Engagement and Motivational Processes in Reading
John T. Guthrie and Susan Lutz Klauda
University of Maryland College Park, USA
September 2, 2013
To appear in:
Afflerbach, Peter. (in press, 2013). Handbook of Individual Differences in Reading. Routledge
Publishers, New York.
Dr. John T. Guthrie,
Jean Mullan Professor of Literacy Emeritus
Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology
University of Maryland College Park, USA
Dr. Susan L. Klauda,
Postdoctoral Fellow
Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology
University of Maryland College Park, USA
1
Abstract
We chart the pathways to the attainment of proficiency in reading comprehension from
foundation to tertiary levels. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative investigations from many
countries and ethnic groups, we identify the qualities of engagement in reading that generate
growth in reading achievement. Reading engagement is generated partly from the learners’
motivations, beliefs and values for books and schooling. Interacting dynamically with these
motivations, the learner’s language and cognitive processes for reading a variety of materials
contribute to engagement. As motivations grow, students gain the will to read. Energy from their
will or motivation empowers students to learn the many skills of proficient reading. When
engagement is deep and wide, students become self-initiating learners through reading. The chief
contributors to engagement are the teacher and classroom. In partnership with parents and others,
teachers can use five key teaching practices to build and sustain students’ engagement in reading
and writing. Effective practices include: (a) arranging collaboration; (b) providing choices; (c)
showing benefits; (d) assuring success; (e) fostering extended engagement. Descriptions and
examples of these teaching practices and community supports for reading engagement and
achievement are provided.
2
Engagement and Motivational Processes in Reading
John T. Guthrie and Susan Lutz Klauda
University of Maryland College Park
In reading research and educational psychology, engagement and motivation are
increasingly prominent issues. This chapter aims to chart the relations among achievement,
engagement, motivation and cognitive processes in reading with relevance to classroom contexts
and attention to individual differences. Because these constructs all are deeply researched, they can
be characterized and connected in various ways. Drawing on well-established research findings, we
seek to represent the linkages that hold particular promise for reading educators. In doing so, we
use a mid-level of complexity. We steer a middle course between the highest refinement of
constructs that is needed for research and the distillation of the constructs to simpler versions of
multi-faceted factors which are more accessible for policy and education leaders.
Individual differences in motivation and engagement take several forms. First, there are
global differences in level of motivation. For the most motivated students, reading is a highly
valued, enjoyable activity that is central to their identity. The least motivated students find reading
impossibly difficult, distasteful and unimportant in their lives. This variable is positively associated
with amount of reading. Students with relatively high intrinsic motivation (reading enjoyment)
read three times more than students with relatively low intrinsic motivation Wigfield & Guthrie,
1997). Second, different motivations typify different individuals. Some students are high in selfefficacy, believing they are very proficient readers, but do not value reading very much. Other
students are keenly devoted to grades and incentives (i.e., have high extrinsic motivation) but are
3
not interested in reading for enjoyment (i.e., have low intrinsic motivation). That is, students vary
not only in global level of motivation, but in the profile of their multiple specific motivations.
Third, connections between specific motivations and achievement vary among students. For
example, self-efficacy correlates with achievement more highly for European American than
African American students (McRae, 2011. Despite individual diversity in the strengths and
relations of different motivations, there are patterns; motivation links systematically with other
reading variables, although exceptions are inevitable. This chapter charts those patterns.
General Relations among the Factors of Motivation, Engagement, and Achievement
In the ambitious Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, Eccles and Wang (2012)
write a commentary entitled “So what is student engagement anyway?” They adopt the definition
provided by Skinner & Pitzer (2012) that “engagement is the visible manifestation of motivation”
(p. 135) while expressing the traditional view that motivation refers to the internal processes that
energize and direct behavior. Emphasizing the importance of distinguishing crisply between
constructs, Eccles and Wang embrace the traditional framework that motivation influences
behavior, which in turn influences various outcomes, such as learning. In other words, A → B →
C, where A=motivation, B=behavior, and C=learning and achievement.
Reeve’s (2012) definitions of motivation and engagement agree with those of Eccles and
Wang (2012) conceptually, but depart from them operationally. Reeve concurs that “motivation is
a force that energizes and directs behavior” (p. 150), and that “engagement refers to the extent of
students’ active involvement in a learning activity” (p. 150). He proposes and measures four
aspects of engagement, but he does not measure motivation extensively. In his framework,
behavioral engagement comprises attention, effort, and persistence in tasks; emotional engagement
includes interest and enthusiasm; cognitive engagement involves deep mental processing and self-
4
regulation; and agentic engagement refers to proactive, intentional forms of learning. Although his
measures of these four engagement constructs predict achievement well (Reeve, 2012), we believe
that the roles of motivation are underrepresented in his system.
Predictors and Outcomes of Reading Engagement: A Proposed Heuristic Model
Model overview. This model is intended to depict patterns of individual differences in
motivation and engagement as they are associated with reading achievement. In a review of the
contributions of classroom contexts to various engagement-related outcomes, Guthrie, Wigfield &
You (2012) proposed the following model: Classroom Contexts → Motivations → Behavioral
engagement → Reading achievement. This model concurs substantively with the Eccles and Wang
(2012) perspective. Our position, in accord with both Eccles and Wang (2012) and Reeve (2012),
is that behavioral engagement refers to active participation as typified by effort, time, and
persistence. However, in contrast to Reeve (2012), we believe that motivations such as intrinsic
motivation and self-efficacy influence behavioral engagement. For example, when students
participate in reading for personal interest (intrinsic motivation) and believe in their capacity (selfefficacy), their behavioral engagement becomes more enthusiastic, confident, and cognitively
sophisticated. In this model, and in contrast to Reeve’s (2012) engagement framework, the
indicators (measures) of engagement are distinguished from the precursors (antecedents) of
engagement.
In the heuristic model in Figure 1 we propose that classroom contexts influence multiple
motivations and cognitions are all important contributors to engagement, and they generate myriad
qualities of behavioral engagement. Behavioral engagement will vary widely in observable effort,
time, persistence, enthusiasm, and cognitive involvement that underlie the behaviors. In turn,
higher qualities of engagement will generate higher qualities of reading achievement as manifested
5
in fluency, vocabulary, literal comprehension, and reasoning (higher-order comprehension)
performance.
Behavioral engagement processes in the heuristic model. Our research suggests that
engagement may be indicated by positive qualities such as a student’s enthusiasm and devotion of
effort that correlate positively with achievement. In contrast, a different form of engagement may
consist of active avoidance of reading, including rejecting, evading, minimizing effort, and
disconnecting from reading tasks (Guthrie, Klauda & Ho, 2013). We refer to the former, positive
aspects of engagement as dedication and the latter, negative aspects as avoidance. This view is
similar to that of Skinner, Kindermann, and Furrer (2009) who use the terms engagement and
disaffection to represent similarly distinct forms. The advantage of this duality is that the constructs
authentically characterize students’ varieties of engagement, and they simultaneously contribute to
predicting achievement (Guthrie et al., 2013).
Motivations in the heuristic model. Motivations in reading were examined in a detailed
review by Schiefele, Schaffner, Moller, and Wigfield (2012). One of their conclusions was that the
intrinsic-extrinsic differentiation of motivation is quite legitimate, conceptually and empirically.
Intrinsic motivation includes curiosity, or seeking new experiences or information, and
involvement, or deep immersion in text. In our proposed heuristic model, we include intrinsic
motivation due to its prominent role in predicting acquisition of reading, reading competence, and
reading engagement in the forms of effort, time spent, and amount of reading (Guthrie, Wigfield,
Metsala, & Cox, 1999). Schiefele and colleagues proposed that self-efficacy and value represent
preconditions of intrinsic motivation rather than actual motivations (Schiefele, et. al, 2012).
Although conceivable, there is little empirical support for this notion. In our heuristic model we
include the motivational construct of self-efficacy, or one’s belief in her capacity to perform
6
reading tasks.. Self-efficacy is conceptually relevant because it energizes behavior and is highly
correlated with achievement from grades K-12 , suggesting its integral role in reading
development. Similarly, we incorporate the motivation of value in reading, which refers to belief in
the importance of reading because it is useful or interesting. Beyond its self-evident relevance,
value correlates with reading competence increasingly as students progress through grades K-8 (Ho
& Guthrie, 2013). Finally in this heuristic model, we embrace a social construct, which refers to
positive behaviors toward peers and sharing favorable beliefs with classmates about reading. This
construct is rooted in socialization theories of education that propose that fostering social
relationships among students and between teachers and students are central to students’ acquisition
of academic dispositions and competencies (Eccles & Wang, 2012). We have not included the
widely researched construct of extrinsic motivation due to its typically negative correlations with
achievement, nor the constructs from goal theory, such as mastery goals, which have been studied
mainly with secondary students (Pintrich, 2010).
Cognitive processes in the heuristic model. At the K-3 grade level, reading competencies
are usually conceptualized and measured in three forms: letter and simple word recognition, word
attack and deliberate decoding, sentence and passage comprehension. To investigate these,
researchers often use measures such as the Woodcock-Johnson subtests of letter-word, word attack,
passage comprehension and spelling (Foorman, Schatschneider, Eakin, Fletcher, Moats, &
Francis, 2006). In addition, Foorman et al. found that primary-level instruction often focused on
phonemic awareness, structural analysis of words, vocabulary, and grammar. At the intermediate
and secondary levels, more complex self-regulation processes are also at play. In a model highly
predictive of school reading for ninth-grade students, factors correlating with comprehension
included background knowledge, strategies (such as questioning), word reading, vocabulary and
7
inference (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007). While most factors directly predict comprehension, the
effects of strategies on comprehension are often mediated by inference. Because these cognitive
systems receive the overwhelming attention of teachers and researchers in reading, we propose that
the powers of motivation and engagement variables must be addressed in their typical context of
individual differences in reading. The unique benefits of motivation and engagement will be
described in a later section, as will classroom contexts that support motivation and engagement.
Connections of Reading Engagement, Motivation, Cognitive Processes and Achievement
Engagement and achievement (Path A). At all levels of schooling, engagement has been
correlated with reading achievement. This proposition is depicted as Path A in the heuristic model
(Figure 1). For primary students, behavioral engagement as indicated by teachers’ observations of
students’ active participation, enthusiasm for reading, and effort in overcoming difficulties predicts
cognitive reading competencies, both within a grade level and across grades (Hughes, Lou, Kwok,
& Loyd, 2008). Among elementary students, behavioral engagement in the form of students’
amount of reading predicted standardized reading comprehension scores highly. (DeNaeghel,
Vankeer, Vansteenskiste & Roesseel, 2012). Using a similar measure of behavioral engagement,
Guthrie et. al. (1999) showed that a nationally representative sample of secondary students’
reading engagement predicted standardized reading achievement when socioeconomic status was
controlled. In a meta-analysis of students from K-12, yet another indicator of behavioral
engagement in reading consisting of print exposure was shown to predict reading comprehension
substantially Print exposure also predicted word recognition and oral language skillsfor younger
children (Mol & Bus, 2011).
Most broadly, the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey of 15year-olds in more than 40 countries showed that reading engagement predicted reading-literacy
8
achievement substantially (OECD, 2010). Not only was engagement nearly equal to reading
strategies in its prediction of achievement, but engagement mediated a substantial amount of the
effect of socioeconomic status and gender on achievement. That is, when lower income students
were engaged readers, their achievement nearly matched the achievement of higher income
students, and reading engagement nearly closed the gender gap between the boys and girls in most
countries (OECD, 2010). It is abundantly evident that many indicators manifest the association of
behavioral engagement and reading achievement across a variety of cultures and social conditions.
This is good news for education policy because engagement can be increased in classrooms by
teachers who use engagement-generating instructional practices, as described later in this chapter.
Furthermore, it is interesting that individual differences in engagement were so strongly associated
with achievement that the apparent influence on achievement of another form of individual
difference (variation in socioeconomic background) diminished. This finding suggests that it may
be particularly powerful for teachers of students from weaker socioeconomic backgrounds to
systematically implement practices known to foster engagement.
Motivations and engagement (Path B). In the heuristic model, we propose that the effects
of motivation on engagement are especially important; that is, motivation does not automatically or
magically translate into increased achievement. Rather, in line with our general frame, Motivation
→Engagement→Achievement, we suspect that motivation exerts its power to increase
achievement through increasing students’ amount of cognitively intense, personally significant
reading activity; motivation fuels sustained, self-regulated reading activity, of which one
consequence is relatively high reading test scores or teacher-awarded grades. Empirically, the
pathway is well supported. For elementary students, Becker, McElvany, and Kortenbruck (2010)
showed that intrinsic motivation linked stronglywith students’ behavioral engagement in the form
9
of amount of reading (as rated by students and parents). For middle-schoolers, Guthrie, et. al.
(2013) found that self-reported motivations of intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, value, and
prosocial behaviors were positively correlated with positive behavioral engagement, termed
dedication, whereas motivations of perceived difficulty, devaluing and antisocial behaviors were
correlated with avoidance.
Cognitive processes and engagement (Path C). It is equally plausible that students who
possess an abundance of well-formed reading competencies might be more behaviorally engaged
readers than those who do not. It is difficult to conceive of a student investing high amounts of
time and persistence in reading if the student does not have an established cognitive system for
reading. Although struggling readers may often work assiduously, they are rarely voracious
consumers of text. Empirical studies confirm the strength of Path C in the heuristic model. For
instance, among primary students, teachers’ ratings of students’ behavioral engagement in the form
of active, enthusiastic participation in learning was well predicted by students’ reading
achievement on standardized tests in the same time period (Hughes et. al., 2008). Highly engaged
readers were high achievers, and vice versa. In this case the cognitive process of reading and
reading achievement were quite similar. More studies at the primary level should be directed to the
relations of specific cognitive processes and engagement. At the elementary level, students who
were capable of deeply comprehending and integrating multiple texts were likely to be frequent
readers of lengthy books (Guthrie, et. al., 1999). This association of cognitive competence and
behavioral engagement was highly significant even when individual difference factors of
background knowledge, socioeconomic status and motivation were controlled statistically. In sum,
cognitive competencies in reading – themselves another aspect of individual differences in reading
10
-- are connected to reading behavioral engagement according to diverse measures of both reading
engagement and achievement, suggesting that Path C is well established.
Unique contributions of motivation and cognition to engagement.
In the previous section, we suggested that reading motivations and cognitive processes are
associated with reading engagement; they may in fact be considered sources of individual
differences in engagement. However, the evidence was limited to simple correlations. Thus it is
possible that because cognitively able students are also motivated, the correlation of motivation
and engagement may be an artifact of the power of cognition. This issue is crucial, because if
motivation is an artifact, we need not emphasize it in education, although it may be a valuable
contributor to a configuration of individual differences. Regrettably, most motivation theories do
not test whether their motivational variables influence achievement in the context of relevant
cognitions. For this discussion, we propose that motivation and cognition each have distinctive,
unique effects on achievement.
At all grade levels investigators have examined whether individual differences in
motivation and cognitive reading competencies have distinct effects on achievement. For
elementary grade students, Becker, et. al. (2010) showed that students’ intrinsic motivation
increased their behavioral engagement, as measured by amount of reading, when prior reading
achievement and extrinsic motivation were controlled. The association of motivation and
engagement was quite strong.. Cohering with this finding, Guthrie et. al. (1999) found that
elementary students’ behavioral engagement in the form of reading amount was predicted by
intrinsic motivation even when previous achievement and background knowledge were statistically
controlled. Whatever their achievement level, more intrinsically motivated students were more
likely to read widely and deeply than less intrinsically motivated ones.
11
For middle school students, Jang, Kim, and Reeve (2012) found that behavioral
engagement as represented by students’ self-ratings of their active involvement in learning was
predicted by their perceived autonomy, a construct closely related to intrinsic motivation. The
association was sustained when grades from a range of classes were controlled. Among secondary
students, Guthrie et. al. (1999) reported that the motivation of interest in English/Language Arts
increased behavioral engagement as measured by reading amount when standardized reading
achievement and socioeconomic status were controlled. According to Jang (2008), college
students who concentrated intensely understood unfamiliar, difficult text more deeply than students
who were less behaviorally engaged. In this investigation students were randomly assigned to a
treatment that would increase their engagement vs. a treatment not expected to influence
engagement. Thus prior cognitive reading competencies were controlled experimentally rather than
through multiple regression procedures. Several investigators have reported that motivation
variables of task value or self-reported ‘grit’ predict reading achievement even when strong
cognitive variables such as IQ and the use of self-regulated strategies are statistically controlled
(Braten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, & Stromso, 2010).
Finally, for primary students, Hughes, Luo, and Kwok (2008) found in a three-year
longitudinal study that motivation influenced students’ engagement even when their level of
reading performance was controlled statistically. Higher performing students were more engaged
based on teacher ratings than lower performing students, irrespective of their motivation level. In
interpreting this study, we consider the authors’ measure of the quality of teacher-student
relationships to reflect students’ motivation levels, in line with our conception of social motivation.
This assumption is warranted, moreover, from extensive evidence that many qualities of the
teacher-student relationship are positively connected to classroom literacy engagement (Pianta,
12
Hamre, & Allen, 2012). Thus, it appears in the Hughes at el. study that both motivation and
reading cognition had effects on students’ engagement levels. Altogether, however, evidence of the
unique associations of individual differences in motivation and cognition with engagement for
primary students is weaker than other grade levels, and more direct tests of their unique effects are
needed.
Motivation and engagement spur growth of achievement over time.
To this point, connections among reading engagement, motivation and achievement, as
shown in the heuristic model, have been made within discreet acts in a limited time period..
However, motivations also energize achievement growth over time. Students who are highly
motivated in the fall of an academic year will surpass their less motivated peers the following
spring even when they begin at the same achievement level. It is reasonable to question how this
occurs, and research has not explored this dynamic fully. Research reviewed here shows, however,
that motivation increases behavioral engagement, including time, effort, concentration and a high
volume of reading. In addition, being a highly engaged reader is associated with proficient reading.
Reading proficiency depends on automaticity of many cognitive processes including decoding
print to language, use of background knowledge for comprehension, and rapid inferencing at local
and global levels (Kintsch, & Kintsch, 2005). Automaticity is known to accelerate from frequency
of meaningful activity. Consequently, we believe it is reasonable to suggest that motivation and
engagement build achievement growth by fostering automaticity of processes fundamental to
reading expertise.
Evidence that reading motivation fuels achievement growth is plentiful. Creating a growth
model over three years of middle school, Retelsdorf, Koller, and Moller (2011) showed that
reading comprehension (reasoning with text) in year 3 was predicted by the motivations of interest
13
and curiosity in year 1 when reading comprehension in year 1 was controlled. Interest spurred
comprehension growth irrespective of prior comprehension levels. The more basic cognitive
process of decoding speed showed the same result. Working with elementary students, Taboada,
Tonks, Wigfield, and Guthrie (2009) reported that internal reading motivation based on teachers’
ratings predicted growth of achievement over three months according to two reading measures, a
standardized comprehension test and a task requiring integrating information from and reasoning
with multiple texts. Because the students’ motivations were inferred from teacher ratings of
enthusiasm, interests, and voluntary reading, it is more consistent with our current distinction of
motivation and engagement to refer to the teachers’ ratings as a measure of behavioral engagement
rather than internal motivation. Accepting that reformulation, the finding is that behavioral
engagement predicted reading growth in two achievement measures.
To describe the strength of these motivation effects, Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield, Tonks,
Humenick, and Littles (2007) reported growth of reading comprehension grade equivalence scores
for fourth graders. Holding prior achievement constant, students who were highly interested in
reading in the fall gained 3 years in reading grade equivalent in the 3 months until winter.
Moreover, students who increased in interest and involvement during the same 3 months gained 1
year of reading grade equivalence. Notably, students with low interest showed no reading
comprehension growth in the same period, which indicates an achievement decline relative to their
improving peers. These findings confirm that the benefits of motivation for achievement growth
are not a mere marginal luxury. Reading motivation may stand as the strongest psychological
variable influencing achievement.
Classroom Practices and Contexts Influence Motivations (Path D)
14
Arranging collaboration fosters prosocial goals. Collaborative activity in the classroom is
often viewed as a driver of literacy engagement. Our conception of this construct is grounded in
activity theory (Leontiev, 1981; Scribner & Cole, 1981) and its extension to classrooms by
Guttierez and Lee (2009). When the more expert teacher and less expert student collaborate in
culturally valued literate practices, students acquire the literate action scenarios (Scribner & Cole,
1981). Successful student uptake of literacy practices generates increased academic proficiencies.
An equally abundant research literature related to collaboration examines teacher-student
relationships that support students’ social and emotional well-being during learning (Martin &
Dowson, 2009). Furthermore, favorable relationships with teachers and peers foster active
participation in school activities among secondary school students (Juvoven, Espinoza, &
Knifsend, 2009). In the absence of these personal connections, students’ engagement declines,
leading disproportionately to disengagement (Griffiths, Lilles, Furlong, & Sidhwa, 2009) and
dropping out (Rumberger, 2011). Thus teacher-student collaboration and emotional relationships
are expected to influence students’ academic and reading engagement directly without necessarily
being mediated through a motivational construct.
Examples of arranging collaboration. Reading is often a solo, silent activity. In contrast,
students are social creatures. Most simply, teachers can harness students’ desires to interact by
fostering reading as a social pursuit. Teachers can ask students of any age to read together. For the
youngest, this may be partners reading aloud simultaneously. For older elementary aged students,
partner reading can consist of individuals reading a passage silently and sharing the most salient
points. Partners can each write a challenging question for the other to answer, and the outcomes
can be discussed. If partners in upper elementary school write a summary of a chapter, they can
then compare which summary elements in their chapters are common and which ones are distinct.
15
Such partnerships can be short and simple, consisting of 5 minutes of reading and one minute of
sharing. They can become as long and complex as the students can successfully perform.
Student-led discussion groups are exciting for class members. If they are well-organized,
they can increase the depth of students’ reading comprehension. In CORI for grade 7, teachers use
an adaptation of the ‘collaborative reasoning’ approach (Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001).
After every member of a group reads a complex text for 10-15 minutes silently, the discussion
begins. One team member states a key point; the next person adds a new, relevant point; each
person contributes new information. At the end, the last person states a summary of what the
members said, and the group discusses whether the summary was complete or should be extended.
To be successful, teachers must set a few rules for groups regarding such aspects as the number of
students per group, turn-taking, active listening, full participation of all members, and
accountability for staying on task (which, for instance, could be demonstrated through writing or
explaining the final synthesis).
Providing choices and relevance increases intrinsic motivation. Grounded in selfdetermination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2009), autonomy support in the classroom refers to shared
control between the teacher and students. When teachers afford students input and choices in their
learning, their interests and participation increase (Zhou & Deci, 2009), which enhances
achievement (Reeve, 2012). Experimental studies have shown that ‘intrinsic framing’ is stronger
than ‘extrinsic framing’ for facilitating conceptual learning from text (Vansteenkiste, Simons,
Lens, Soenens, &Matos, 2005). In these experiments, emphasizing personal interest or relevance
(intrinsic framing) rather than task proficiency (extrinsic framing) as a basis for reading
consistently leads to deeper text comprehension among young adolescents. Classroom autonomy
support has been shown to increase students’ intrinsic motivation (enjoyment and enthusiasm) as
16
well as engagement (active participation and sustained work) reciprocally at multiple grade levels
(Skinner & Belmont, 1993). In our model, we use both choices and relevance to represent
autonomy support.
Examples of providing choice and relevance. Giving choices in the classroom is often
misunderstood. It is not merely a trip to the media center to select books or extended free reading
with no instruction. We encourage many mini-choices during instruction. Teachers can give
students a mini-choice of which character to focus on in a story. They read about all characters
while becoming an expert on one. In a book on civil war history, students can choose which battles
to learn about most deeply. Then in class discussion, they learn about all battles in the war and
their relations to each other.
Choice of texts is important, but choice of task also can be powerful. Suppose a teacher has
taught students to make predictions and also to write their own questions about a text before
reading. In learning about the early explorers, students can be given a choice of whether to write
two questions related to an explorer’s goals or personality, or make two predictions about the
outcome of an expedition described in text. Later the teacher may ask students to use the opposite
strategy. While having the opportunity for input, students nevertheless cover the reading
curriculum comprehensively.
Turning to the importance of providing relevance, consider that texts that are remote from
students’ experience and knowledge base are usually boring. Teachers can foster interest in any
text, however, by increasing its relevance through related media. A brief, 5-minute video depicting
a lion hunting a gazelle in the Serengeti Plain will pique students’ interest in reading a text on
predation. With newfound interest, students will read more avidly about predation and survival in
various biomes.
17
In science, hands on activities, such as looking at a leaf through a magnifying glass, or
observing life in an aquarium will focus, sustain and deepen reading about biology. In history, brief
videos of historical enactments can launch a class discussion of politics (such as those related to
slavery) and foster penetrating analysis of related texts (such as the emancipation proclamation).
Offering students choices within texts and providing real world activities related to texts generate
intrinsic motivation for reading.
Emphasizing the importance of reading increases students’ valuing. Drawing on
expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), evidence shows that there is a significant
association between teachers’ expectations for students and students’ growth in reading
achievement. As students internalize the expectations of significant others for a specific domain
such as English, their value for that domain and selections of courses in that domain increase
(Durik, Vida, & Eccles, 2006). Several studies have reported the benefits of providing a ‘valuing
rationale’ for reading an uninteresting text. In two studies, for example, the valuing rationale
described how information in the text would provide immediate professional benefit for
prospective teachers. Groups receiving a valuing rationale showed enhanced behavioral
engagement (close attention to reading) and increased conceptual comprehension of information
text compared to no-rationale groups (Jang, 2008). In another study, asking students to find
usefulness and applicability in text increased students’ comprehension in both laboratory and
classroom settings compared to control conditions (Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz,
2010). We use the phrase ‘emphasizing importance’ to represent the instructional practice of
providing a valuing rationale.
Examples of emphasizing importance. For older students in secondary school, teachers can
use the very technique employed in several studies. Teachers can request students to write a
18
statement explaining how a text will benefit them in some way. The text may improve their
competence as a professional; it may be crucial to performing well in the next course; it may afford
them a memorable literary experience that influences their understanding of themselves For
younger adolescents in CORI, we foster recognition of the importance of text through concrete
activities. For instance, in a day, students view a brief video, record their observations, read
extensively on the same topic, and share their learning with a partner. After 60 minutes the teacher
asks students to reflect on which activity they learned the most from. Inevitably they realize that
reading the text was most informative. Teachers emphasize the importance of text in other ways,
too. After reading a complex text, they ask students to identify the sentences that most helped them
understand, and explain why. After a debate, teachers ask students to show the textual sources of
their best points. Gradually students realize that texts help them to speak, write, and explain new
things to their friends. Broader, more general discussion of which texts were most informative,
interesting, or provocative also will enrich the perceptions that text is valuable.
Assuring success increases self-efficacy. From the viewpoint of Bandura’s social cognitive
theory, competence support during reading instruction has been investigated experimentally
(Schunk & Mullen, 2009). Studies of competence support in the form of providing feedback on
progress and helping students set realistic goals in a specific reading task increases self-efficacy for
the particular academic domain of the activity (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Competence support
may also appear in the form of using content domain texts, such as science trade books, that are
readily decodable and enable students to derive meaning related to their observations and
knowledge of the world while learning reading skills (Guthrie, McRae, & Klauda, 2007).
Examples of assuring success. An obvious but profound act is to provide students text they
can read successfully, or, in other words, that address individual differences in reading proficiency.
19
No motivation is more debilitating than dread of difficulty. When a low achieving student faces a
daunting text, she will take steps to avoid it within a few minutes. The alternative is humiliation,
which she has learned to minimize. Although comprehensive academic standards such as the
Common Core state that students should read on-grade or more challenging texts, not all students
should begin there. To build self-confidence, effective teachers locate texts that students can read
aloud fluently and understand literally. Instruction can then be devoted to deeper comprehension
with manageable text. Gaining proficiency and self-efficacy occur together.
Foster extended engagement. The practices of motivation support are designed to increase
engaged reading. The point of affording choice, for example, is not to teach students how to make
good choices, although that may be necessary. The point is to motivate more and deeper reading. If
the time required to make a choice consumes 20 minutes out of a 30 minute learning activity, very
little reading was accomplished. In a 30 minute time slot, 3 minutes should be given for the choice
and 27 minutes for the reading. The cost of time taken for the motivational activity is justified only
if it increases the total time spent reading within an instructional unit. If 10 minutes is given to
discussion on one day, the activity was successful only if it generates more than 10 additional
minutes reading within a few days. Because learning from text socially is powerful, well-organized
discussion builds deeper and longer reading capacities. This criterion applies to each motivation
practice, including support for choice, relevance, success, importance and collaboration.
Motivation activities should accelerate amount and depth of reading by 200%-500%. That is how
the heuristic model works. Classroom contexts energize motivations (Path D); motivations
energize engagement behaviors (Path B); and engagement fuels achievement (Path A). Quantity of
engaged reading is a vitally important individual difference variable, with some students much
20
higher than others. When classroom contexts foster it for everyone, the associated factor of
achievement is likely to increase for all students.
Discussion of the Heuristic Model and Its Implications
Limitations. A substantial issue related to the multiple pathways and potential pathways in
the heuristic model remains to be addressed. It is possible to draw additional connective ties within
the model to achievement. For example, motivation may directly increase achievement; that is, it is
possible that engagement does not mediate all of the effects of motivation on achievement (Becker,
2010). Further, the relationships may all be reciprocal; in other words, each arrow could be
bidirectional. Space does not allow us to describe or defend the presence or absence of every
possible path in a completely saturated version of the heuristic model. However, we argue that
there is evidence favoring each of the lettered paths in the model. Due to space limits, we have not
presented evidence supporting Path E which links Classroom instruction to cognitive processes in
reading. Many other reviews and chapters address this vital link. Furthermore, space does not
permit the presentation of the substantial body of experimental data that more strongly suggest
causal links in the model. A single, accurate model enjoying the concurrence of all behavioral
scientists does not yet exist. In its absence, we propose that under typical conditions of
measurement and modeling, each of the paths A-E in the current model can be empirically
justified.
Implications. Following the heuristic model, classroom teaching should be designed to
include a fusion of motivation and cognitive support for reading engagement, from the primary
grades through higher education. Without motivation, children cannot become engaged readers
who devote the time and manifest the self-regulation needed to become proficient readers. A
cognitively capable reader is only half a reader. Dependent on engagement, reading expertise
21
emerges only when both the cognitive and motivational halves of reading are deliberately nurtured
by teachers and administrators. To build literacy, classroom excellence can be fostered by
following this foundation for richer literacy learning experiences for all students. Although
students vary dramatically in their reading motivation and engagement, classroom contexts can
raise the aspirations and commitments of all.
22
References
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation
aspredictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102, 773-786.
Braten, I., Ferguson, L., Anmarkrud, O., & Stromso, H. (2013). Prediction of learning and
comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: the roles of word-level processing,
strategic approach and reading motivation. Reading & Writing, 26, 321-348.
Chinn, C.A., Anderson, R.C., & Waggoner, M.A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of
literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 378–411.
Cromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and indirect inferential
mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311325.
DeNaeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between
elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency,
engagement and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104, 1006-1021.
Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of
high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98, 382-393.
Eccles, J., & Wang, M. (2012). Part I Commentary: So what is student engagement anyway? In S.
Christensen, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 133-149). New York: Springer Science.
23
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53,109–132.
Foorman, B., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M., Fletcher, J., Moats, L., & Francis, D. (2006). The
impact of instructional practices in Grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in
high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1-29.
Griffiths, A., Lilles, E., & Furlong, M. (2009). The relations of adolescent student engagement
with troubling and high-risk behaviors. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation at school (pp. 563-585). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007).
Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282-313.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and
achievement in reading. In S. Christensen, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of
research on student engagement (pp. 601-634). New York: Springer Science.
Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading
instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research
Quarterly, 48, 9-26.
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A. C., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading.
Educational Psychologist, 42, 237-250.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive
predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3),
231-257.
24
Gutiérrez, K., & Lee, C. D. (2009). Robust informal learning environments for youth from
non-dominant groups: Implications for literacy learning in formal schooling. In L. M.
Morrow, R. Rueda, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy and diversity (pp.
216-232). New York: Guilford Press.
Ho, A. N., & Guthrie, J. T. (2013). Patterns of association among multiple motivations and aspects
of achievement in reading. Reading Psychology, 34, 101-147.
Hughes, J., Lou, W., Kwok, O., & Loyd, L. (2008). Teacher-student support effortful, engagement,
and achievement: a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 114.
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest
and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102,
880-895.
Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an
uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 798-811.
Jang, H., Kim, E., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation
mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104, 1175-1188.
Juvonen, J., Espinoza, G. & Knifsend, C. (2009). The role of peer relationships in student
academic and extracurricular engagement. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 387-403). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Group.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.),
Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25
Leontiev, A.A. (1981). Psychology and the Language Learning Process. Oxford:
Pergamon.
McRae, A. (2011). Teacher competence support for reading in middle school. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, Md.
Martin, A.J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement,
and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 327-365.
Mol, S., & Bus, A. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy
to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267-296.
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Learning to Learn – Student Engagement, Strategies and
Practices (Volume III) http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264083943-en
Pianta, R., Hamre, B., Allen, J. (2012). Teacher-students relationships and engagement;
Conceptualizing, measuring and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S.
Christensen, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 365-386). New York: Springer Science.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning
and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S.
Christensen, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 149-173). New York: Springer Science.
Retelsdorf, J., Koller, O., & Moller, J. (2011). On the effects of motivation on reading performance
growth in secondary school. Learning and Instruction, 21, 550-559.
26
Rumberger, R. (2011). Dropping out: Why students quit school and what can be done about it.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation,
learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation
at school (pp. 171-195). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Moller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation
and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47,
427-463.
Schunk, D. & Mullen, C. (2009). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In K. R. Wenzel & A.
Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 291-237). New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of
reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23: 7-25.
Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85 , 571–581.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on
engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral
and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 69, 493-525.
27
Skinner, E. & Pitzer, J. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping and
everyday resilience. In S. Christensen, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of
research on student engagement (pp. 21-45). New York: Springer Science.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive
variables on reading comprehension. Reading & Writing, 22, 85-106.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the
motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive
versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic
achievement. Child Development, 76, 483-501.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount
and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-432.
Zhou, M., Ma, W. J., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The importance of autonomy for rural Chinese
children’s motivation for learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 492-498.
28
Figure 1 In the “Indicators” box with Reading Achievement (below), can you spell out “Task performance”?
Reading Engagement: Heuristic Model with Indicators and Components of Achievement, Engagement, Motivation and Cognition
Indicators:
Self-report
Teacher
rating
Indicators:
Student report
Observer rating
Teacher selfreport
Video recording
D
Motivation in
Reading
Components:
B
Intrinsic
Efficacy
Value
Social
Classroom
Instruction
and
Teaching
E
Self-report
Teacher rate
Observation
Diaries
Indicators:
Test scores
Grades
Task performance
A
Reading
Achievement
Indicators:
Behavioral
Engagement
In Reading
Self-report
Task perform.
Components:
Components:
Effort
Enthusiasm
Persistence
Self-regulation
Reasoning
Literal
Fluency
Vocabulary
Components:
Choice and
relevance
Success
Importance
Collaboration
Volume of reading
Indicators:
Cognition in
Reading
C
Components:
Word rec.
Fluency
Literal
Reasoning
29