READING MOTIVATION 1

Reading Motivations in Struggling Middle School Readers

Rob Wherley
Scott McLane
California State University, Los Angeles

READING MOTIVATION 2
ABSTRACT
Student motivation is a key component in reading instruction. This study will probe level of
motivation of a group of 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students as it applies to six reading instruction
strategies. The participants will rate the level of their preference for each reading instruction
strategy. The participants will also respond to two open-ended questions that explore what they
perceive to be highly motivating reading instruction strategies as well as what they perceive to be
the reasons for personal motivation to improve reading skills.

READING MOTIVATION 3
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
While various reading intervention programs and philosophies for reading instruction
have been implemented and researched for effectiveness, the relationship between student
motivation and reading improvement also requires its own level of research and evaluation.
This study (Bonfiglio, et al 2006) evaluated both instructional and motivational strategies
for helping struggling readers, particularly in the context of small group reading instruction.
Results were evaluated individually for students for effectiveness. A package of intervention
strategies were assessed, and a selection of more effective package of strategies was identified
for improving student performance.
Brinda (2011) addresses reluctant readers and the barriers to engaging with fictional reading.
The study gathers information from a limited-field study of 16 students, and what personal
experiences interfere with them seeing any importance, value, or enjoyment in reading
literature, especially books assigned in school. As a result, "struggling readers seldom get to
experience how great it feels to finish a book [and] how much fun it can be to escape day-to-day
life by jumping into a good book.
In order to address the expectation of students to have not only basic reading skills, but also
higher-order reading comprehension and reasoning skills, Guthrie & Klauda (2012) addresses
five strategies to engage students with content from textbooks. Utilizing both student surveys
and interviews, the authors aim was learn about student motivation and engagement in reading.
Strategies addressed include varying texts, utilizing social motivation, and the use of student
choice in reading as strategies to improve student mastery of informational texts.
Focusing on increasing pleasure reading among middle school and high school students, Lee
(2011) studied motivation in utilizing a sustained silent reading program. Sharing anecdotally

READING MOTIVATION 4
about the authors experience in the classroom, she addresses several elements such as student
selection of reading material, sustained silent reading in the classroom for developing pleasure
reading among students.
Focusing on the elements of reading comprehension and the role of both students and
teachers in developing or improving reading comprehension skills, McLaughlin (2012) presents
a summary of data collected from teacher queries in the form of a top 10 list of recommended
strategies. Regarding motivation, the article addresses the role of student choice in both
selection of reading and forms of response to reading, as critical for developing reading
motivation, particularly for struggling readers.
Melekolu & Wilkerson (2013) looked at how the absence of motivation in reading impacts
high school students willingness to both improve critical reading skills and strategies to be
successful in school. The study aims to address the lack of research in the area motivation,
particularly for students with disabilities who struggle in reading. The goal was to discover any
difference for struggling readers with a disability and those without. This study was based on
student surveys, utilizing the Adolescent Motivation to Read (AMR) survey. The study makes
recommendations regarding the use of technology, self-directed learning, and incorporating
independent reading into the daily instruction.
In a study comparing intervention strategies for improving reading explicit, self-regulatory
strategies with a less-explicit strategy Nelson & Manset-Williamsons study (2006) showed
significant gains in fluency and comprehension for students receiving explicit instruction vs.
students that received the mistakenly applied strategy; however, the results were reversed for
self-efficacy. The authors also acknowledge the lack of research directed at motivational
strategies (vs. instructional strategies), particularly for students with reading deficits.

READING MOTIVATION 5
Finally, Richardson et al (2013) address the lack of consideration of physical education
teachers in the typical collaborative model for addressing student literacy. They present
strategies to include physical education teachers as visible role models for students in reading
development. In particular, the article addresses using PE teachers as guest readers in the
classroom. The authors address several benefits, including the use of male PE teachers as
readers to break negative stereotypes of boys about reading, as well as PE teachers being able to
share personal experiences about reading to reinforce the cross-disciplinary appeal of reading for
students.

READING MOTIVATION 6
METHOD
Participants
Sixty-eight middle school students attending school in the greater Los Angeles area
participated in the study. Thirty-eight percent of the participants were female (n=26), and 62%
of the students were male (n=42). Thirty-eight percent (n=26) of the participants received
special education services as dictated through their IEPs. Of these students with IEPs, six were
females and twenty were males. Utilizing purposeful sampling of intact groups, the participants
were chosen from 6th, 7th, and 8th grade English Language Arts classes in a general education
school and a non-public school in the greater Los Angeles area. An invitation in the form of a
letter was distributed during English Language Arts class.

Depending on the learning needs of

specific students, a verbal invitation sufficed. Potential participants indicated their interest
verbally to the researcher. After the researcher fully explained the study to the potential
participants, a verbal commitment was secured from each who wished to participate.
Instrumentation
An instrument that consisted of a six-item survey examining the nature and intensity of
participants preference level regarding reading instruction strategies was developed by the
researcher (see Appendix 1). Each item included a five point rating scale with the numerical
values omitted. The numerical values were assigned later in the analysis phase of the research.
The first item asked each participant to indicate his/her level of preference for reading aloud with
a partner in class, using a five-point scale running from Really Dont Like (which
corresponded to a numerical value of one) to Really Like (which corresponded to a numerical
value of five). Next, the level of preference for keeping a reading log at home was rated using
the same five-point scale. This was followed by a rating of level of preference for reading

READING MOTIVATION 7
competition with peers, using the same five-point scale. Next, the participants used the same
scale to rate their level of preference for teacher prompted student predictions about the contents
of a book, based on information on the book cover. The participants used the same scale to rate
their level of preference for timed reading. Finally, the participants used the scale to rate their
level of preference for the pre-teaching of vocabulary.
Two open-ended questions explored what the participants perceived to be highly
motivating reading instruction strategies as well as what they perceived to be the reasons for
personal motivation to improve reading skills. Finally, the classroom teachers completed a
demographic survey which asked for information about students gender, grade level, ELL status,
disability designation, and ethnicity. This data was used to describe the participant group.
Procedure
The survey was administered in May, 2013, at the beginning of English Language Arts
class. Participants were informed of the goals of the study and assured that all responses would
be kept confidential. A time for questions followed, in which any remaining questions were
addressed before the survey was administered. The survey was then distributed to participants.
The researcher then explained the instructions, including the requirement to maintain silence
during survey administration. Any additional questions were answered at that time. Participants
then completed the surveys in the researchers presence and turned them over on their desks
when complete. The researcher collected all completed surveys and answered any final
questions. The surveys were completed by the students within approximately 30 minutes.
Data Analysis
Data was grouped in the following manner for analysis: 1) one data set -- whole
participant group; 2) two data sets -- females with/without IEPs; 3) two data sets -- males

READING MOTIVATION 8
with/without IEPs; 4) two data sets -- sixth graders with/without IEPs; 5) two data sets -seventh graders with/without IEPs; and, 6) two data sets -- eighth graders with/without IEPs.
Means and Standard Deviations were obtained for each data set, and results were graphed on a
bar graph. To distinguish each of two series on a single bar graph, color coding was used.
RESULTS
The mean preference ratings of the entire participant group are found in Table 1 and
visually represented in Graph 1.
Table 1. Preferences for all participant preference ratings of reading instruction strategies
Reading Instruction Strategy
Aloud Partner Reading
Reading Log
Competitive Reading
Making Predictions
Timed Reading
Pre-Teaching Vocabulary

Mean
2.94
3.47
3.00
3.06
2.90
3.01

Standard Deviation
1.13
1.13
1.31
1.05
1.23
1.11

GRAPH 1: Mean Scores for Entire Participant Group

Mean

3.60
3.50
3.40
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
2.90
2.80
2.70
2.60

3.47

2.94

3.00

3.06

3.01
2.90

Reading Instruction Strategy

READING MOTIVATION 9
As can be seen in Table 1 and Graph 1, the entire group rated their preference for Aloud
Partner Reading as Not Sure(m= 2.94; sd=1.13), preference for Reading Log as Not Sure
(m=3.47; sd=1.13), preference for Competitive Reading as Not Sure (m=3.00; sd=1.31),
preference for Making Predictions as Not Sure(m=3.06; sd=1.05), preference for Timed
Reading as Not Sure (m=2.90; sd=1.23), and preference for Pre-teaching Vocabulary as Not
Sure (m=3.01; sd=1.11).
Table 2 contains the same results, when analyzed by IEP status, gender, and grade level.
This data is visually represented in Graphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Table 2. Participant preferences of reading strategies by IEP status, gender, and grade level
Reading
Instruction
Strategy

ReadAlouds
Reading
Log
Competitiv
e Reading
Making
Predictions
Timed
Reading
PreTeaching

Female
Participants
w/IEP
No IEP

Male
Participants
w/IEP
No IEP

Sixth Grade
Participants
w/IEP
No IEP

Seventh Grade
Participants
w/IEP
No IEP

Eighth Grade
Participants
w/IEP
No IEP

sd

sd

sd

sd

sd

sd

sd

sd

sd

sd

2.67

1.03

2.65

1.18

3.05

.94

3.18

1.10

3.25

1.50

2.75

1.18

2.73

.90

3.64

.63

3.09

.90

3.64

.63

2.67

1.21

3.50

.83

3.50

1.24

3.64

1.00

3.50

1.29

3.81

.66

3.45

1.21

3.57

1.09

3.09

1.38

3.25

.97

2.00

.63

2.70

.98

2.85

1.42

3.68

1.21

2.75

1.50

3.00

1.32

2.64

1.12

3.86

.66

2.64

1.57

2.75

1.29

2.50

1.05

3.05

.76

3.05

.94

3.23

1.19

3.00

.82

3.00

.97

2.91

1.22

3.29

1.07

2.91

.83

3.17

1.03

1.83

1.17

2.80

.95

2.80

1.01

3.36

1.36

3.00

1.15

3.25

1.34

2.18

.98

3.00

1.36

2.82

1.17

3.00

.85

3.17

1.47

2.95

1.15

3.10

.91

2.95

1.05

3.50

1.73

2.69

1.30

3.00

1.10

3.29

.99

3.09

.70

2.92

.79

When the results from students with IEPs is compared to results from students without
IEPs and is analyzed according to grade level and gender, the means show a degree of variance.
As can be seen in Graph 2, females without IEPs rated Competitive Reading as not sure
(m=2.70, sd=.98) and Timed Reading as not sure (m=2.80, sd=.95); whereas, female students
with IEPs rated Competitive Reading as Dont Like It (m=2.00; sd=.63) and Timed Reading
as Dont Like It (m=1.83; sd=1.17). As can be seen in Graph 3, males without IEPs rated
Competitive Reading as Like It (m=3.68; sd=1.21), and males with IEPs rated Competitive

READING MOTIVATION 10
Reading as Not Sure (m=2.88; sd=1.42).

GRAPH 2: Female Mean Preferences

4.00

3.50

3.50
3.00

3.05
2.67
2.65

2.50

1.50

2.70

2.50

2.00

2.00

Mean

2.67

2.80

Without IEP

1.83
With IEP

1.00
0.50
0.00

Reading Instruction Strategy

3.17
2.95

READING MOTIVATION 11

GRAPH 3: Male Mean Preferences

4.00
3.50
3.00

3.64
3.50
3.18
3.05

3.68
2.85

3.23
3.05

3.36
2.80

3.10
2.95

2.50
2.00

Mean

1.50

Without IEP

With IEP

1.00
0.50
0.00

Reading Instruction Strategy

As can be seen in Graph 4, sixth grade students without IEPs rated Pre-Teaching of
Vocabulary as Not Sure (m=2.69; sd=1.30), while sixth grade students with IEPs rated the
strategy as Like It (m=3.50; sd=1.73). As can be seen in Graph 5, seventh grade students
without IEPs rated Aloud Partner Reading as Like It (m=3.64, sd=.90), and seventh grade
students with IEPs rated the same strategy as Not Sure (m=2.73; sd=.90). Seventh grade
students without IEPs rated Competitive Reading as Like It (m=3.86; sd=.66), and students
with IEPs rated the same strategy as Not Sure (m=2.64; sd=1.12). Seventh grade students
without IEPs rated Timed Reading as Not Sure (m=3.00; sd=1.36), while seventh grade
students with IEPs rated the same strategy as Dont Like It (m=2.18; sd=.98). As can be seen
in Graph 6, eighth grade students without IEPs rated Aloud Partner Reading as Dont Like It
(m=2.33; sd=1.23), while eighth grade students with IEPs rated the same strategy as Not Sure

READING MOTIVATION 12
(m=3.09; sd=.83).

GRAPH 4: Sixth Grade Mean Scores

4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00

3.25

3.81
3.50
3.00
2.75

2.75

3.00
3.00

3.25
3.00

2.50
2.00

Mean 1.50

Without IEP

With IEP

1.00
0.50
0.00

Reading Instruction Strategy

3.50
2.69

READING MOTIVATION 13

GRAPH 5: Seventh Grade Mean Scores

4.50
4.00

3.64

3.50
3.00

3.57
3.45

2.73

3.86

2.64

3.29
2.91

3.00

2.50

3.29
3.00

2.18

2.00

Mean 1.50

Without IEP

With IEP

1.00
0.50
0.00

Reading Instruction Strategy

GRAPH 6: Eighth Grade Mean Scores

3.50

3.09

3.25
3.09

3.00
2.50

2.75
2.64

3.17
2.91

3.00
2.82

2.33

2.00
1.50

Mean 1.00

Without IEP

With IEP

0.50
0.00

Reading Instruction Strategy

3.09
2.92

READING MOTIVATION 14

Open Ended Questions

When students were asked what reading assignment or project was liked the most, most
students without IEPs noted that they enjoyed projects that incorporated choice. For example,
Jennifer, a 6th grade female without an IEP wrote, One of the projects I liked was a scrap book,
because youre making what you like. Its really inspiring. Most students with IEPs noted that
they liked reading projects involving artistic expression or reading projects that incorporated
high interest topics. Billy, an 8th grade boy with an IEP who has an interest in crime scene
investigation, described a project that involved artistic expression, a high interest topic, and
choice. He was required to conceptualize and draw posters representing rooms that might be in
the basement of the bed and breakfast house owned by the mysterious and homicidal woman in
the story The Landlady. He was then asked to write an alternative ending to the story in the form
of a script that was later performed by his peers. Though not registering the same degree of
popularity, reading projects that incorporated peer interaction were also popular with each group.
The above trends were observed irrespective of grade level or gender of students.
Question two of the qualitative section of the survey asked participants to note their
personal reasons for becoming a better reader. Most students without IEPs noted that they
desired to develop better reading comprehension and/or fluency. For example, Suzy, a 6th grade
female wrote, Why I want to be a better reader because I want to pronounce the words right.
Also I want to be a better reader because I want to learn the hard words and what they mean. I
want to be a better reader because when I grow up I read a lot of books. Two equally popular
reasons emerged for students with IEPs -- a better future and better reading comprehension
and/or fluency. Many of these students desired to become better readers so that they could go

READING MOTIVATION 15
further their education and/or obtain a preferable job. When the responses of students with and
without IEPs were considered as a whole, better comprehension and/or fluency emerged as the
most popular reason for becoming a better reader. Other reasons given for becoming a better
reader were a desire to please others and a desire to avoid social stigma. The above trends were
observed irrespective of grade level or gender of students.
DISCUSSION
Reading instruction is an important aspect of K-12 curriculum, because research has
shown that reading ability is the foremost skill necessary for academic success. Further, the
ability to decode and comprehend text is crucial for attaining and maintaining employment in the
workplace. Although some degree of statistical regression was observed when the participant
group responses were analyzed as a whole (e.g. The mean score for each question was equal to
three or rounded to three.), when results from students with IEPs were analyzed separately, a
degree of variance was observed in the mean scores.
As the results of this study suggest, females without IEPs prefer Competitive Reading
and Timed Reading more than do females with IEPs. Further, males without IEPs tend to
prefer Competitive Reading more than do males with IEPs.
The results of the study also suggest that sixth graders (males and females) with IEPs
tend to prefer Pre-Teaching of Vocabulary more than do sixth graders (males and females)
without IEPs. The results also suggest that seventh graders (males and females) without IEPs
tend to prefer Aloud Partner Reading, Competitive Reading, and Timed Reading more than do
seventh graders (male and female) with IEPs.

Finally, the results suggest that eighth graders

(male and female) with IEPs tend to prefer Aloud Partner Reading more than do eighth graders
(male and female) without IEPs.

READING MOTIVATION 16
Comments from the participants indicate that the most enjoyable reading assignments/
projects are those that incorporate choice, artistic expression, and high interest topics. Though
not registering the same degree of popularity, reading projects that incorporated peer interaction
were also popular. Student responses also indicate that a both desire to gain better
comprehension and/or fluency skills and a desire for a better future are key motivators for
becoming a better reader. Other reasons given for becoming a better reader were a desire to
please others and a desire to avoid social stigma.
Limitations of the Study and Implications for Future Research
The participant group for this study was small (n=68), and random sampling techniques
were not utilized. In addition, a majority of the participants with IEPs came from the non-public
school. This poses a threat to the generalizability of the findings, as the students with IEPs
from inclusive settings are not well represented. Future research may involve random sampling
of students across multiple school districts to produce a larger participant group. This would
allow for a more representative sample of the target population. Further, the larger sample size
would allow for results from non-public schools to be compared to those from inclusive general
education settings. In addition, this may allow for analysis of groupings of participants with
IEPs according to specific disability designations therein noted.
It may also be helpful to demonstrate each reading instruction technique before
administering the survey, so that all participants would have a similar working understanding of
the strategies referred to in the items on the instrument. Along the same lines, item number one
of the Open Ended Questions section of the instrument could be structured differently and
explained more clearly, so that all participants understood it to refer to reading projects only. In
this study, a number of participants misunderstood the question to refer to any enjoyable

READING MOTIVATION 17
academic project.

READING MOTIVATION 18
REFERENCES
Bonfiglio, C., Daily, E., Persampieri, M. & Andersen, M. (2006) An Experimental Analysis of
the Effects of Reading Interventions in a Small Group Reading Instruction Context. Journal
of Behavioral Education, 15, 93109
Brinda, W. (2011) A "Ladder to Literacy" Engages Reluctant Readers. Middles School Journal.
43.2. 8-17
Guthrie, J. & Klauda, S. (2012) Making Textbook Reading Meaningful. Educational Leadership.
69. 64-68
Lee, V. (2011) Becoming the Reading Mentors Our Adolescents Deserve: Developing a
Successful Sustained Silent Reading Program. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 55.3
209-218
McLaughlin, M. (2012) Reading Comprehension What Every Teacher Needs to Know.
Reading Teacher. 65.7. 432-440
Melekolu, M. & Wilkerson, K. (2013) Motivation to Read: How Does It Change for Struggling
Readers with and without Disabilities? International Journal of Instruction. 6.1. 77-88
Nelson, J. & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006) The Impact of Explicit, Self-Regulatory reading
Comprehension Strategy Instruction on the Reading Specific Self-Efficacy, Attributions and
Affect of Students with Reading Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 29. 213-230
Richardson, Maurine, James Richardson, and Mary Kathleen Sacks. (2013) "Literacy Teachers
How The Physical Education Teachers/Coaches Can Help You Encourage Students To
Read." Reading Improvement 48.2 47-54.