PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY

Taft Ave, Manila

THE READING MOTIVATION AND ATTITUDE OF HIGH SCHOOL FRESHMEN

Renante Dingal

I. INTRODUCTION

The agonizing truth is that most readers learn to read

without ever gaining a desire to read or
understanding what is read (Routman, 1988, p.17).

This statement uttered more than two decades ago still reverberates with truth

when examined against the backdrop of our present predicament. Many parents and

teachers lament the fact that our children no longer have that desire to read which saw

their parents through most of their academic and professional life. Part of the blame

usually goes to the fact that nowadays a child’s time is now spent more on activities

other than reading. He would rather go to the malls, or play computer games, or watch

television.

ATTITUDE

According to Tunnell, Calder, Justen, and Phaup (1991), reading attitude is a

system of feelings related to reading which causes the learner to approach or avoid a

reading situation. Attitudes toward reading assume an important role in the reading

process. Teachers need to develop and maintain young children's positive reading

attitudes, especially during initial reading instruction. Preschool children's reading

experiences tend to shape their reading attitudes (Mason, 1967) and vice versa.

Ransbury (1973) found that children with positive reading attitudes were good readers,

whereas those children with negative reading attitudes were poor readers. In

1|Page
Brumbaugh's (1940) study, kindergarten children with negative attitudes toward reading

could pass reading readiness tests but were not able to read. Inappropriate reading

experiences or the mental stress of being pressured to read before they are ready can

produce lasting and negative reading attitudes in children.

No one can deny the importance of reading as a foundation for functioning in

school and as a member of society. Wang (2000) claims that children’s literacy

development determines their future successes in reading and writing. Given the critical

importance of reading in today’s society, a positive attitude toward reading must be

developed at a young age. Children’s understanding of the purposes for learning to read

and developing a positive attitude toward reading are fundamentals to their attitudes as

adults. There is no dispute among professionals regarding the fact that reading among

adolescents declines sharply as a child ages (Vacca & Alvermann, 1998).

In her research on reading attitudes in L1 and L2 and their influence on L2

extensive reading, Yamashita (2004) found ample support for the transfer of affective

domain of reading (attitudes) from L1 to L2. But L2 proficiency does not affect this

transfer in the way in which the linguistic threshold hypothesis would predict if this

hypothesis were applied to the affective domain.

Sperling & Head (2002) addressed the development of reading attitudes and

their relationship to reading skills. Forty-one prekindergarten and kindergarten learners

in 1 of 3 cohorts were assessed 2 or 4 times during the course of a year. Findings

indicated a slight decrease in reading attitudes during the kindergarten year. Expected

increases in skills were generally indicated with pronounced increases in sight word

2|Page
recognition during the kindergarten year, after other skills had been mastered.

Decreases in some skills were evident after summer recess.

Between 1993 and 1995 a longitudinal study of student reading attitudes was

conducted in 30 schools (20 elementary, 10 middle) using the Elementary Reading

Attitude Survey (ERAS). Study results include: in general, students’ attitudes were

favorable about reading; in both elementary and middle schools, females had more

positive attitudes toward reading, with recreational reading attitudes more positive than

academic/school reading attitudes; and schools varied tremendously in their pattern of

reading attitude scores. The variation between schools suggests that activities at the

school, teacher quality, and school environment probably affect those differences

(Fitzgibbons, 1997).

Almost everyone can probably recall having been told on more than one

occasion by a teacher, "I don't care if you like it or not; I know it will be good for you to

learn this and someday you'll thank me." There's no way to know, of course. But one

might wonder how often the appreciation has been expressed. In any case, the idea

that learning in school need be painful is at best anachronistic and at worst damaging to

the future learning experiences of students. The affective feeling rather than the

cognitive product of learning will more often than not determine those experiences

(Estes, 1975).

Young children must know that reading provides an opportunity to gain

information and enjoyment. The attitudes young children develop [sic] during these early

years will have lasting effects on their later reading. They may learn to read but may

reject any reading experiences. Thus, while young children must learn to interpret the

3|Page
written language, they must also develop a desire to read and appreciate what they

read (Saracho, 1985). Understanding the role of attitudes in developing readers is

important for two principal reasons. First, attitudes may affect the level of ability

ultimately attained by a given student through its influence on such factors as

engagement and practice. Second, even for the fluent reader, poor attitude may

occasion a choice not to read when other options exist, a condition now generally

known as aliteracy (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995).

MOTIVATION

According to Guthrie and Wigfield (1997), motivation is defined in terms of

“beliefs, values, needs and goals that individuals have.” Thus, the closer that literacy

activities and tasks match these values, needs, and goals, the greater the likelihood that

students will expend effort and sustain interest in them. When some students judge

reading and literacy activities to be unrewarding, too difficult, or not worth the effort

because they are peripheral to their interests and needs, they can become nonreaders

(Strommen & Mates, 2004) or aliterate adolescents (Alvermann, 2003) who are capable

of reading but choose not to do so. Achievement motivation has long been an important

area in educational research. While students with positive learning motivation are found

to have positive cognitive, social, and psychological development, most previous

studies in Western countries have reported a decline in students' motivation as they

progress through higher grades.

Research suggests that students’ motivation can affect their performance in

different achievement areas, including reading. Ample and unimpeachable evidence

exists which proves that students who are highly motivated were more persistent in their

4|Page
school work and chose challenging tasks compared to their counterparts who are less

motivated. It is not surprising to learn therefore that some schools have adopted some

programs specifically aimed at positively influencing their students’ motivation for

reading. At the Angeles University Foundation-Integrated Schools, a particular program

called DEAR (for Drop Everything and Read) is designed to foster love of reading

among their students.

Mucherah and Yoder (2008) found out that students who had high self-efficacy in

their reading, read challenging material, and read for aesthetic enjoyment did better on

the standardized test called ISTEP+ test in reading. Moreover, they also found that

students who read mostly for social reasons did poorly on the ISTEP+ test.

In her research on grade differences in reading motivation among Hong Kong

primary and secondary students, Lau (2009) found out that as far as the scores on the

four reading motivation constructs were concerned, students scored most highly on

intrinsic motivation, followed by self-efficacy, extrinsic motivation, and social motivation.

Significant grade differences were found in all reading motivation constructs whereas

only a few grade by gender and grade by school-average interactions were found.

In this study the researcher attempted to measure the students’ attitude toward

reading and their motivation for reading and looking at the relationship students’ reading

attitude has with their motivation for reading.

5|Page
II. METHODOLOGY

RESPONDENTS

The respondents of this study were 39 freshmen students (age ranged from 11 to

14) of Angeles University Foundation – Integrated Schools representing one whole

class. Below is the summary in table form of the respondents:

TABLE 1. Distribution of the Respondents as to Sex

Sex Freq Percentage

Male 12 30.77
Female 27 69.23
Total 39 100.00

TABLE 2. Distribution of the Respondents as to Age

Age Freq Percentage

11 2 2.56
12 17 43.59
13 19 48.73
14 1 2.59
Total 39 100.00

INSTRUMENTS

To measure the respondents’ attitude toward reading, the researcher made use

of a survey questionnaire designed by McKenna and Kear (1990). It was developed

based on the view that attitudes are mainly affective and that attitudes and beliefs

are causally related. McKenna and Kear's instrument (The Elementary Reading Attitude

Survey, ERAS) was designed to measure the affective aspects of children's reading

6|Page
attitudes in two dimensions: their attitudes towards recreational reading and their

attitudes towards school-based academic reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990). Admitting

that the ERAS is not a perfect tool for measuring reading attitude, the authors noted that

the survey can provide quantitative estimates of two important aspects of children’s

attitude toward reading. Like global measures of achievement, however, they can do

little in themselves to identify the causes of poor attitude or to suggest instructional

techniques likely to improve it. On the other hand, the instrument can be used to (a)

make possible initial conjecture about the attitudes of specific students, (b) provide a

convenient group profile of a class (or a larger unit), or (c) serves as a means of

monitoring the attitudinal impact of instructional programs.

For the purpose of the study, the researcher considered the respondents’ attitude

toward recreational reading, or the first ten items of ERAS only. Academic reading

would not have made sense correlating it with reading motivation as this kind of reading

is usually imposed on the students and therefore, not entirely voluntary. Recreational

reading, on the other hand, is more likely voluntary, making it ideal as a variable for the

study. But just the same, their score in the academic reading were determined. (See

table 3).

To measure the respondents’ motivation for reading, the researcher used the

Motivation for Reading Questionnaire, a 53-item survey developed by Wigfield and

Guthrie (1995) at the University of Maryland to assess 11 different aspects of students’

motivation for reading. The MRQ items are rated along a 4-step Likert continuum (e.g.,

1 = very different from me to 4 = a lot like me). The 11 aspects are: Reading Efficacy is

belief that one can be successful at reading. Reading Challenge is the willingness to

7|Page
take on difficult reading material. Reading Work Avoidance is the desire to avoid

reading activity. Reading Curiosity is the desire to read topics of interest. Reading

Involvement is the enjoyment received from reading. Importance of Reading is the value

placed on reading. Reading for Recognition is the pleasure of receiving a tangible form

of recognition for success in reading. Reading for Grades is the desire for positive

school evaluations by teacher. Competition in Reading is the desire to outperform

others in reading. Social Reasons for Reading is the sharing meaning gained from

reading with others. Compliance is reading to meet others’ expectations (Watkins &

Coffey, 2004).

After scoring the value of the respondents’ attitude toward reading, the

researcher determined the correlation of recreational reading and all the 11 aspects of

Guthrie and Wigfield’s motivation for reading.

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

As a correlation study, the researcher used the Pearson product-moment or

Pearson r correlation. The scores were tallied and computed to come up with the values

for p, r, and t to show the relationship between the variables and the strength of this

relationship was determined using the following descriptive interpretation:

0.00 – 0.20 - Slight relationship

0.21 – 0.40 - Low relationship

0.41 – 0.60 - Moderate relationship

0.61 – 0.80 - High relationship

0.81 – 1.00 - Very high relationship

8|Page
 The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and

purposes. A correlation of 0.9 may be very low if one is verifying a physical law using

high-quality instruments, but may be regarded as very high in the social sciences where

there may be a greater contribution from complicating factors.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Below are the scores of the respondents in the two instruments administered by

the researcher:

TABLE 3. Respondents score in the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey

Code Rec Acad RST

9|Page
 1 18 21 39
2 15 20 35
3 29 32 61
4 21 36 57
5 28 30 58
6 26 31 57
7 30 33 63
8 31 31 62
9 29 35 64
10 31 32 63
11 13 18 31
12 36 28 64
13 32 29 61
14 32 31 63
15 35 36 71
16 34 34 68
17 27 24 51
18 29 29 58
19 27 30 57
20 31 30 61
21 32 29 61
22 28 29 57
23 28 35 63
24 31 32 63
25 33 27 60
26 27 27 54
27 24 26 50
28 27 28 55
29 31 32 63
30 34 33 67
31 32 37 69
32 33 32 65
33 32 30 62
34 33 34 67
35 29 28 57
36 30 31 61
37 20 26 46
38 30 24 54
10 | P a g e
39 27 29 56
TOTAL 1115 1159 2274
Mean score 27.875 28.975 56.85
 Note: Names of the respondents were substituted for a code for
confidentiality.
Legend: Rec stands for Recreational,
Acad stands for Academic
RST stands for Raw Score Total

TABLE 4. Respondents’ Score in the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire

11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
Code A B C D E F G H I J K Total
1 4 11 15 16 6 6 10 7 6 14 14 109
2 4 8 12 9 3 5 9 6 7 11 9 83
3 9 14 17 19 5 9 16 14 10 12 13 138
4 7 16 20 17 5 8 10 7 10 11 13 124
5 10 17 20 18 6 10 15 16 11 18 16 157
6 6 17 16 22 4 7 20 14 12 22 14 154
7 12 18 23 13 8 9 20 18 16 17 13 167
8 9 18 19 21 8 6 16 15 13 18 14 157
9 9 17 22 19 5 7 16 13 12 15 17 152
10 8 16 18 21 7 10 16 13 12 18 17 156
11 10 12 13 14 7 13 14 13 9 13 8 126
12 8 17 22 22 8 9 18 16 13 15 18 166
13 11 14 19 23 6 9 17 17 12 17 19 164
14 8 17 19 19 8 9 17 16 15 16 15 159
15 10 19 21 23 8 5 22 19 14 21 16 178
16 10 10 12 16 7 5 15 15 14 19 12 135
17 9 13 9 10 7 8 13 9 10 8 14 110
18 7 18 18 20 3 12 10 9 7 15 13 132
19 10 18 23 23 6 12 21 18 12 23 18 184
20 8 16 17 19 8 6 13 12 7 16 16 138
21 8 16 21 19 5 7 18 14 13 19 16 156
22 10 14 19 21 4 9 10 12 10 15 14 138
23 10 17 21 21 8 10 19 16 11 17 15 165
24 8 13 16 14 6 7 14 12 11 15 12 128
25 8 17 17 21 5 9 15 14 8 14 11 139
26 7 12 20 20 6 13 12 7 10 17 6 130
27 7 12 13 11 8 9 12 12 8 11 14 117
28 6 12 18 17 8 6 12 12 12 16 14 133
29 6 12 16 15 6 11 13 12 9 18 11 129
30 9 16 17 14 6 8 15 13 11 20 13 142
31 10 17 21 20 7 4 9 14 7 17 14 140
32 10 18 22 22 8 5 13 17 13 24 17 169
33 9 18 23 19 8 6 19 19 15 22 17 175
34 8 16 19 23 7 8 19 16 14 22 18 170
35 8 19 20 19 3 6 9 12 11 16 13 136
36 8 18 19 20 7 8 17 12 13 11 11 144
37 8 11 15 14 5 16 11 7 6 13 9 115
38 11 18 17 22 4 10 19 14 14 15 16 13 | P160
age
39 9 15 23 20 6 7 12 14 10 18 13 147
TOT 71 71 24 32 51
AL 329 597 2 6 2 4 576 6 428 639 543 5622
Mea 8.22 14.9 17. 17. 6.0 12. 15.9
n 5 3 8 9 5 8.1 14.4 9 10.7 8 13.58 140.6
 Note: Names of the respondents were substituted for a code for
confidentiality.
Legend:
A - Reading Efficacy
B - Reading Challenge
C - Reading Curiosity
D - Reading Involvement
E - Importance of Reading
F - Reading Work Avoidance
G - Competition in Reading
H - Recognition for Reading
I - Reading for Grades
J - Social Reasons for Reading
K - Compliance

TABLE 5. Correlates of the Respondents’ Recreational Reading and Motivation

For Reading

ASPECTS p t r

Reading Efficacy 0.0085 2.78

0.416

Reading Challenge 0.000199

0.5619

Reading Curiosity 0.005204 2.97

0.4394

Reading Involvement 0.000622 3.74

0.5233

Importance of Reading 0.056 1.98

0.308

Reading Work Avoidance 0.07 -1.84

-0.3000

Competition in Reading 0.003 3.13 0.4572

Recognition for Reading 0.001 4.92 0.6300

Reading for Grades 0.002 4.10 0.5600

14 | P a g e
Social Reasons for Reading 0.001 3.48 0.5000

Compliance 0.007 3.68

0.5179

α = 0.05

As explained on page 8, the statistics used for the data was the Pearson r

correlation. Of the variables presented above, of significance is the relationship between

the respondents’ recreational reading and reading for recognition, with an r value of

0.63 which means there is a high positive relationship. Therefore, we can assume

based on this value that the higher the respondents’ inclination toward recreational

reading, the higher their pleasure of receiving a tangible form of recognition for success

in reading becomes.

Other variables that show significant relationship are the respondents’

recreational reading and their willingness to take on difficult reading materials. The more

the respondents are inclined to read for recreation, the more they are willing to be given

difficult materials to read. On the same level, the respondents’ inclination toward

recreational reading is positively related to their desire for positive school evaluations by

their teacher.

Also worth noting is the negative r value between the respondents’ recreational

reading and their reading for work avoidance at -0.3000. Although the figure suggests a

low relationship, its being negative is taken to mean the higher the respondents’

inclination toward recreational reading, the lower is their inclination toward avoiding

reading activities.

15 | P a g e
 Ironically, the respondents’ view of the importance of reading does not

significantly affect their inclination toward recreational reading, as shown by the

computed r value of only 0.308. The value that the respondents place on reading does

not greatly affect their recreational reading.

The rest of the aspects have only low to moderate relationship with the

respondents’ predisposition toward recreational reading.

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The study was conducted using the freshmen students of Angeles University

Foundation – Integrated Schools. It attempted to determine the relationship between the

respondents’ attitude toward reading and their motivation for reading using ERAS and

MRQ, respectively. For the purpose of the study, the researcher disregarded the

respondents’ second half of the ERAS which is concerned with academic reading and

focused only on its first half which concerns recreational reading. A total of 39

respondents (12 boys and 27 girls) aged 11-14 years old were surveyed.

With the data at hand, the Pearson product-moment correlation was used to

determine the relationship and a descriptive interpretation of the values computed to

determine the strength of the relationship between the variables.

The study revealed that:

• there is a strong relationship existing between the respondents’ recreational

reading and their desire to earn praises from their teachers;

16 | P a g e
 • there is a moderately strong relationship existing between the respondents’

recreational reading and their willingness to be given difficult reading

materials;

• there is a moderately strong relationship existing between the respondents’

recreational reading and their desire to get good grades in school.

V. IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING

It is imperative that teachers become aware what motivates their students to read

and how their students feel toward reading. When children have a positive attitude

toward reading, it helps them greatly in their literacy development. Children's experience

in reading, children's confidence in reading, parents' attitudes toward reading, and

teachers' ways of teaching contribute to children's attitudes toward reading. A large

amount of access to books is important in children's literacy improvement, but without

the support, guidance, and encouragement of teachers and parents, children may not

acquire a positive attitude toward reading and may get very little from the books that

they read. Through the support, guidance, and encouragement of teachers and parents,

children can experience success and enjoy reading, and children can build their

confidence in reading. By using portfolios as means of evaluation, children and teachers

can be liberated from the tedious and laborious standardized tests. Children and

teachers can concentrate on the development of children's literacy, and children may

increase their motivation in reading and form a positive attitude toward reading. Children

may relate reading to their lives and get many valuable things from it, from which

17 | P a g e
children will be motivated and may form the habit of reading. Children can succeed in

reading in the future after they acquire a positive attitude toward reading.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alvermann, D.E.(2003). Seeing themselves as capable and engaged readers:

Adolescents and re/mediated instruction. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/literacy/readers.pdf

Brumbaugh, F. (1940). Reading expectancy. Elementary English Review, 17, 153-155.

Estes, T. (1975 March). Attitude toward reading: Alternatives in assessment. A

paper presented at the Annual Reading Conference at Lehigh University,
Pennsylvania, USA.

Fitzgibbons, S. (1997 July). Attitudes of youth toward reading before and after
a motivational project. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of
International Association of School Librarianship held in conjunction with the
Association of Teacher-Librarianship n Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada.

Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading engagement: A rationale for theory
and teaching. In J.T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement:
Motivating readers through integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Lau, K. (2009). Grade differences in reading motivation of Hong Kong primary and
secondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 713-733.
doi: 10.1348/000709909X460042

18 | P a g e
McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for
teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43, 626-639.

McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children’s attitudes

toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 934.

Mason, G. E. (1967). Preschoolers' concepts of reading. The Reading Teacher, 21,

(2), 130- 132.

Mucherah, W. & Yoder, A. (2008). Motivation in reading and middle school students’
performance on standardized testing in reading. Reading Psychology, 29,
214-235. doi: 10.1080/02702710801982159

Ransbury, M. K. (1973). An assessment of reading attitudes. Journal of Reading,

17, 25-28.

Routman, R. (1988). Transitions from literature to literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Tunnell, M., Calder, J., Justen III. J, & Phaup, E. (1991). Attitudes of young readers.
Reading Improvement, 28(4), 237-243.

Saracho, O. N. (1985). Young children's attitudes toward reading. Educational

Research Quarterly, 9(4), 19-27.

Sperling, R. & Head, D. (2004). Reading Attitudes and Literacy Skills in

Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Children. Early Childhood Education Journal,
29(4), 233-236.
Strommen, L.T., & Mates, B.F. (2004). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older
children and teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 188–200.

Wang, Y. (2000). Children’s attitude toward reading and their literacy development.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(2), 120-125.

Watkins. M. W. & Coffey, D. Y. (2004). Reading motivation: Multidimensional and

indeterminate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 110-118. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.110

Wigfield, A. & Guthrie, J. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the
amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,89(3),
420-432.

Vacca, R. & Alvermann, D. (1998, October). The crisis in adolescent literacy: Is it real
or imagined? In National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,
4-9.

19 | P a g e
Yamashita, J. (2004). Reading attitudes in L1 and L2, and their influence on
L2 extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 16(1).

20 | P a g e