DOCUMENT RESUME CS 012 174 AUTHOR Wigfield, Allan; Guthrie ... · ED 384 010 CS 012 174 AUTHOR Wigfield, Allan; Guthrie, John T. ... Agnes Scott. Steve White. ... Dtvelopment at the

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 384 010 CS 012 174

AUTHOR Wigfield, Allan; Guthrie, John T.TITLE Dimensions of Children's Motivations for Reading: An

Initial Study. Reading Research Report No. 34.INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;

National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 95

CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 34p.

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Evaluation Methods; Factor Analysis; Intermediate

Grades; *Questionnaires; Reading Research; *StudentMotivation

IDENTIFIERS Maryland; *Reading Motivation

ABSTRACTA study examined the dimensions of children's

motivation for reading. Eleven different dimensions of readingmotivations were proposed, including intrinsic and extrinsicmotivations for reading, perceptions of reading efficacy, socialaspects of reading, and reading disincentives. Aa 82-itemquestionnaire was developed to measure each dimension, with severalitems assessing each dimension. The questionnaire was completed by105 fourth- and fifth-grade children in southern Maryland. Factoranalyses showed that some of the proposed dimensions were clearlydefined, whereas others were not. Several of the dimensions werecorrelated with children's book reading frequency in a school-basedreading program. The dimensions that appear to be the most reliableinclude Reading Efficacy, Reading Challenge, Curiosity, AestheticEnjoyment, Recognition, Social, and Competition. A revised version ofthe questionnaire based on the statistical analyses was developed.(Contains 48 references and five tables of data. The original versionof the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire is attached.)(Author/RS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

Dimensions of Children's Motivations forReading: An Initial Study

Allan WigfieldJohn T. GuthrieUniversity of Marjlancl College Park

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC(

67T This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organ iatonongrnating

Mmor changes have been made timprove reprodurtum ctuakty

Pomts ut sew of uprnrons slated rn thisdocument do not necessarily representofttcraf OERI proton or privy

NationalReading ResearchCtnterREADING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 34

Spring 1995

)ti

BEST COPY AVAILABLEwmsiMilMMI.i

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Dimensions of Children's Motivations for Reading:An Initial Study

Allan WigfieldJohn T. Guthrie

University of Maryland College Park

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 34

Spring 1995

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgiaand University of Maryland. It was supported urger the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings andopinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the NationalReading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DircztorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen. Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Nancy B. Mizelle. Acting Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Interim As-ociate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty ShockleyClarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff, EditorUnivetsity of Georgia

James V. Hoffman, Associate EditorUniversity of Texas at Austin

Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate EditorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

VideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerKathy B. Davis, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment

Marsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public InstructionCarl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Walter KintschUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Robert L. LinnUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. RichUniversity of Georgia

Text FormatterAnn Marie VanstoneUniversity of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3(74 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: NRRC©uga.cc.uga.edv

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, 'Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: [email protected]

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Universi-ty of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder-garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards firalternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as rdil partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of Low teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRC activi-ties. Information on NRRC research appears in severalformats. Research Reports communicate the results oforiginal research or synthesize the findings of severallines of inquiry. They are written primarily for researchers studying various areas of reading and readinginstruction. The Perspective Series presents a widerange of publications, from calls for research and

commentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Patricia AdkinsUniversity of Georgia

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Tom AndersonUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary SchoolFalls Church, Virginia

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Cynthia BowenBaltimore County Public SchoolsTowson, Maryland

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public SchoolsRockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City SchoolsShaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of EducationHartford, Connecticut

Karin DahlOhio State University

Lynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Pamela DunstonClemson University

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda GambrellUniversity of Maryland College Park

Valerie GarfieldChattahoochee Elementary SchoolCumming, Georgia

Sherrie Gibney-ShermanAthens-Clarke County SchoolsAthens, Georgia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Jane HaughCenter for Developing Learning

PotentialsSilver Spring, Maryland

Beth Ann HerrmannNorthern Arizona University

Kathleen HeubachUniversity of Georgia

Susan HillUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

f;

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Karen JohnsonPennsylvania State University

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Sandra KimbrellWest Hall Middle SchoolOakwood, Georgia

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public SchoolsLawrenceville, Georgia

Sophie KowzunPrince George's County SchoolsLandover, Maryland

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Rosary LalikVirginia Polytechnic Instinue

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Donna MealeyLouisiana State University

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

Akintunde MorakinyoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayUniversity of Georgia

Susau NeumanTemple University

Caroline NoyesUniversity of Georgia

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Joan PagnuccoUniversity of Georgia

Barbara PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Jessie PollackMaryland Department of EducationBaltimore, Maryland

Sally PorterBlair High SchoolSilver Spring, Maryland

Michael PressleyState University of New York

at Albany

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State University-Sacramento

Rebecca SammonsUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Anne SweetOffic., of Educational Research

and Improvement

Liqing TaoUniversity of Georgia

Ruby ThompsonClark Atlanta University

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Sandy TumarkinStrawberry Knolls Elementary SchoolGaithersburg, Maryland

Sheila ValenciaUniversity of Washington

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Chris WaltonNorthern Territory UniversityAustralia

Janet WatkinsUniversity of Georgia

Louise WaynantPrince George's County SchoolsUpper Marlboro, Maryland

Priscilla WaynantRolling Terrace Elementary SchoolTakoma Park, Maryland

Dera WeaverAthens AcademyAthens, Georgia

Jane WestAgnes Scott

Steve WhiteUniversity of Georgia

Allen WigfieldUniversity of Maryland Coilege Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

About the Authors

Allan Wigfield is Associate Professor of HumanDtvelopment at the University of Maryland Col-lege Park and a principal investigator with theNational Reading Research Center. He received hisdoctorate in educational psychology from theUniversity of Illinois. His research focuses on thedevelopment of children's and adolescents' achieve-ment motivation, and how their motivation relatesto their achievement behavior. He can be contactedat: 3242 Benjamin, University of Maryland, Col-lege Park, MD 20742. Phone: 301/405-2809.

John T. Guthrie is Co-Director of the NationalReading Research Center and Professor of HumanDevelopment at the University of Maryland Col-lege Park. He was formerly Research Director forthe International Reading Association. He may becontacted at: National Reading Research Center,3216 J. M. Patterson Building, University ofMaryland, College Park, MD 20742. Phone:301/405-8036.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 34Spring 1995

Dimensions of Children's Motivations for Reading:An Initial Study

Allan WigfieldJohn T. Guthrie

University of Maryland

Abstract. We discuss the development of a ques-tionnaire measure of motivations for reading. Elevendifferent dimensions of reading motivations wereproposed, including intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-tions for reading, perceptions of reading efficacy,social aspects of reading, and reading disincentives.An 82 item questionnaire was developed to measureeach dimension, with several items assessing eachdimension. This questionnaire was completed by 105fourth- and fifth-grade children. Factor analysesshowed that some of the proposed dimensions wereclearly defined, whereas others were not. Several ofthe dimensions were correlated with children's bookreading frequency in a school-based reading pro-gram. Based on the statistical analyses, a revisedversion of the original questionnaire is presented.

The engagement perspective that providesthe theoretical basis for much of the ongoingresearch at the National Reading ResearchCenter at the Universities of Georgia andMaryland includes motivation for reading as acrucial part of reading engagement. Research-ers at the NRRC are developing frameworksfor understanding children's motivation forreading (see Oldfather & Wigfield, in press,

1

for more detailed discussion). One basic ques-tion regarding children's reading motivationsconcerns identification of the different dimen-sions of motivations for reading. The studydescribed in this paper begins to answer thisbasic question. The development of a question-naire (called the Motivations for ReadingQuestionnaire) to assess children's motivationsfor reading is described, and some of ourinitial findings from the first administration ofthe questionnaire are presented.

In developing the Motivations for Read-ing Questionnaire, we (Guthrie, McGough, andWigfield, 1992) utilized work from both thegeneral motivation literature and extant workon literacy motivations. Motivational research-ers have proposed and investigated what theyconsider to be the most important motivationalconstructs that mediate achievement behavior.Yet most of their work has been on motivationin general rather than motivation for specificareas such as reading. Literacy researchershave looked at what engages children andadults in reading, but often only consider someof the constructs defined by motivation theo-

9

2 Allan Wigfield & John T. Guthrie

rists in their discussions of reading engage-ment. To bridge this gap, we drew from boththese areas of work in developing the question-naire. We begin this research report with abrief review of some of the constructs thatresearchers who study motivation believemediate individuals' achievement behaviors.These constructs include ability and efficacybeliefs, subjective task values, achievementgoals, and intrinsic motivation. This list is notmeant to be exhaustive, but it does includemany constructs that are central in differenttheoretical models of achievement motivation.

Ability and Efficacy Beliefs

Many researchers interested in motivation(e.g., Bandura, 1977; Eccles et al., 1983;Nicholls, 1984, 1990; Wigfield, 1994) focus onstudents' beliefs about their efficacy and abilityto perform achievement tasks as crucial moti-vational mediators of achievement behavior.In discussing these beliefs, Eccles and Wig-field (1985) stated that they reflect the ques-tion "Can I succeed on this task?". Abilitybeliefs are children's evaluations of their com-petence in different areas. Researchers havedocumented that children's and adolescents'ability beliefs relate to and predict theirachievement performance in different achieve-ment domains like math and reading. (e.g.,Eccles et al., 1983; Meece, Wigfield, & Ecc-les, 1990;' Nicholls, 1979a). A construct relatedto individuals' ability beliefs is their expectan-cies for success. Expectancies refer to child-ren's sense of how well they will do on anupcoming task, instead of their general beliefof how good they are at the task (see Stipek,

1984). These beliefs also predict children'sperformance on different tasks.

Bandura's (1977; see also Schunk, 1991b)construct of self-efficacy also deals with indi-viduals' expectancies about being able to dotasks; however, Bandura defined self-efficacyas a generative capacity where different sub-skills are organized into courses of action.Bandura (1977) proposed that individuals'efficacy expectations for different achievementtasks are a major determinant of activitychoice, willingness to expend effort, and per-sistence. In work with school-aged children,Schunk and his colleagues (see Schunk, 1991b,for a review) have clearly demonstrated thatstudents' sense of efficacy relates to theiracademic performance (see also Zimmerman,Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). They alsohave shown that training students both to bemore efficacious and to believe they are moreefficacious improves children's achievement indifferent subject areas such as math and read-ing. An important implication of the work onability and efficacy beliefs for motivation forreading is that when children believe they arecompetent and efficacious at reading, theyshould be more likely to engage in reading.

Subjective Task Values

Subjective task values refer broadly todifferent incentives individuals have for doingachievement tasks. Eccles and Wigfield (1985)stated that the question "Do I want to succeedon this task?" is a question concerned with thevalue of a task. Answering the question "Do Iwant to succeed?" affirmatively is critical tomotivation. Even if individuals believe they are

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 34

10

Reading Motivations 3

competent and efficacious at an activity andknow what to do to succeed, they may notengage in it if they have no incentive for doing

so. Thus, subjective task values refer to differ-ent purposes children have for engaging intasks.

Motivation researchers are assessingchildren's subjective task values for differentactivities, along with children's ability andefficacy beliefs. Eccles, Wigfield, and theircolleagues have done much of the recent workon the nature of children's and adolescents'subjective task values and on how these valuesrelate to their performance and choice of differ-ent activities. They also defined differentcomponents of subjective task values, includinginterest value, defined as how much the indi-vidual likes the activity; attainment value,defined as the importance of the activity; andutility value, or the usefulness of an activity(see Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield, 1994; Wig-field & Eccles, 1992, for reviews of this workand further discussion of the different compo-nents of subjective task values). A major find-ing from this work is that students' abilitybeliefs and expectancies for success predicttheir performance in mathematics and English,whereas their subjective task values predictboth intentions and actual decisions to keeptaking mathematics and English (Eccles et al.1983; Eccles Adler, & Meece, 1984; Meece etal., 1990). For example, Meece et al. (1990)found that seventh- through ninth-graders'ability beliefs positively predicted students'expectancies for success and the value attachedto math one year later, and negatively predictedmath anxiety. The Year 2 math value ratingspredicted the students' intentions to continue

taking math more strongly than did their ex-pectancies for success in math. Students'expectancies for success predicted end of thatyear math performance more strongly than didthe students' valuing of math. These findingssuggest that students' valuing of reading maybe one of the more important predictors oftheir engagement in reading activities.

In related work, Pintrich and De Groot(1990) looked at how students' valuing ofachievement related to their cognitive strategyuse. They found that seventh-grade students'perceived self-efficacy and valuing of scienceand English learning related positively to theirreported use of cognitive strategies and self-regulation in those two subject areas. LikeMeece et al. (1990), they also found that stu-dents' expectancies related more strongly toperformance than did their subjective taskvalues. However, in their regression analysespredicting different measures of performancefrom the motivational variables, strategy use,and perceived self-regulation, they found thatthe cognitive strategy and self-regulation scalesdirectly predicted performance, whereas effica-cy beliefs and values did not. Pintrich and

De Groot suggested that the effects of self-efficacy and values on performance weremediated through the other measures. Theyargued that students' self-efficacy may facili-tate their cognitive engagement and theirsubjective task values relate to their choicesabout whether to become engaged, but theiruse of cognitive strategies and self-regulationrelate more directly to performance. Theseresults show how r Itivation and cognition canwork together to facilitate (or impede) perform-ance on different school subjects (see Pintrich


1 i


and Schrauben, 1992, for a theoretical modeldescribing relations between motivation andcognition). In terms of reading, these findingssuggest that students who behzve they areefficacious at reading and value it as an activityare students who use more elaborate cognitivestrategies as they read, and thus read better.

Achievement Goals

Currently, motivation researchers are alsoquite interested in children's achievementgoals, which is another construct referring tothe purposes children have for achievement(e.g., Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Nicholls, 1979b; Nicholls, Cheung, Lauer, &Patashnick, 1989). In discussing specific goalsfor achieving success, Nicholls and his col-leagues (e.g., Nicholls, 1979b; Nicholls et al.,1989) defined two major kinds of goal orienta-tions that children can have: ego-inviqved goalsand task-involved goals. Individuals who adoptego-involved goals seek to maximize favorableevaluations of their competence and minimizenegative evaluations of competence. Questionslike "Will I look smart?" and "Can I outper-form others?" reflect ego-involved goals. Incontrast, with task-involved goals, individualsfocus on mastering tasks and increasing compe-tence at different tasks. Questions such as"How can I do this task?" and "What will Ilearn?" reflect task-involved goals. In Dweckand Leggett's (1988) complementary analysis,ego-involved goals were called performancegoals, and task-involved goals learning goals.Ames (1992), another researcher examiningchildren's goals, uses the terms performanceand mastery goals to describe these two goal

patterns. These researchers have discussed howthese kinds of goals influence individuals'performance in achievement settings andchoice of different tasks. With ego-involvedgoals, children try to outperform others, andare more likely to do tacks they know they cando. Task-involved children choose challengingtasks and are more concerned with their ownprogress than with outperforming others. Theseresearchers argue further that children whohave task (or mastery) goals will be morelikely to maintain positive motivation inschool. An important implication of this workfor reading instruction is that mastery/learninggoals should be emphasized in reading instruc-tion.

Researchers also have studied morespecific goals for achievement. Schunk (1991a)argued that goal specificity, challenge, andproximity are important determinants of en-gagement in achievement tasks. When individ-uals have clear, specific goals they often per-form better. Goals that are challenging at theappropriate level and that can be achieved in arelatively short period of time are more likelyto be pursued than are goals that are not chal-lenging, or that are too long-term. Schunk(1991a) reviewed findings showing that teach-ing children to set specific, proximal goals canincrease their interest in doing certain academictasks. These findings have clear implicationsfor reading instruction and suggest t'.,at specif-ic. proximal, challenging goals w;11 facilitatechildren's performance as they le tc., read.Much of Schunk's work has been w th childrendoing relatively poorly m scheoi, and hispoints about these kinds of goals may be mostapplicable to low achievers.


1 ti


Finally, another approach to the study ofmotivational goals is Wentzel's (1989) multiplegoals perspective. Wentzel proposed that thereare a variety of different goals students have in

achievement setting, including various academ-ic 6t,als like learning a task or just completingit, and social goals such as being with friends.Wentzel looked at how high- and low-achiev-ers' achievement goals differed and found thathigh achievers had strong social and academicgoals in school, whereas low achievers focusedmore on social goals. In terms of reading, thiswork suggests that children could have a vari-ety of goals for reading that either could pro-mote or deflate their engagement in reading.

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation refers to being moti-vated and curious to be engaged in an activityfor its own sake, rather than for "extrinsic"reasons (see Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harter,1981). One aspect of intrinsic motivation istotal involvement in the activity one is doing.Many readers have experienced what Csiks-zentmihalyi (1978) describes as the "flowexperience," losing track of time and self-awareness when becoming completely involvedin an activity such as reading a book. Maehr's(1976) concept of continuing motivation isanother important aspect of intrinsic motiva-tion. He defined continuing motivation asindividuals' engagement in a learned activityoutside of the context in which it was learned.He argued that schools focus too much onlearning in school and not enough on promot-ing children's continuing motivation to learnoutside of the school setting.

Building on this work, Oldfather (1992)presented a social constructivist conception ofintrinsic motivation identified as the Continu-ing Impulse to Learn (CIL). CIL is defined asan ongoing engagement in learning that ismotivated by the learner's thoughts and feel-ings that emerge from the learner's processesof constructing meaning. It is characterized byintense involvement, curiosity, and a search for

understanding, as the learner experienceslearning as a deeply personal and continuingagenda (Oldfather, 1992). An important impli-cation of these theorists' work for reading isthat readers' engagement in reading will begreatly facilitated when they are intrinsicallymotivated to read and find personal meaning inthe reading that they do.

In sum, motivation researchers andtheorists have defined and studied severaldifferent motivational constructs, includingbeliefs about competence and ability, self-effi-cacy, valuing of achievement tasks, goals forachievement, and intrinsic motivation to learn.Theorists propose that these constructs mediateindividuals.' choice of different tasks, participa-tion in those tasks, and persistence at them.Furthermore, these researchers propose thatwhen individuals have positive ability beliefsabout an activity and think they can do theactivity efficaciously, value the activity forintrinsic reasons, and have mastery achieve-ment goals, they should do better at the activityand choose to do it more frequently. However,most of these researchers have not looked

specifically at whether these predictions applyto individuals' engagement in reading. One

purpose of the present study was to begin totest these proposed links in the reading area.


_1 9

6 Allan Wig field & John T. Guthrie

Attitudes About Reading and Motivation forReading

In the reading literature, some researchershave discussed affective and motivationalfactors that can influence reading engagement.These researchers looked primarily at twoconstructs. Some researchers assessed child-ren's attitudes toward reading, which aredefined generally as individuals' feelings aboutreading (see Alexander & Filler, 1976). Alex-ander and Filler stated that these feelings aboutreading should influence how much individualsinvolve themselves in reading; thus, attitudesabout reading should relate to individuals'motivation for reading (see Matthewson, 1985;McKenna, in press; and Ruddell & Speaker,1985, for more specific models of how individ-uals' attitudes toward reading influence theirreading engagement). Although Matthewson(1985) stated that individuals' attitudes towardreading will differ across subject areas, scalesdesigned to assess individuals' attitudes towardreading have remained rather general (e.g.,McKenna & Kear, 1990). These scales toassess reading attitudes have not included itemsassessing the different motivational constructsdiscussed in the previous section.

Of the motivational constructs discussedin the previous section, the one receiving themost attention from reading researchers ischildren's interest in reading. Asher, Hymeland Wigfield (1978) and Asher and Markell(1974) found that elementary school childrenbetter comprehended high-interest than low-interest material. Researchers building on thiswork have looked more specifically at how in-terest affects comprehension. Schiefele (1991)assessed how college students' interest in text

materials influenced their comprehension whenthe students' prior knowledge of the materialsand general intelligence were controlled.Schiefele found that college students who wereinterested in the text materials used in the studyprocessed those materials more deeply andused more elaborate teaming strategies whilereading than did students less interested in thematerials.

Shirey and his colleagues also examinedhow individuals' interest in reading materialsaffects their comprehension and task attention(see Shirey, 1992, for a review). Like Asherand Markell (1974) and Asher et al. (1978),they found that children recalled more frominteresting sentences (Anderson, Mason, &Shirey, 1984). Anderson (1982) also found thatchildren paid more attention (as measured byduration of reading time) to interesting thannon-interesting materials. Shirey discussed howchildren's better recall of the interesting sen-tences was not due to this attentional differ-ence; when the relation between attention andrecall was controlled, the relation betweeninterest and recall still remained. Intriguingly(and in contrast to Anderson's [19821 workwith children), in studies of adult readers,Shirey and Reynolds (1988) found that adultsactually read sentences they found interestingfaster than those they found less interesting,and recalled more about the interesting materi-als. Finally, Renninger (1992) found in studiesof fifth and sixth graders that interest in thematerials read enhanced comprehension, evenof materials that were quite difficult for thechildren (although there were some genderdifferences in thcse patterns). Overall, theseresults indicate that students' interest in thematerial they are reading relates quite clearly


14


to the use of effective learning strategies, theirlevel of attention, and their comprehension ofreading materials. Thus, interest in readingappears to be an important motivational vari-able influencing different aspects of readingperformance.

Measuring Motivations for Reading: The Moti-vations for Reading Questionnaire

In developing the Motivations for Read-ing Questionnaire (MRQ), we utilized researchfrom both the general motivation literature andthe literature on reading attitudes and motiva-tion to propose several dimensions of motiva-tions for reading. We first devised a set ofpossible dimensions or constructs that couldcomprise reading motivations and developeditems to measure those constructs. We theninterviewed a small group of children to seehow they described their own motivations forreading and, following these interviews, modi-fied some of the items. The initial version ofthe MRQ contains 82 items, with seven oreight items measuring each of the proposeddimensions (with the exception of readingimportance, which was measured by Eccles etal.'s (1983) existing two-item scale). Theoriginal MRQ, with items organized into theproposed dimensions of motivations for read-ing, is presented in Appendix A. The proposeddimensions assessed in the questionnaire aredescribed next.

The first two dimensions reflect thecompetence and efficacy constructs that areprominent in many motivation theories. Thesetwo dimensions also include the notion thatreading is something that often requires child-ren to work hard to accomplish. These dimen-

sions are Reading Efficacy, the belief that onecan be successful at reading, and ReadingChallenge, the satisfaction of mastering orassimilating complex ideas in text.

The next set of dimensions are based inthe work on intrinsic motivation, values, andgoals and encompass both intrinsic and extrin-sic aspects of reading motivations. The moreintrinsic dimensions include Reading Curiosity,the desire to learn about a particular topic ofinterest to the child; Reading Topics Aestheti-cally Enjoyed, or the enjoyment of experienc-ing different kinds of literary or informationaltexts; and Importance of Reading, which is adimension taken from Eccles' and Wigfield's(e.g., Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles,1992) work on subjective task values. Thenotion of aesthetic enjoyment gained fromreading refers to the pleasure gained fromreading a well-written book or article on atopic one finds interesting. Although likelysimilar in certain ways to intrinsic motivationto read, this kind of aesthetic enjoyment issomething we thought to be unique to thereading area, and so is different from tradition-al definitions of intrinsic motivation. We alsodistinguished different kinds of extrinsic moti-vation for reading. Recognition for Reading isthe gratification in receiving a tangible form ofrecognition for success in reading, and Readingfor Grades assesses the desire to be favorablyevaluated by the teacher. These differentaspects of extrinsic motivation reflect the factthat children do much of their reading inschool where their reading performance isevaluated. Thus, recognition and grades mayfigure prominently in their motivations forreading.


1 r-


The final dimensions include social as-pects of reading, because reading often is asocial activity. One proposed dimension isSocial Reasons for Reading, or the process ofsharing the mel- . ings gained from reading withfriends and family. A second is Competition inReading, the desire to outperform others inreading. Third is Compliance, or readingbecause of an external goal or requirement.These dimensions are based on the work onachievement goals in the motivation literature.With the exception of Wentzel's (1989) workin the general motivation literature, social goalsfor achievement have not often been discussed.Such goals seem essential for reading motiva-tion. Finally, a set of items asked students whatthey do not like about reading; we called thisset Reading Work Avoidance.

A Study of Children's Motivations forReading

In a Year 2 NRRC project, we gave theMRQ and some other measures of readinginvolvement to a group of elementary schoolchildren. The major purpose of the study wasto examine the dimensions of children's moti-vations for reading. We addressed this questionby analyzing children's responses to the MRQin several ways. These analyses included factoranalyses of children's responses, computingitem-total correlations, and computing theinternal consistency reliability of the theoret-ically-derived and empirically-derived dimen-sions of reading motivations.

A second purpose of the study was toaddress grade, time of measurement, and sexdifferences in children's responses to the

MRQ. Recent research on children's motiva-tion for reading and attitudes toward readingshow tnat, in general, younger students havemore positive ability beliefs and attitudestoward reading than older students. Eccles,Wigfield, Harold, and Blumenfeld (1993) andMarsh (1989) assessed children's ability beliefsabout reading and found that older elementaryschool-aged children have less positive abilitybeliefs in reading than do younger elementaryschool children. Eccles et al. also found thatolder elementary school-aged children valuereading less than the younger chl.dren. In arecent NRRC study, Gambrell et al. (1993)developed a 38-item scale that assesses threedimensions of reading motivation: self-conceptof ability as a reader; the value of reading,which taps children's interest in reading andbeliefs about its importance; and reasons forreading, which include things like reading tolearn things, reading as a way to spend freetime, and so on. They gave the questionnaireto 330 third- and fifth-grade students andlooked at grade-level and gender differences inchildren's reading motivations. They foundthat third graders valued reading more andgave more positive reasons for reading than didthe fifth graders. Similarly, girls reported valu-ing reading more than boys did and also gavemore positive reasons for reading.

McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth (1994)recently completed a cross-sectional nationalstudy of first- through sixth-grade children'sattitudes toward reading. The reading attitudesassessed were reading as a recreational activityand attitudes toward school-based reading.They found that both aspects of students'attitudes toward reading were higher among



the younger students in their sample thanamong the older elementary school students,suggesting a decrease in attitudes toward read-ing across the elementary school years. In herinterpretive studies of children's engagement inschool reading and writing activities, Oldfather(1992; see also Oldfather & McLaughlin, inpress) found that students' motivation to learndeclined as they went into junior high school.Oldfather discussed how the students' owner-ship of their literacy learning lessened in juniorhigh, and that once in junior high, students'goal orientations turned more to grades andother extrinsic purposes, rather than on theintrinsic interest in learning. This issue wasaddressed further in the present study in twoways. First, grade differences in children'sresponses to the MRQ were assessed. Second,because children completed the MRQ in the falland spring of the school year, change over timein the mean level of children's responses to theMRQ was assessed.

The studies just cited (e.g., Eccles et al.,1993; Gambrell et al., 1993; Marsh, 1989;McKenna et al., 1994) also showed that girlsare more positive in their ability beliefs andattitudes about reading than are boys. There-fore, we examined sex differences in children'sresponses to the various dimensions included inthe MRQ.

Finally, to see if children's reading moti-vations as measured by the MRQ related to theamount of reading that they do, correlationalanalyses were performed between children'sresponses to the MRQ and their reports of theirreading frequencies. A description of the studyand the results obtained follows.

MethodSample

One hundred five fourth- and fifth-gradechildren at an elementary school in southernMaryland participated in the study. There were59 fourth graders and 46 fifth graders; 47 ofthe children were girls and 58 were boys. Thechildren were from mixed socioeconomic back-grounds and were a racially and ethnicallymixed group. Each child in the sample agreedto participate and received parental permissionto participate.

Measures

Children completed measures of motiva-tions for reading in the fall and in the spring ofthe 1992-1993 school year. These measureswere: (1) The Motivations for Reading Ques-tionnaire (MRQ), described above; and (2) TheReading Activity Inventory (Guthrie, Mc-Gough, & Wigfield, 1994), which asked child-ren a1 nut different kinds of books they read,and how often they read them. The kinds ofreading materials asked about included maga-zines, books in general, adventure books,mystery books, sports books, nature books,and comic books. Children were asked if theyhad read each of these kinds of materialswithin the last week and to list a title of thematerial if they had read it. They also wereasked how frequently they read each of thekinds of materials.

We also obtained the number of hourseach child in the study read outside of school,for the school years 1991-1992 and 1992-1993.This information was provided by the school'smedia specialist who worked with us on the



Table 1. Re liabilities for the Theoretically-Derived Reading Motivation Scales

Scale Fall Spring

Reading Efficacy 51 55

Challenge 66 72Curiosity 68 80Aesthetic Enjoyment 77 81

Importance 59 52Recognition 57 66Grades 63 47Social 77 72Competition 77 79Compliance 71 70Work Avoidance 40 56

Note. Decimals are omitted.

project. Children at the school participated ina reading program geared toward increasing,

how much they read. Students chose books toread each week and returned them the follow-ing week. The media specialist recorded thenumber of hours the students said they spentreading their books for each week during thecourse of the school year, for the 1991-1992and 1992-1993 school years.

Results

Three questions are addressed by theresults: (1) what are the dimensions of motiva-tions for reading; (2) are there grade and sexdifferences in children's motivations for read-ing; and (3) how do reading motivations relateto the amount of reading children do?

Dimensions of Children's Motivations forReading

Various analyses were done to determinewhether the proposed dimensions of motiva-

tions for reading could be empirically identi-fied. Another purpose of these analyses was toidentify items that possibly could be deletedfrom the questionnaire. As a first step, unit-weighted scales were created for each of thz.proposed dimensions of motivations for read-ing by computing a mean score of all the itemsassessing each proposed dimension. The inter-nal consistency reliabilities of these scales thenwere computed, at both the fall and springtimes of measurement. These reliabilities gavean indication of the extent to which the itemson each scale were coherent, with values great-er than .70 preferable. The reliabilities are pre-sented in Table 1. As can be seen in the table,some of the scales showed reasonable internalconsistency, and others did not. The mostreliable scales included Reading Challenge,Reading Curiosity, Aesthetic Enjoyment ofReading, Social Reasons for Reading, Compe-tition, and Reading Compliance. The relia-bilities of these scales ranged from adequate togood. The reliabilities for the other scales were


s


poorer, suggesting that the items proposed toform these scales in fact were not coherent.

Item-total correlations. As a first steptoward deleting items from the questionnairethat did not seem to assess the dimension asproposed, item-total correlations were done foreach of the proposed dimensions. These corre-lations assess the extent to which each item ona scale correlates with the total score on thatscale. In general, these analyses showed thatmost of the items correlated moderately tostrongly with the total score on the scale thatincluded all the items assessing the proposeddimension of reading motivation. However, inseveral cases these item-total correlations wereless than .40, the cut-off figure adopted. Thisoccurred on the following scales in the falladministration of the questionnaire: ReadingEfficacy (one item), Curiosity (one item),Recognition (two items), Grades (one item),Challenge (one item), and Reading WorkAvoidance (two items). For the spring adminis-tration, the following scales had some itemswith lower item-total correlations: ReadingEfficacy (one item), Recognition (one item),Grades (one item), Challenge (one item), andReading Work Avoidance (one item). Theitems with low item-total correlations at eachtime of measurement generally were the same.

Factor analyses. To assess further thedifferent proposed motivation dimensions andto help in decisions about which items to elimi-nate from the questionnaire, factor analyseswere done. Factor analysis is a statisticaltechnique that helps the researcher determine ifgroups of items go together to form a factor ora construct. It is a statistical tool often used inquestionnaire development. Ideally, it is best toanalyze all of the items togethei to see how

many factors (or dimensions) emerge. Because

there were so many items on this question-naire, however, the sample size of the studywas not large enough to do the factor analysesthis way. Instead, the factor analyses weredone on different subses of the items. Before.doing the factor analyses, the items were an-alyzed to see if any were badly skewed. Skew-ness indicates the extent to which responses toan item depart from a normal distribution. Inthe fall administration, five items were badlyskewed. Two of these items were from theGrades scale and one each from the Efficacy,Compliance, and Aesthetic Enjoyment scales.In the spring administration, the same twoitems from the Grades scale were skewed.Additionally, one other item from the Gradesscale, the same Efficacy item, and one Compli-ance item were badly skewed. These items

were not included in the factor analyses.The first factor analyses were done on the

items from each individual motivational dimen-sion to determine whether those items indeeddid define that dimension. The analyses wereconstrained so that only one factor couldemerge, and each item was unit weighted. In

factor analysis, the determination of whetheran item helps define a dimension is made bylooking at the factor loadings of the differentitems. These loadings provide an indication ofhow strongly the item relates to (or loads on)the proposed factor. Although there is noabsolute rule on the appropriate size for theseloadings, many researchers use a value of .40as a cut off. Results of the first factor analysesshowed that although many of the items loadedon the dimensions they were proposed toassess, some did not. In the fall administration,

NATIONAL READING RESEARCI1 CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 34

19


Table 2. Re liabilities for the Factorially-Derived Reading Motivation Scales

Scale Fall Spring

Reading Efficacy 63 68Challenge 68 80Curiosity 70 76Aesthetic Enjoyment 72 76Importance 59 52Recognition 69 69Grades 59 43Social 78 72Competition 75 81Compliance 62 55Work Avoidance 44 60

Note. Decimals are omitted.

the items loading at less than .40 on the appro-priate dimension included: Social (Item 56),Compliance (Item 13), Reading Efficacy (Items9, 15, 16, 18, and 58), Curiosity (Items 20,23, and 45), Recognition (Items 40, 41, and67), Grades (Items 18, 33), Challenge (Items50, 66), Competition (Item 76), and ReadingWork Avoidance (Items 8, 10, and 71). In thespring administration, the items loading lessthan .40 on the appropriate dimensions includ-ed: Social (Item 56), Compliance (Item 73),Reading Efficacy (Items 9, 15, 16, 18, and58), Recognition (Items 41 and 67), Grades(Item 33), Challenge (Items 50, 63 ,and 66),Competition (Item 75), and Reading WcrkAvoidance (Items 8, 53, and 71). Many ofthese items were ones that showed poor item-total correlations. Next, these items with weak-er loadings were eliminated, and the factoranalyses on each separate motivation dimensionwere rerun. All of the remaining items loadedon the dimension they were proposed to assess.

Various pairs of the proposed dimensionsthen were factor analyzed using the reduced

item set. The pairs were selected based oncorrelational analyses assessing relationsamong the proposed theoretical dimensions ofmotivations for reading. The pairs of theoreti-cal dimensions that were more highly correlat-ed were factor analyzed to see how distinctthey were. Other pairs were selected for analy-sis as well, and a total of 18 pairs of dimen-sions were analyzed. In doing these analyses,only two-factor solutions were examined.Although at times there were more eigenvaluesgreater than 1 when the items assessing thepairs of theoretical dimensions were analyzed(which suggests that more factors might bepresent), an examination of those additionalfactors showed that they nearly always con-tained only one or two items and so were notmeaningful. Of the 18 pairs of dimensionsanalyzed, 6 pairs showed very clear two-factorsolutions in the fall and in the spring, withthe items loading on the appropriate dimen-sion: Social-Curiosity; Social-Compliance;Grades-Recognition; Challenge-Competition;Recognition-Competition; and Recognition-


Realing Motivations 13

Table 3. Correlations of the Factorially-Derived Motivation Scales

Fall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Social (I) 1.0Compliance (2) 26* 1.0

Efficacy (3) 55** 25* 1.0

Curiosity (4) 48** 32** 52** 1.0

Aesthetic (5) 52** 39** 42** 52** 1.0

Recognition (6) 62** 27** 60** 53* 41** 1.0

Grades (7) 37** 46** 43** 49** 40** 52** 1.0

Challenge (8) 39** 35** 51** 52** 54** 34** 50** 1.0

Compete (9) 06 11 26* 15 05 34** 24* 25* 1.0

Importance (10) 36** 42** 41** 49** 45** 44** 50** 44** 24* 1.0

Work Avoid (11) -26** -17 -14 -21* 42 ** -14 -19* -32** 19* -22*

Spring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Social (1) 1.0Compliance (2) 14 1.0

Efficacy (3) 33** 29** 1.0

Curiosity (4) 52** 26* 47** 1.0

Aesthetic (5) 50** 28* 51** 62** 1.0

Recognition (6) 50** 31** 53** 43** 49** 1.0

Grades (7) 41** 40** 35** 37** 34** 51** 1.0

Challenge (8) 49** 21* 49** 61** 62** 41** 30** 1.0

Compete (9) -01 09 24* 15 09 28** 19 22* 1.0

Importance (10) 32** 37** 35** 42** 37** 52** 48** 27* 22* 1.0

Work Avoid (11) -27** -13 -26** -30** -33** -29** -14 -25* 16 -10*

Note: Decimals are omitted.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Compliance. Other clear two-factor solutionswere Grades-Competition in the fall adminis-tration; and in the spring Grades-Challenge,and Grades-Curiosity. In both fall and springadministrations, 4 pairs showed reasonablyclear two-factor structures, although some dou-

ble loadings occurred: Aesthetic-Challenge;Efficacy-Grades; Efficacy-Challenge; and

Grades-Compliance. Other solutions like thisin the fall were Grades-Challenge; Social-Aesthetic; and Efficacy-Curiosity. In the

spring administration, the Grades-Competition

pair also produced a reasonably clear two-factor structure with some double loads. Final-ly, the following pairs produced more mixedresults, in which a clear two-factor solution didnot emerge in either the fall or spring admin-

istration: Social-Recognition and Aesthetic-Curious. Additionally in the fall, the Grades-Curious and Challenge-Curious pair produceda mixed solution, as did the Social-Aestheticsolution in the spring administration.

Based on the analysis of skewness, theitem-total correlations, and the factor analysis



Table 4. Means for the Statistically Significant Grade and Sex Differences on the Reading MotivationSubsea les

Grade Differences

Fall

4th M 5th M

Spring

4th M 5th M

Reading Efficacy 3.29 2.90Recognition 3.13 2.81Social 2.70 2.27

Sex Differences

Fall Spring

Girls' M Boys' M Girls' M Boys' M

Reading Efficacy 3.29 2.99Importance 3.41 3.07Social 2.78 2.32 2.63 2.20Competition 2.37 2.78 2.15 2.74

Note. Scores range from 1 to 4.

of the single dimensions, 27 items were deletedfrom the original list. The items that weredeleted are indicated by an asterisk in Appen-dix A. Unit-weighted scales reflecting thereduced item set were generated. Reliabilitiesfor these scales are presented in Table 2.Several of the new scales showed improvedreliability compared to the original theoret-ically-derived scales. These included ReadingEfficacy, Challenge, Recognition, and ReadingWork Avoidance (although the reliability forthis scale was still low). Reliability of thefollowing scales was similar for both question-naire versions: Curiosity, Importance, Social,and Competition. The Aesthetic Enjoyment,Grades, and Compliance scales showed de-creases in reliability.

Correlations of themotivationscales. An-other way to look at similarity or differenceamong the proposed constructs is to look at thecorrelations between them. Pearson correlationcoefficients were computed for the factorially-derived motivation scales, and the correlationsare presented in Table 3. In general, most ofthe relations were positive, and ranged fromlow to moderately high. The strongest relationsincluded those between Social and Recognition(r = .62 in the fall, .50 in the spring), Socialand Aesthetic Enjoyment (r = .52 in the fall, .50in the spring), Efficacy and Recognition (r = .60in the fall, .53 in the spring), Curiosity andAesthetic Enjoyment (r = .52 in the fall, 62 inthe spring), Curiosity and Challenge (r = .52 in


U) )


Table 5. Relations of Children's Reading Motivations to Their Reading Frequencies

Fall Motivation Scales 1992 Hours Read 1993 Hours Read Reported Book ReadingSpring 1993

Social 23* 18 32**Compliance 07 23* 22*Reading Efficacy 31** 36** 41**Curiosity 13 24* 15Aesthetics 26** 24* 35**Recognition 14 24* 24*Grades 12 21* 17Challenge 04 11 35**Competition -15 01 01Importance of Reading 11 20 24*Work Avoidance -18 -29** -25*

Spring Motivation Scales 1992 Hours Read 1993 Hours Read Reported Book ReadingSpring 1993

Social 21* 13 32**Compliance 08 06 25*Reading Efficacy 19 13 34**Curiosity 29** 27** 36**Aesthetics 37** 31** 37**Recognition 23* 32* 37*Grades 27* 32** 28*Challenge 21 22 29*Competition -09 15 07Importance of Reading 14 21* 42**Work Avoidance -08 -13 -23*

Note. Decimals are omitted.*p < .05. **p < .01.

the fall, .61 in the spring), Aesthetic Enjoy-ment and Challenge (r = .54 in the fall, .62 inthe spring), Recognition and Grades (r = .52in the fall, .51 in the spring), and Grades andImportance (r = .50 in the fall, .48 in thespring). The Work Avoidance scale relatednegatively to all of the scales except to Compe-tition. Although these correlations were attimes high, in many instances the factor analy-ses just presented showed that the constructswere distinct.

Grade, Sex, and Time Differences in Child-ren's Motivations for Reading

To assess grade and sex differences, 2(Grade) by 2 (Sex) ANOVAs were run on thevarious motivation scales. The means for thesignificant grade and sex differences are pre-sented in Table 4. In the fall, there were signif-icant grade differences on three of the scales:Reading Efficacy, F(1, 94) = 8.33, p < .01;Recognition, F(1, 94) = 4.86, p < .05; and



Social, F(1, 94) = 7.36, p < .01. In all cases,the fourth graders had higher mean scores thandid the fifth graders. In the spring, there wereno significant grade differences.

In the fall administration, there weresex differences in children's reading moti-vations on four of the scales: ReadingEfficacy, F(1, 94) = 4.47, p < .05; Impor-tance, F(1, 99) = 4.22, p < .05; Social,F(1, 94) = 8.38, p < .01; and Competition,F(1, 94) = 7.84, p < .01. In all cases but theCompetition scale, girls' mean scores werehigher than boys' means. In the spring, therewere significant sex differences on two of thesescales: Social, F(1, 91) = 8.57, p < .01; andCompetition, F(1, 92), p < .01. Girls hadhigher mean scores than did boys on the Socialscale, and boys had higher mean scores thandid girls on the Competition scale.

To assess whether the mean level ofchildren's responses on the different motivationscales changed over time, paired t-tests wererun on each pair of scales given in the fall andthe spring. There were no significant differ-ences in any of the means of the scales betweenthe fall and spring administrations.

Relations of Children's Reading Motivations toTheir Reading Frequencies

Table 5 presents the correlations of thevarious motivation scales to the number ofhours children read in each of the two schoolyears and their own reports of the frequencywith which they read books (taken from theReading Activity Inventory). The relationswere in the low to moderate range. The fallmotivation scales showing the strongest posi-tive correlations with the hours students read

outside of school and their reports of theirreading frequencies on the Reading ActivityInventory included Social, Reading Efficacy,and Aesthetic Enjoyment; these correlationsranged from .18 to .41. Reading Work t void-ance was significantly and negatively related toreading frequencies, particularly the hours readduring the 1992-1993 school year. The springmotivation scales most strongly and positivelycorrelated to reading frequencies includedSocial, Reading Efficacy, Curiosity, AestheticEnjoyment, Recognition, Grades, and ReadingImportance. These correlations ranged in sizefrom .13 to .42. Again, Reading Work Avoid-ance related significantly and negatively tochildren's reports of their book reading fre-quencies.

Discussion

The results of this first study utilizing theMotivations for Reading Questionnaire providesome important new information about thenature of children's reading motivations andhow children's reading motivations relate tochildren's reading behaviors. The reliabilityanalyses and factor analyses showed that thereare different dimensions of motivations forreading. The dimensions that appear to be themost reliable include Reading Efficacy, Read-ing Challenge, Curiosity, Aesthetic Enjoyment,Recognition, Social, and Competition. Theseanalyses indicate that children's answers toquestions about their reading motivations canbe reliably classified into those different di-mensions and suggest that children are motivat-ed to read for a variety of different reasons asdoes Wentzel's (1989) multiple goals perspec-tive in the general motivation literature.



These different dimensions of readingmotivations can be characterized in terms ofsome of the important constructs in the generalmotivation literature. Certain dimensions(Curiosity, Aesthetic Enjoyment) can bethought of as intrinsic to the child, and thus arelike the intrinsic motivation construct discussedearlier. The Aesthetic Enjoyment dimensionadds an interesting new aspect to the intrinsicmotivation construct. The Reading Recognitiondimension is like the extrinsic motivation con-struct in the motivation literature. Two dimen-sions (Reading Efficacy Reading Challenge)are analogous to the ability belief and efficacyconstructs in the motivation literature. Anotherset of dimensions includes social aspects ofreading (Social Reasons for Reading, Competi-tion), something that has been less clearlydiscussed in the motivation literature. Thus,results of this study begin to bridge the gapbetween the motivation and reading researchliteratures.

The results of the analyses that attemptedto determine different dimensions of readingmotivations were somewhat mixed. The reli-ability analyses showed that some of the pro-posed dimensions of reading motivations werenot very reliable. The scales that were lessreliable include Importance, Grades, Compli-ance, and Work Avoidance. Similarly, thefactor analyses showed that some of the pro-posed dimensions of reading motivations didnot always form clear, distinct factors, and infact were highly related to other dimensions.Dimensions that have overlap in their factorstructure (and that are highly correlated) in-clude Social and Recognition; Social and Aes-thetic; Aesthetic and Curiosity; Grades andCuriosity; and Challenge and Curiosity. Thus,

children who are curious to read more aboutinteresting topics also appear to like challeng-ing reading, enjoy a variety of reading topics,and want to get good reading grades. Childrenreading for social reasons like to be recognizedfor their reading and also enjoy reading aboutdifferent topics.

The processes by which these relationsoperate need to be explored further in futureresearch. Although important decisions weremade in this study regarding which items todelete, and the deletion of items producedgenerally more reliable scales and a clearerfactor structure, additional work of this typeneeds to be do,_..:. The revised questionnairenow is being given to a larger sample of stu-dents, and then the factor analyses will be donewith more of the items included in the sameanalyses to identify more clearly the factorstructure of children's motivations for reading.Based on those analyses, perhaps some of thedifferent dimensions originally proposed to bedistinct should be r.,)1Iapsed into broader di-mensions.

Another purpose of this study was toexplore some substantive issues regardingchildren's reading motivations. The first ofthese issues was whether there are grade andsex differences in child en's reading motiva-tions, as has been found in previous research(e.g., Eccles et al., 1993; Gambrell et al.,1993; Marsh, 1989; McKenna et al., 1994).There were grade-level differences on some ofthe scales, and these grade differences suggest-ed that the older children (fifth graders) wereless positively motivated than were the fourthgraders, particularly in the fall of the year.However, in the spring, the grade differenceswere less prevalent, in large part because the


4i)


fourth graders' reading motivations declinedsome over the year. Furthermore, on several ofthe reading motivation dimensions there wereno grade differences, which means that grade-related differences in children's reading moti-vations were not substantial in this study. Also,the mean level of children's responses to thedifferent dimensions of motivations for readingdid not change over time. To understand betterhow reading motivations change across theschool years and reconcile the results of thisstudy with those of the studies just cited thathave shown grade differences, we need furtherlongitudinal studies of children's reading moti-vations to determine more precisely when thedeclines in reading motivation and attitude dooccur.

Boys and girls also differed in theirmotivations for reading, with girls generallyshowing more positive motivations for reading(although the differc,ces between boys andgirls decreased across the course of the schoolyear). Girls also read more than boys did in theschool's reading program, although this differ-ence was not statistically significant. Thesefindings would suggest that girls may be morelikely to continue to be engaged in readingactivities as they proceed through school.Given that performance in reading is such animportant predictor of school success (Lloyd,1978; Madden, Slavin, Karweit, Dolan, &Wasik, 1993), boys' lower reading motivationsshould be viewed with some concern.

Another important substantive issue washow the different dimensions of reading moti-vations related to the frequency with whichchildren read. The correlational analysesshowed that a number of the dimensions of

children's reading motivations related to theamount of reading they did in the school'sreading program. The dimensions relating moststrongly to reading frequency included Social,Reading Efficacy, Curiosity, Aesthetic Enjoy- .ment, Recognition, Grades, and ReadingImportance. Thus, both more intrins:c (Curios-ity, Aesthetic Enjoyment) and extrinsic(Grades, Recognition) reasons for readingrelated to children's reading frequencies.

However, overall it appears that the moreintrinsic reasons for reading and children'ssense that they read efficaciously were thestrongest correlates of reading frequency.These are among the most important results ofthis study, because they show that children'smotivations for reading indeed do relate to animportant aspect of their reading performance:the amount that they read. These results furtherdemonstrate the importance of leoking atdifferent aspects of reading motivations aswell, because the pattern of correlations ofreading frequency and reading motivationsvary considerably across the different dimen-sions of reading motivations.

The correlations of Social Reasons forReading and number of hours read is particu-larly interesting. Although children's meanlevel on the social reasons for reading scalewas low, suggesting that they do not oftenshare reading activities with friends and fami-lies, that dimension was one of the strongercorrelates of frequency of reading. Correla-tional data of course do not provide evidenceof causality, but these results suggest thatstudents should be given more opportunities toread with others, both at home and in school.



If these opportunities were provided, perhapschildren would read more frequently.

To conclude, as part of the engagementperspective, researchers at the NRRC aredevelopir new measures of reading motiva-tion. "Up, ..1:11Q discussed in this paper is oneexample of such a measure; NRRC researchers(including Linda Gambreli and her colleagues,and Penny Oldfather and her colleagues) alsoare developing ways of studying children'sreading motivations. As we develop new andbetter ways to understand student's readingmotivations, we can better answer other ques-tions about this important topic. These ques-tions include (but certainly are not limited to)the following: (1) How do children become (ornot become) engaged readers?; (2) How dodifferent classroom cultures and contextsinfluence children's reading engagement andmotivations for reading?; and (3) What individ-ual and group differences are there in motiva-tions for reading, and how do they change overtime? All these questions will be topics offuture investigation at the NRRC.

References

Alexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudesand reading. Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures,and student motivation. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 261-271.

Anderson, R. C. (1982). Allocation of attentionduring reading. In A. Flammer & W., Kintsch(Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 292-305).New York: North Holland.

Anderson, R. C., Mason, J., & Shirey, L. L.(1984). The reading group: An experimental

investigation of a labyrinth. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 20, 6-38.

Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Wigfield, A. (1978).Influence of topic interest on children's readingcomprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior,10, 35-47.

Asher, S. R., & Markell, R. (1974). Sex differenc-es in comprehension of high- and low-interestreading material. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 66, 680-687.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unify-ing theory of behavioral change. PsychologicalReview, 84, 191-215.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Intrinsic rewards andemergent motivation. In M. Lepper, & D. Green(Eds.), The hidden cost of reward: New perspec-tives on the psychology of motivation, (pp.205-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsicmotivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A so,:ial-cognitive approach to motivation and person-ality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C.(1983). Expectancies, values, and academicbehaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievementand achievement motives (pp. 75-146). SanFrancisco: W. H. Freeman.

Eccles, J. S., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984).Sex differences in achievement: A test of alter-nate theories. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 46, 26-43.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1985). Teacherexpectancies and student motivation. In J. B.Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 185-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumen-feld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences



in children's self- and task-perceptions duringelementary school. Child Development, 64,830-847.

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M.,Berg-Nye, P., Cassell, L., Long, L., & Shu-man, J. (1993). Elementary students' motivationto read. Unpublished manuscript, NRRC, Uni-versiti s of Georgia and Maryland.

Guthrie, J., Mc Gough, K., & Wigfield, A. (1994).Measuring reading activity: an inventory (In-structional Resource No. 4). Athens, GA:NRRC, Universities of Georgia and Maryland.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrin-sic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom:Motivational and informational components.Developmental Psychology, 17, 300-312.

Lloyd, D. N. (1978). Predictors of school failurefrom third grade data. Educational and Psycho-logical Measurement, 38, 1193-1200.

Madden, H. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L,Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Successfor all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuringprogram for inner city elementary schools.American Educational Research Journal, 30,123-148.

Maehr, M. L. (1976). Continuing motivation: Ananalysis of a seldom considered educationaloutcome. Review of Educational Research, 46,443-462.

Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multi-ple dimensions of self-concept: Preadolescenceto early adulthood. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 81, 417-430.

Matthewson, G. C. (1985). Toward a comprehen-sive model of affect in the reading process. In H.Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoreticalmodels and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp.841-856). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

McKenna, M. C. (in press). Toward a model ofreading acquisition. In E. H. Cramer & M.

Castle (Eds.), Fostering the life-long love ofreading: The affective domain in reading educa-tion. Newark, DE: International Reading Asso-ciation.

McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Mea-suring attitude toward reading:. A new tool forteachers. The Reading Teacher, 43, 626-639.

McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A.(1994). Children's attitudes toward reading: Anational study. Manuscript submitted for publi-cation.

Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990).Predictors of math anxiety and its consequencesfor young adolescents' course enrollment inten-tions and performances in mathematics. Journalof Educational Psychology, 82, 60-70.

Nicholls, J. G. (1979a). Development of perceptionof own attainment and causal attributions forsuccess and failure in reading. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 71, 94-99.

Nicholls, J. G. (1979b). Quality and equality inintellectual development: The role of motivationin education. American Psychologist, 34, 1071-1084.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation:Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,task choice, and nerformance. PsychologicalReview, 91, 328-346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why arewe mindful of it? A developmental perspective.In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Compe-tence considered (pp. 11-41). New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Nicholls, J. G., Cheung, P., Lauer, J., & Patash-nick, M. (1989). Individual differences in aca-demic motivations: Perceived ability, goals,beliefs, and values. Learning and IndividualDifferences, 1, 63-84.

Oldfather, P. (1992, December). Sharing the own-ership of knowing: A constructivist concept ofmotivation for literacy learning. Paper presented


28


at the annual meeting of the National ReadingConference, San Antonio, TX.

Oldfather, P., & McLaughlin, J. (in press). Gainingand losing voice: A longitudinal study of stu-dents' continuing impulse to learn across ele-mentary and middle school contexts. Research inMiddle Level Education.

Oldfather, P., & Wigfield, A., (in press). Child-ren's motivations for literacy learning. In L.Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.),Developing engaged readers in school and homecommunities.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivation-al and self-regulated learning components ofclassroom academic performance. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students'motivational beliefs and their cognitive engage-ment in classroom academic tasks. In D. H.Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student percep-tions in the classroom (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum

Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest anddevelopment: Implications for theory and prac-tice. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp(Eds.), The role of interest in learning anddevelopment (pp. 361-396). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.

Ruddell, R. B., & Speaker, R. (1985). The interac-tive reading pro :ess: A model. In H. Singer &R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models andprocesses of readi,1g (3rd P4., pp. 751-793).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and moti-vation. Educational Psychologist, 26,299-323.

Schunk, D. H. (1991a). Goal setting and self-evaluation: A social cognitive perspective onself-regulation. In M. L. Maehr & P R. Pintrich(Eds.), Advances in achievement and motivation(Vol. 7, pp. 85-113). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Schunk, D. H. (1991b). Self-efficacy and academicmotivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 233-262.

Shirey, L. L. (1992). Importance, interest, andselective attention. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi,& A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learn-ing and development (pp. 281-296). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shirey, L. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (1988). Effect ofinterest on attention and learning. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 80, 159-166.

Stipek, D. J. (1984). Young chiluren's performanceexpectations: Logical analysis or wishful think-ing? In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in moti-vation and achievement. Vol. 3: The develop-ment of achievement motivation (pp. 33-55).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroomgrades, standards for performance, and academicachievement: An interactionist perspective.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131-142.

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory ofachievement motivation: A developmental per-spective. Educational Psychology Review, 6,49-78.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The develop-ment of achievement task values: A theoreticalanalysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academicattainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs andpersonal goal setting. American EducationalResearch Journal, 29,663-676.



APPENDIX A

The Motivations for Reading Questionnaire: Original Version

READING EFFICACY

3. I know that I will do well in reading next year9. I don't know why I sometimes get low grades in reading14. I am a good reader

* 15. Sometimes I don't feel as smart as others in reading* 16. To do well in reading I have to get the teacher to like me* 18. I know how well I am doing before I get my paper beck

24. I learn more from reading than most students in the class* 58. I know how to get good grades in reading if I want to

CHALLENGE

2. I like hard, challenging books* 50. I need my parents to help me with my reading homework* 63. I like to look up words I don't know

64. If the project is interesting, I can read difficult material65. I like it when the questions in books make me think

* 66. I don't like it when we get a lot of difficult reading68. I usually learn difficult things by reading70. If a book is interesting I don't care how hard it is to read

CURIOSITY

6. If the teacher discusses something interesting I might read more about it20. I have favorite subjects that I like to read about22. I read to learn new information about topics that interest me

* 23. If I am reading about an interesting topic I sometimes lose track of time25. I read about my hobbies to learn more about them26. I like to read about new things29. I enjoy reading books about people in different countries

* 45. I don't like to read books about living things



AESTHETICS

19. I read stories about fantasy and make believe31. 1 like mysteries

* 37. I like stories with interesting characters38. I make pictures in my mind when I read47. I feel like I make friends with people in good books57. I read a lot of adventure stories61. I enjoy a long, involved story or fiction book

IMPORTANCE

81. It is very important to me to be a good reader82. In comparison to othe. activities I do, it is very important to me to be a good reader

COMPLIANCE

4. I do as little schoolwork as possible in reading7. I read because I have to

* 11. It is important for me to do my reading work carefully* 13. I read things that are not assigned

39. I always do my reading work exactly as the teacher wants it49. Finishing every reading assignment is very important to me69. I always try to finish my reading on time

* 73. I do schoolwork so that the teacher can make sure I am paying attention

RECOGNITION

27. I like having the teacher say I read well30. My friends sometimes tell me I am a good reader32. I like to get compliments for my reading

* 40. It is important for me to get good comments on my reading papers* 41. My parents give me gifts when I do well in reading

46. I am happy when someone recognizes my reading48. My parents often tell me what a good job I am doing in reading

* 67. I don't care about getting rewards for being a good reader



GRADES

5. Grades are a good way to see how well you are doing in reading* 33. Getting graded in reading makes me nervous* 35. I like to get good grades in reading* 36. Getting a high grade in reading makes me proud

54. I look forward to finding out my reading grade59. I read to improve my grades60. My parents tsk me about my reading grade

SOCIAL

1. I visit the library often with my family17. I often read to my brother or my sister21. My friends and I like to trade things to read34. I sometimes read to my parents51. I talk to my friends al- )ut what I am reading55. I like to help my friends with their schoolwork in reading

* 56. I don't like reading with other students62. I like to tell my family about what I am reading

COMPETITION

12. I try to get more answers right than my friends28. I like being the best at reading72. I like to finish my reading before other students74. I like being the only one who knows an answer in something we read

* 75. I hate it when others read better than me* 76. My friends and I like to see who gets better comments on our papers

77. It is important for me to see my name on a list of good readers79. I am willing to work hard to read better than my friends

READING WORK AVOIDANCE

* 8. I don't like to read out loud in class* 10. I think worksheets are boring

43. I don't like vocabulary questions44. Complicated stories are no tun to read

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, IcEADING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 34


*, 53. I don't like having to write about what I read* 71. I don't like reading stories that are too short

78. I don't like reading something when the words are too difficult80. I don't like it when there are too many people in the story

Note. Items with an asterisk were deleted in the revised version of the MRQ.


NationalReading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-71252102 f. M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Documents

DOCUMENT RESUME CS 012 174 AUTHOR Wigfield, Allan; Guthrie ... · ED 384 010 CS 012 174 AUTHOR Wigfield, Allan; Guthrie, John T. ... Agnes Scott. Steve White. ... Dtvelopment at the