2.43 (0.37) | 2.40 (0.33) | 1.55 (.010) |
| Self‐concept as a reader | 2.52 (0.44) | 2.50 (0.42) | 1.61 (.010) |
| Value of reading | 2.52 (0.40) | 2.49 (0.36) | 0.71 (.005) |
| Literacy outloud | 2.17 (0.52) | 2.12 (0.43) | 1.01 (.007) |
| Orthographic word recognition | 64.95 (28.45) | 87.50 (18.50) | 69.19*** (.310) |
| Phonological decoding | 52.20 (22.59) | 69.57 (22.25) | 91.80*** (.373) |
| Reading comprehension | 46.41 (30.07) | 66.52 (22.76) | 49.88*** (.245) |
- *** p < .001.
Low achievers and typical readers
To divide the students into low achievers and typical readers, cluster analysis was used with the initial scores of orthographic word recognition and phonological decoding (standardized). We used these reading measures for dividing the two groups because word recognition and decoding are considered basic skills for reading acquisition that also differentiate low from typical achievers at an early stage. Only after initial, the stages of reading acquisition (grapheme‐to‐phoneme relations) are acquired do children gradually develop automaticity in this ability, and this frees part of their attention resources for comprehension (Shimron, 2006; Wolf, 2008).
Two groups were detected: typical readers (n = 92) and low reading achievers (n = 63). The former had higher initial scores than the latter for reading comprehension (F(1, 153) = 29.99, p < .001, η2 = .164), orthographic word recognition (F(1, 153) = 324.99, p < .001, η2 = .680) and phonological decoding (F(1, 153) = 115.66, p < .001, η2 = .431; means are shown in Table 2).
| Beginning M(SD) | End M(SD) | F(1, 152) (η2) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical | Low achievers | Typical | Low achievers | Time | Group | Time × group | |
| Overall reading motivation score | 2.49 (0.37) | 2.33 (0.35) | 2.49 (0.31) | 2.26 (0.33) | 2.35 (.015) | 13.99*** (.084) | 11.24*** (.069) |
| Self‐concept as a reader | 2.62 (0.42) | 2.38 (0.44) | 2.66 (0.31) | 2.27 (0.45) | 2.94 (.019) | 33.90*** (.182) | 26.19*** (.147) |
| Value of reading | 2.58 (0.39) | 2.44 (0.40) | 2.55 (0.35) | 2.40 (0.35) | 0.72 (.005) | 5.92* (.037) | 2.46 (.016) |
| Literacy outloud | 2.19 (0.56) | 2.14 (0.47) | 2.21 (0.46) | 1.99 (0.37) | 2.16 (.014) | 2.98 (.019) | 8.80** (.055) |
| Orthographic word recognition | 84.30 (15.88) | 36.70 (16.53) | 87.40 (18.24) | 87.63 (19.01) | 186.19*** (.549) | 134.54*** (.468) | 0.04 (.001) |
| Phonological decoding | 64.42 (17.67) | 34.34 (16.24) | 77.27 (17.65) | 58.31 (23.56) | 105.06*** (.407) | 97.42*** (.389) | 1.90 (.012) |
| Reading comprehension | 56.45 (26.56) | 31.75 (29.04) | 70.86 (19.92) | 60.18 (25.20) | 56.42*** (.269) | 36.21*** (.191) | 5.32* (.034) |
- * p < .05,
- ** p < .01,
- *** p < .001.
Initial differences between typical readers and low reading achievers in reading motivation were sought by analyses of covariance and were found significant for the total score (F(1, 152) = 4.18, p = .043, η2 = .027), as well as for self‐concept as a reader (F(1, 152) = 5.94, p = .016, η2 = .038; means are shown in Table 2). Thus, time changes by group were examined with adjusted residual gains, controlling for the initial scores (Table 2).
Regarding reading motivation, no significant main effect for time was revealed (as shown in Table 1). However, significant time by group interactions was detected for the total score of reading motivation, self‐concept as a reader and literacy outloud. In all cases, a decrease was noted in low reading achievers, and no change was observed for typical readers. (Self‐concept as a reader: typical readers, M = 0.32, SD = 0.78, vs low reading achievers, M = −0.47, SD = 1.10; literacy outloud: typical readers, M = 0.32, SD = 0.78, vs low reading achievers, M = −0.47, SD = 1.10; total reading motivation score: typical readers, M = 0.23, SD = 0.96, vs low reading achievers, M = −0.33, SD = 0.96, adjusted means.)
Regarding the reading tests, results reveal, as before (Table 1), a main effect for time. That is, a general increase was noted in all three reading measures. A significant group by time interaction was detected for reading comprehension, where the increase was greater in typical readers than in low reading achievers (adjusted means: M = 0.15, SD = 0.87 vs M = −0.22, SD = 1.13). The extent of increase was similar for orthographic word recognition and phonological decoding.
Correlations between reading motivation and reading achievements in low reading achievers and typical readers
Initial correlations between reading motivation and reading achievement, at the beginning of the year, were nonsignificant for both low reading achievers and typical readers. In the year's end, a few correlations were found significant in low reading achievers readers: reading comprehension and phonological decoding were positively related to the overall score of reading motivation (r = .30, p = .018, and r = .32, p = .012, respectively) and to self‐concept as a reader (r = .38, p = .002, and r = .34, p = .007, respectively; Table 3). That is, better reading comprehension and better phonological decoding were related to higher reading motivation and self‐concept as a reader, in low reading achievers.
| Overall reading motivation score | Self‐concept as a reader | Value of reading | Literacy outloud | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| End of the year | ||||
| Orthographic word recognition | .15 | .20 | .09 | .10 |
| Phonological decoding | .32* | .34** | .23 | .23 |
| Reading comprehension | .30* | .38** | .24 | .13 |
| Change scores | ||||
| Orthographic word recognition | .16 | .21 | .11 | .10 |
| Phonological decoding | .25* | .29* | .15 | .18 |
| Reading comprehension | .27* | .34** | .24 | .10 |
- Note: Correlations for the beginning of the year and for typical readers were nonsignificant.
- * p < .05,
- ** p < .01.
As it may be recalled, regression analyses were used to calculate adjusted residual gains, representing change in the study variables, from the beginning to the end of the academic year, while controlling for the initial scores. Using these change scores to calculate correlations between reading motivation and reading achievements among low reading achievers revealed several interesting findings (Table 3). Increases in reading comprehension and in phonological decoding were positively related to an increase in the overall score for reading motivation (r = .27, p = .029, and r = .25, p = .046, respectively) and to an increase in self‐concept as a reader (r = .34, p = .007, and r = .29, p = .022, respectively). That is, improvement in reading comprehension and phonological decoding was related to an improvement in reading motivation and in self‐concept as a reader in low reading achievers.
Discussion
The primary goal of this study was to explore the developmental patterns of second graders' reading achievements and reading motivation in the course of a school year. We were particularly interested in the comparison between low reading achievers and typical readers regarding reading achievement and reading motivation, and the correlation between these two factors. As expected, all readers had attained higher reading achievement by the end of the school year than at the beginning. However, reading achievement was higher for typical readers than for the low reading achievers at both time points. Furthermore, typical readers showed greater improvement in reading comprehension during the school year.
On the other hand, reading motivation overall stayed stable over the school year. Nevertheless, looking at low reading achievers and typical readers separately, we found reading motivation to be significantly lower in the former than in the latter as regards self‐concept as a reader at the beginning and at the end of the year. Differences between the two groups of readers in the literacy outloud factor appeared at the end of the school year, in keeping with our expectation as to when these disparities in motivation would manifest themselves. The low reading achievers in this study apparently had a low perception of their ability to perform well on reading tasks – a perception that seems well developed before second grade as reported by Aunola et al. (2002) and by Chapman and Tunmer (1997). Our present results are in line with the Quirk et al. (2009) results showing that students who began second grade with relatively low reading fluency skill levels also exhibited a lower level of self‐concept as readers in the middle of the school year.
Note that along with their low self‐concept as readers, low reading achievers in this study evaluated reading highly: they differentiated their perception of their reading abilities from the importance of reading, as evinced in their responses to the statements on the value of reading. Also, literacy outloud scores at the beginning of the year revealed that these readers reported that they enjoyed and were involved in reading situations that required outloud reading. Changes in self‐concept as a reader may be due to reading failure experiences that recur over and over for struggling readers (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Lepola et al., 2005). Reading failure may be more prominent in a shallow orthography where low achievers can witness their classmates' success at a relatively early stage of reading acquisition.
The relation between reading achievement and motivation in low reading achievers and typical readers showed that the two groups of readers had a different developmental pattern. The correlation between group and time was significant only at the end of the school year. Positive correlations were obtained between reading achievement (phonological decoding and reading comprehension) and overall motivation as well as self‐concept as a reader in low reading achievers. In addition, improvement in reading achievement was related to an increase in reading motivation. These findings are in line with Quirk et al. (2009), who found a different developmental pattern in advanced and struggling readers, regarding the relation between reading fluency skill and self‐concept as a reader in second graders. Students who began the year with relatively low reading fluency skill levels exhibited a lower level of self‐concept as readers in the middle of the year. Other studies have shown that reading achievement contributed to self‐concept as a reader early in first grade (Aunola et al., 2002; Chapman & Tunmer, 1997). However, these studies did not differentiate advanced readers from low reading achievers, and they were conducted in English, which is considered a deep orthography.
Self‐concept as a reader seems to be the most sensitive of the three reading motivation subfactors regarding changes in reading success and failure. As children encounter more reading experience through second grade, they shape and tune their self‐concept as a reader. This may suggest that it is still possible, at that age, to implement an intervention programme designed to cultivate reading achievement and reading motivation that will help foster children's positive self‐concepts as readers. Indeed, as shown in Bates et al. (2016) intervention study, young children showed higher reading motivation after participating in a reading intervention programme. Reading motivation served as a mediator between intervention and reading achievement. Without intervention, students who are low reading achievers usually seem to remain unsuccessful over time (Catts, Sittner Bridges, Little, & Tomblin, 2008; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Juel, 1988; Lonigan, Purpura, Wilson, Walker, & Clancy‐Menchetti, 2013; Stanovich, 1986) and exhibit a decline in reading motivation (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003; Guthrie et al., 2007; Morgan & Fuchs, 2007; Quirk et al., 2009).
Implications
The result of the current study supports the assumption that early reading programmes must take into consideration the role reading motivation plays in literacy acquisition (Bates et al., 2016; McGeown et al., 2015). As children develop their reading skills successfully, they start to think positively about their reading abilities and, in consequence, may improve their self‐concepts as readers (Melekoglu, 2011; Melekoglu & Wilkerson, 2013). They also may become more confident in their reading, thus becoming more involved in reading outloud activities and showing higher reading motivation.
Both the low reading achievers and typical readers in this study valued reading highly at both time points. It is still important for reading teachers to consider focusing on the importance of reading for children's lives in addition to improving their reading achievement. If children appreciate the value of reading, they are likely to develop higher reading motivation and thus make even more improvements in this activity (Melekoglu, 2011).
In sum, it is essential to integrate activities aimed at increasing the three reading motivation subfactors in reading acquisition programmes. Cultivating an enjoyable reading environment, which includes access to a wide range of written materials, the opportunity to select the reading materials, and involvement in reading in social interactions, can and should accompany the process of reading acquisition. It is logical to assume that programmes that intertwine reading and reading motivation activities can not only increase reading achievement but also prevent the decline in reading motivation, and hopefully even elevate it.
Limitations
Some important limitations of the study must be noted. First, the research was conducted with 155 second graders who were divided to low reading achievers and typical readers. It is important to increase the number of children in each group to reinforce the results. Second, the distribution of the children into two groups of readers can also be based on reading achievements other than their word reading level, as in the current study. A different distribution might have yielded different results. Third, we must consider the possibility that the delivery order of the reading tests and the motivation questionnaire (given last) may have biased motivational results. Fourth, reading motivation was assessed on a questionnaire that was a subjective measure. Using more tools such as structured interviews, observations and parents' questionnaire might provide greater information about reading motivation and yield different results.
Biographies
Dr Vered Vaknin‐Nusbaum, PhD, Reading and comprehension (Haifa University, 2004), is a senior lecturer and researcher in the Department of Education, Western Galilee College, and research associate, University of Haifa. She also is the chair of the Davison of learning disabilities and literacy. She teaches undergraduate and graduate students topics related to reading, reading acquisition and learning disabilities. Over the last two decades, she systematically studied questions related to the processing of written language by typical and poor readers and the way specific characteristics of the Hebrew orthography and morphology modify the reading process. She participated in an international language and reading project funded by NIH with researchers from the United States. Recent publications appeared in Memory and Cognition and Reading and Writing. In the past 5 years, Dr Vaknin also collaborated with the faculty of the United States and Israel to investigate the communicative strategies of effective elementary teachers. This research was accepted 2 months ago as a WERA International Research Network (IRN), and the collaboration was expended to University of Delhi, India, and University of Costa Rica. Her areas of interest are as follows: reading acquisition; reading comprehension; literacy and emergent literacy; poor readers; morphological awareness; attitudes towards language; and communicative strategies in class.
Dr Einat Nevo is a lecturer at the Faculty of Education in the Western Galilee College and the Oranim College, both in Israel. In addition, Einat is a speech and language pathologist specializing in children with specific language impairments. In her academic work, she is focused on three main research areas: developing reading abilities and reading motivation from preschool through to elementary school; language enrichment and development of early literacy skills among young children; and working memory's contribution to reading acquisition. She has published articles in major literacy journals, including Journal of Research in Reading, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Early Childhood Research Quarterly and Reading and Writing.
Dr Sigahlit Brande is a lecturer at the of Education department in the Oranim in Israel. In her work, she supervises teacher trainees. Her research focuses on reading abilities and difficulties.
Linda B. Gambrell is a Distinguished Professor of Education, Eugene T. Moore School of Education, at the Clemson University. She is the past president of the International Reading Association, Literacy Research Association and the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers. In 2004, she was inducted into the Reading Hall of Fame. She is a former classroom teacher and reading specialist. She has written books on reading instruction and published articles in major literacy journals, including Reading Research Quarterly, The Reading Teacher and Journal of Educational Research.
