Growth of Literacy Engagement: Changes in Motivations and Strategies During Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction

The main goal of this article is to describe pat-terns of change in literacy engagement duringconceptually oriented reading instruction. Thefirst objective is to construct a theoretical frame-

work for understanding the development of literacy en-gagement. By engagement we refer to the integration of motivations and strategies in literacy activities. In con-structing the theoretical framework we integrate workfrom the fields of motivation, literacy, and cognitivestrategies. Because these areas have not been well inte-grated in the reading field, we provide an extended de-scription here.

The second purpose is instructional. We report aclassroom context designed and implemented to pro-

mote literacy engagement. Generated collaborativelywith teachers over a 2-year period, this context has beentermed Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI).The essential dimensions of the instructional frameworkwere induced from a variety of observational, interview,and videotape sources.

Our third objective is to describe patterns ofchange in motivation, strategy use, and conceptual learn-ing capacity for students experiencing CORI. To portraymotivational attributes and changes, we have used amultimethod, descriptive approach. We used a groundedtheory approach to generate a set of motivational con-structs and then developed quantifiable measures ofthem. To describe the strategic and conceptual aspects

306

John T. GuthriePeggy Van MeterAnn Dacey McCannAllan Wigfield University of Maryland at College Park, College Park,

Maryland, USA

Lois BennettCarol C. PoundstoneMary Ellen RiceCalverton Elementary School, Prince George’s County,

Beltsville, Maryland, USA

Frances M. FaibischBrian HuntAnn M. MitchellCatherine T. Reed Elementary School, Prince George’s

County, Lanham, Maryland, USA

Growth of literacy engagement: Changesin motivations and strategies duringconcept-oriented reading instruction

Reading Research QuarterlyVol. 31, No. 3

July/August/September 1996©1996 International Reading Association

(pp. 306–332)

ABSTRACTS

THIS STUDY describes changes in literacy engagement during 1 yearof Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), a new approachto teaching reading, writing, and science. Literacy engagement wasdefined as the integration of intrinsic motivations, cognitive strate-gies, and conceptual learning from text. To promote literacy en-gagement in classrooms, our team designed and implemented CORIin two third- and two fifth-grade classrooms in two schools. Onehundred and forty students participated in an integrated reading/language arts-science program, which emphasized real-world sci-ence observations, student self-direction, strategy instruction, col-laborative learning, self-expression, and coherence of literacy learn-ing experiences. Trade books replaced basals and science textbooks.

According to 1-week performance assessments in the fall and spring,students gained in the following higher order strategies: searchingmultiple texts, representing knowledge, transferring concepts, com-prehending informational text, and interpreting narrative. Children’sintrinsic motivations for literacy correlated with cognitive strategies at.8 for Grade 5 and .7 for Grade 3. All students who increased in in-trinsic motivation also increased in their use of higher order strate-gies. A sizeable proportion (50%) of students who were stable ordecreased in intrinsic motivation failed to progress in higher orderstrategies. These findings were discussed in terms of a conceptualframework that embraces motivational, strategic, and conceptual as-pects of literacy engagement.

Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction

Crecimiento del compromiso con la lectoescritura: Cambios en las motivaciones y estrategias durantela enseñanza de la lectura orientada hacia los conceptos

base de evaluaciones del desempeño durante una semana tomadasen otoño y primavera, los estudiantes hicieron avances en lassiguientes estrategias de orden superior: búsqueda de textos múlti-ples, representación del conocimiento, transferencia de conceptos,comprensión de texto informativo e interpretación de narrativas.Las motivaciones intrínsecas de los niños hacia la lectoescrituracorrelacionaron con las estrategias cognitivas en .8 para 5º grado y .7para 3º grado. Todos los estudiantes que aumentaron su motivaciónintrínseca también aumentaron el uso de estrategias de orden supe-rior. Una importante proporción (50%) de estudiantes, que per-manecieron estables o cuya motivación intrínseca disminuyó, noprogresó en las estrategias de orden superior. Estos hallazgos fuerondiscutidos dentro de un marco conceptual que incluye aspectos mo-tivacionales, estratégicos y conceptuales del compromiso con lalectoescritura.

ESTE ESTUDIO describe cambios en el compromiso con la lecto-escritura durante un año de enseñanza de la lectura orientada hacialos conceptos (CORI), un nuevo abordaje de la didáctica de la lec-tura, la escritura y la ciencia. El compromiso con la lectoescritura sedefinió como la integración de motivaciones intrínsecas, estrategiascognitivas y aprendizaje conceptual de los textos. Para promover elcompromiso con la lectoescritura en las aulas, nuestro equipo diseñóe implementó CORI en dos clases de tercer grado y dos de quinto endos escuelas. Ciento cuarenta estudiantes participaron en un pro-grama integrado de lectura, lenguaje y ciencia, que ponía el acentoen observaciones científicas en el mundo real, estudio autodirigido,enseñanza de estrategias, aprendizaje en colaboración, auto-expresión y coherencia de las experiencias de aprendizaje de lalectoescritura. Libros de circulación general reemplazaron a los tex-tos básicos (basals) y a los libros de texto sobre ciencias. Sobre la

Wachsendes Engagement in der Literarisierung: Veränderungen in den Lern-Motivationen und Lern-Strategien durch einen konzeptorientierten Unterricht

DIESE STUDIE beschreibt die Veränderungen im Literarisierungs-engagement im Laufe eines Jahres im Rahmen eines konzeptorien-tierten Leseunterrichts (CORI) mit neuen Zugängen in der Vermittlungvon Lese- und Schreibkompetenzen und in der Wissensvermittlung.Die Literarisierungsbestrebungen wurden definiert als eine Integra-tion von persönlicher Motivation, Wissensvermittlung und begrif-flichem Lernen durch einen Text. Um die Freude an der Literari-sierung im normalen Unterricht zu fördern, entwarf unser Team dasCORI-Konzept und führte es in jeweils zwei Klassen der drittenSchulstufe und der fünften Schulstufe an zwei Schulen ein. 140Schüler nahmen an diesem Integrationsprogramm für Lesen undSprachbeherrschung teil, wobei faktische Beobachtungen, Selbst-tätigkeit der Schüler, Lernstrategien, soziale Lernformen, persön-liche Ausdrucksfähigkeit und das Wiedererkennen von Zusam-menhängen die Schwerpunkte dieses Literarisierungsprozesseswaren. Belletristische Allgemeinliteratur und Sachbücher ersetztenFibeln und sachorientierte Lehrbücher. Ausgehend von jeweils ein-

wöchigen Leistungsfeststellungen im Herbst und Frühjahr, erwar-ben sich die Schüler fortgeschrittene Lernstrategien, und zwar inder Sinnerfassung von vielschichtigen Texten, in der Präsentationvon erworbenem Wissen, im Transfer von Lernkonzepten, in derSinnerfassung von Sachtexten und in der Interpretation von erzäh-lender Literatur. Die eigentliche Motivation der Kinder für dieLiterarisierung stand in wechselseitiger Beziehung zu den wissens-mäßigen Lernstrategien mit jeweils .8 für die Schulstufe 5 und mit .7für die Schulstufe 3. Alle Schüler, die eine erhöhte Lernmotivationaufwiesen, erhöhten in gleichem Ausmaß die Fähigkeiten in derAnwendung fortgeschrittener Lernstrategien. Eine beträchtliche Zahlder Schüler (50 Prozent), die in ihrer Lernmotivation unverändertblieben oder einen Motivationsabbau zeigten, wiesen keinen lern-strategischen Fortschritt auf. Diese Ergebnisse wurden diskutiert imRahmen eines systematischen Lernkonzepts, das motivationale,strategische und konzeptionelle Aspekte der Literarisierung umfaßt.

307

308

ABSTRACTS

Les progrès dans l’investissement en lecture-écriture: les changements de motivations et de stratégiespendant un Enseignement de la Lecture Orienté vers les Concepts

d’exercices scientifiques. En se basant sur les résultats d’une semained’évaluations au premier et au second trimestre, on voit que lesélèves ont progressé dans les stratégies de haut niveau suivantes:recherche dans plusieurs textes, représentation des connaissances, etinterprétation de narration. Les motivations personnelles des en-fants pour la lecture-écriture sont en corrélation avec les stratégiescognitives à 80% en cinquiéme année et à 70% en troisième année.Tous les élèves dont les motivations personnelles ont progressé ontégalement progressé dans leur utilisation de stratégies de hautniveau. Une proportion notable (50%) d’élèves dont les motivationspersonnelles sont stables ou en diminution n’ont pas progressé dansles stratégies de haut niveau. La discussion de ces résultats portesur un cadre conceptuel embrassant les aspects motivationnels,stratégiques, et conceptuels de l’investissement en lecture-écriture.

CETTE ÉTUDE présente les changements de motivations au coursd’une année d’Enseignement de la Lecture Orienté vers les Concepts(ELOC; CORI en anglais), une nouvelle façon d’enseigner la lecture,l’écriture et les sciences. On a défini l’investissement en lecture-écriture comme une intégration de motivations personnelles, destratégies cognitives, et d’apprentissages conceptuels à partir d’untexte. Notre équipe a défini et implanté CORI dans deux classes detroisième année et dans deux classes de cinquième année de deuxécoles en vue de développer i’investissement en lecture-écriture enclasse. Cent quarante élèves ont participé à un programme delecture-langue-sciences, qui mettait l’accent sur des observationsscientifiques du monde réel, l’autonomie de l’élève, l’enseignementde stratégies, l’apprentissage coopératif, l’expression de soi, et lacohérence des expériences d’apprentissage de la lecture-écriture.Des livres du commerce ont pris la place des manuels et des livres

of literacy engagement, we built a coding rubric thatcharacterized the quality of children’s performance in aperformance assessment. This rubric enabled us to quan-tify our grounded categories of strategic and conceptuallearning. We have used this multimethod descriptive ap-proach to enhance the explanatory coherence (Thagard,1989) of our account of changes in literacy engagement.This descriptive study, in other words, is a deliberatecombination of qualitative and quantitative methods toaddress our objectives.

Theoretical framework for reading engagement

Motivations for readingCentral to our investigation is the construct of read-

ing engagement, which refers to the joint functioning ofmotivations and strategies during reading (Newman,Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992). Engaged readers choose toread for a variety of purposes and comprehend the ma-terials within the context of the situation. Engaged read-ers are self-determining (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, &Ryan, 1991) in the sense that they elect a wide range ofliteracy activities for aesthetic enjoyment, gaining knowl-edge, and interacting with friends. They are motivated toread for its own sake, and these motivations activate theself-regulation of higher order strategies for learningthrough literacy (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991).

In our engagement perspective, motivations forreading are seen as internalized goals that lead to litera-cy choices and comprehension strategies (Pintrich &Schrauben, 1992). In this goal-oriented view, motivationsmay be regarded as reasons for reading. Students’ goalscan be classified as intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motiva-tion refers to the activities in which pleasure is inherentin the activity itself (Gottfried, 1985). Students who areintrinsically motivated have an inherent interest in whatthey are reading and enjoy figuring out the meanings forthemselves. When asked the question “Why are youreading this text?”, students who are intrinsically motivat-ed to read answer “to learn how butterflies migrate” (cu-riosity goal) or “because the mystery was so exciting”(involvement). The motivational goals of curiosity andinvolvement are intrinsic.

Extrinsic motivation refers to motivation that comesfrom outside the learner. Students who are more extrinsi-cally motivated prefer to please the teacher, do easierreading tasks, and are dependent on the guidance ofothers. Thus, when asked the question “Why are youreading this text?”, extrinsically motivated students might

answer “because the teacher assigned it” (compliance) or“because I wanted to get a sticker” (recognition).

Some researchers (e.g., Harter, Whitesell, &Kowalski, 1992) proposed that motivations fall on a con-tinuum from intrinsic to extrinsic implying that they arenegatively correlated. Other investigators such asWentzel (1991) reported that students may possess multi-ple motivational goals simultaneously—some of whichare intrinsic and some extrinsic. We believe studentshave multiple goals for reading.

Further, children’s motivations have been reportedto be domain-specific (Wigfield & Harold, 1992). Studentsmay be intrinsically motivated to read but not to do mathand vice versa. Gottfried (1985) found that intrinsic moti-vations for reading predicted students’ perceptions oftheir own competence in reading, but intrinsic motivationin reading did not predict perceptions of competence inmath or science. Relationships among motivationally ori-ented constructs are specific to particular content areas.

Within reading, further distinctions among types ofmotivations can be made. The diversity of motivationsfor reading has been described by Wigfield and Guthrie(1995) with a combination of methods including open-ended interviews and factor analysis of self-report datafrom student questionnaires. They reported clear distinc-tions among several intrinsic motivations including cu-riosity, aesthetic involvement, importance of reading,challenge, social interaction, and self-efficacy.

In addition, several more extrinsic motivations suchas recognition, grades, competition, compliance, andwork-avoidance were identified. Describing how thesedifferent types of motivational goals influence readingstrategies is the topic of the next section.

Motivations for strategy use in readingRelationships between motivations and strategies

have been explicated by Corno and Kanfer (1993),Covington (1992), and Ford (1992). Corno and Kanfer(1993) asserted that motivations consist of goals and in-tentions; however, they also emphasized the importanceof volitional strategies that enable individuals to fulfilltheir motivational goals. They argued that without voli-tion, individuals’ intentions may not be realized in action.

Following Kuhl (1985), Corno and Kanfer (1993)discussed many volitional processes. These included,first, action control processes, which empower the indi-vidual to manage cognitive and metacognitive resourcesfor goal attainment. Second, goal-related cognitions formthe basis for adaptive use of learning strategies, well-timed application of deep processing, self-monitoring,and self-evaluation. Finally, volitional styles such as con-scientiousness, independence, and responsibility influ-ence how strategies are used and regulated.

Growth of literacy engagement 309

Corno (1993) asserted that volitional strategies arenot merely energized by motivations, but more impor-tant, these strategies are contingent on different kinds ofmotivations. For example, when motivations possesspersonal significance, they are intrinsic and will be asso-ciated with higher level strategies. In contrast, a studentwho wishes to receive recognition for reading may notnecessarily be concerned with understanding or enjoyingthe content of a book or story. This student will attemptto be perceived as competent and to comply with thedemands of the teacher conscientiously. Yet the studentmay not read on his or her own, share books withfriends, or pursue difficult tasks that are not assigned.

Some motivations, such as fear of failure, may leadto strategies of low goal setting, avoidance of risk, andminimal effort. These strategies may help a student fulfillthe intention of avoiding failure but will not foster deepcomprehension or extended reading for personal initia-tive. We expect that students who possess intrinsic moti-vations for reading will work independently, show re-sponsibility, and conscientiously translate their intentionsinto actions. Thus, motivational and volitional systemswork in close association, and exploring their joint func-tioning during reading was one purpose of this study.

Relationships between students’ motivations andtheir use of reading strategies during learning have beenexamined by several investigators. Pintrich and De Groot(1990) conducted a study of 173 seventh-grade studentsfrom science and English classrooms. The students re-sponded to a self-report questionnaire assessing studentmotivation, cognitive strategy use, and the managementof effort. The motivations of intrinsic value and self-efficacy strongly predicted students’ uses of strategies.

Intrinsic value was measured with statements suchas the following: “It is important for me to learn what isbeing taught in this class,” “I like what I am learning inthis class,” “I think what I am learning in this class isuseful for me to know.” Self-efficacy was measured withsuch statements as “I expect to do very well in thisclass,” “I am certain I can understand the ideas taught inthis course,” “Compared with other students in this class,I think I know a great deal about the subject.”

Both intrinsic value and self-efficacy predicted self-regulation of strategies measured with such items as “Iask myself questions to make sure I know the material I have been studying,” “Before I begin studying I thinkabout the things I will need to do to learn,” “When I’mreading I stop once in awhile and go over what I haveread.” Intrinsic value correlated .73 with self-regulation,and self-efficacy correlated .44 with self-regulation. Inaddition, intrinsic value and self-efficacy predicted stu-dent grades and how well they did on seat work,quizzes, essays, and reports.

Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle (1988) also foundthat intrinsic motivation predicted students’ cognitivestrategy use in science classrooms. They examined stu-dents’ orientation to task mastery, which referred tointerest in learning rather than interest in showing com-petence to the teacher or other students. They measuredtask mastery by having the child respond to such state-ments as “I want to learn something new” and “I felt in-volved in my work.” They asked students to reply to aquestionnaire on their use of cognitive strategies, con-taining such statements as “I asked myself some ques-tions as I went along to make the work make sense tome.” Students’ motivations for task mastery correlated .63 with their use of cognitive strategies when severalother motivational constructs were statistically controlled.

Finn and Cox (1992) added generality to the rela-tionship of motivation and strategy use by reporting thatstudents who were intrinsically motivated in a learningsituation were more likely to have high standardizedachievement test scores in reading than students whowere less intrinsically motivated.

The reciprocity of motivation and cognition duringreading includes the effects of strategy learning on moti-vation levels. Schunk and Rice (1985) reported thatlearning a strategy for reading increased students’ read-ing self-efficacy. Students who were taught to verbalize a strategy for comprehension increased their beliefs intheir personal capabilities for successful performance ofa particular task. The authors concluded that “trainingstudents to use self-regulated learning strategies such asself-verbalization improves their perception of efficacy,motivation, and learning” (p. 197).

Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1993)confirmed that possessing strategies for learning in-creased students’ aspirations. They reported that stu-dents who had high self-efficacy for the strategies ofsummarizing, outlining, and taking notes were likely toset higher academic goals than students with lower self-efficacy for these strategies. Although motivations clear-ly influence strategies, the basic purposes of strategiesin learning have not been addressed in this article. Onepurpose that is prevalent in Grades 3 to 12 is conceptu-al learning from informational text, which is considerednext.

Motivations for conceptual learning from textWhen motivations for reading are viewed as goals

and commitments toward learning through literacy activi-ties, the relationship of motivation to conceptual learningbecomes apparent. Students who have a commitment tounderstand the content of an instructional unit are likelyto get a deeper understanding of the content than stu-dents who possess different kinds of commitments.

310 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1996 31/3

Students whose motivations are more extrinsic,such as working just to complete an assignment or gainrecognition for good performance, are likely to engagein rote learning and gain verbatim knowledge ratherthan a fully integrated conceptual understanding(Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). Thus, it can be expectedthat intrinsic motivations will yield higher levels of con-ceptual learning than more extrinsic motivations.

In addition to motivational orientations of students,topic-based interests also influence conceptual learningfrom text (see Alexander, Kulikowich, & Jetton, 1994, fordetailed discussion). For instance, Hidi and Anderson(1992) investigated the characteristics of particular textsthat affected how interesting they were to students andthat led to increased conceptual understanding. Fourthand sixth graders read three different types of texts aboutinventors. The first type of text contained high action,strong character identification, novelty, and real-lifethemes related to the experiences of students. The secondtype of text contained additional description and elabora-tion on the themes, and the third type presented newinformation intended to peak the interest of students.Students showed the highest interest ratings and concep-tual recall for the high-action, life-theme revision of texts.Students also showed extremely high recall on explicit de-scriptions of scenes such as how to build an igloo.

Although Hidi and Anderson (1992) did not controlthe variables of background knowledge and intelligencein the relationship of interest and text understanding,Schiefele (1992) did introduce these controls in his studyof interest and comprehension in college students.Schiefele reported that students’ ratings of interest fortext predicted their level of conceptual understanding ofthe text only if students experienced feelings of enjoy-ment, involvement, or personal significance of the topic.This leads us to conclude that text-based interest evokedintrinsic motivations of involvement, enjoyment, and per-sonal significance that then generated increased concep-tual understanding of text.

Contextual influences on motivations for readingAlthough students come to school with motivation-

al orientations developed during the preschool years(Deci, 1980), the different contexts of instruction alsogreatly influence student motivations as they go throughschool (Ames, 1992). Previous research suggests thatcontexts that increase intrinsic motivation will be sociallyinteractive, with freedom for the learner (Blumenfeld,1992; Turner, 1995), providing strategic tools for learning(Guthrie, McGough, Bennett, & Rice, 1996), and real-world literacy tasks (Newby, 1991).

However, few investigators have attempted to im-plement and then describe extended, instructional con-

texts (Stevenson & Carr, 1993) designed to enhanceintrinsic motivation for literacy. One exception isCovington (1992) who reported that a global gambit pro-ject enhanced intrinsic motivation of ninth-grade stu-dents in a social science class. In the project, studentsstudied global warming by observing temperatures andcomparing them with temperatures of one century agoand measuring the effects of acid rain on local statues.Students proceeded to read voraciously and monitortheir learning as they addressed problems of globalwarming.

In addition, Blumenfeld et al. (1991) have arguedthat the project-based approach to instruction, in whichstudents collaborate to create an artifact such as a diora-ma or a chart to display their learning, increased motiva-tion. Although these approaches hold promise, clearevidence of their effects on the growth of intrinsic moti-vation has not been presented.

Questions for this studySeveral authors (e.g., Blumenfeld, 1992; Graham &

Golan, 1991; Zimmerman & Martinez-Ponz, 1992) havepointed to the need for studies that explore how intrinsicmotivations and strategies for learning influence eachother across time in actual classroom settings. For in-stance, Blumenfeld (1992) suggested that we need toexamine how qualities of a task, such as variety andchallenge, relate to motivational processes across time.Graham and Golan (1991) said that relating distinct moti-vational states to specific cognitive processes was impor-tant. Zimmerman & Martinez-Ponz (1992) noted that“researchers need to undertake microanalysis of the roleof self-efficacy at many points before, during, and aftervarious strategic efforts to learn” (p. 201).

Jagacinski (1992) concluded that “research is need-ed that examines how differences in achieving orienta-tions interact with situational demands” (p. 321). Inkeeping with these recommendations we have used thefollowing questions as guides for the present study. Inthis study we attempted to construct educational con-texts that would enhance the growth of literacy engage-ment and to describe this growth. Because the purposeof this investigation was descriptive, we did not comparestudents who received CORI with a control group.

1. Which aspects of literacy engagement increaseduring CORI?

2. Were the increases in literacy engagement edu-cationally significant?

3. How highly correlated were intrinsic motivationand engagement within and across time?

4. How do changes in intrinsic motivation, amountand breadth of reading, and volitional strategies relate toeach other?


Method

To address these questions, we implemented an in-structional program designed to enhance literacy en-gagement, charting the growth of students from fall tospring as they participated. Our description of growthwas both quantitative and qualitative. The qualitativecases were selected for typicality (Erickson, 1986) to ex-emplify group trends. The quantitative analyses weredone to assure that the conclusions about the growth ofliteracy engagement were warranted for the populationof students and individuals within the populations (see a fuller rationale for this approach in Brown, 1992).

Participants and setting One Grade 3 and one Grade 5 teacher in one ele-

mentary school and one Grade 3 and one Grade 5teacher in another elementary school in a diverse subur-ban school district in the mid-Atlantic region of the USAvolunteered to embark on this venture, accompanied byone reading specialist in each school. Both schools wereChapter 1, K–6 schools with approximately 35 studentsin each of 15 classes. The schools had low (bottom quar-tile) reading and math achievement, and students weregrouped heterogeneously in classes.

The teachers, who possessed 10–15 years of expe-rience in the profession, were selected because theywere interested and able, but not because they werenominated as exemplary. Schools were identified by thedistrict supervisor of reading as representative of the dis-trict in size, quality, and neighborhood income.

Students were 140 boys and girls from a lower in-come ethnically diverse population. Approximately 35students began the year in each classroom. The studentswere African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Caucasian.A substantial portion of the students (35–60%) qualifiedfor a free or reduced-fee lunch. Third-grade classroomswere self-contained. Fifth-grade teachers taught English/Language Arts and science to the students in the study.They taught other science classes in a departmentalizedsystem. The researchers served as mentors for the pro-ject, but not as teachers. They worked collaboratively insummer preparation activities and collected the data.

Preparation for teaching consisted of a summerworkshop of 8 half days held at the schools with thefour teachers, two reading specialists, one universityfaculty member, and one graduate student. This groupcontinued as an inquiry team in six monthly meetingsduring the school year. The university faculty membercoordinated the summer workshop, guiding each teachertoward his or her own classroom design. He also super-vised the graduate students in collecting data from thechildren.

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction: An overviewThe Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)

program was a year-long instructional design implement-ed in four classrooms in two elementary schools. A ma-jor purpose of the program was to increase students’ en-gagement in literacy and science. The program wasdesigned in collaboration with teachers and reading spe-cialists in two elementary schools. The instructionalframework contained four phases: (a) observe and per-sonalize, (b) search and retrieve, (c) comprehend and in-tegrate, and (d) communicate to others. Examples of theactivities are given for third grade only, due to limita-tions of space.

Observe and personalize. Our first step in engagingstudents in literacy was to provide opportunities to ob-serve concrete objects and events in their natural world.Observing natural objects such as a tree, flower, cricket,caterpillar, bird nest, or feather was intriguing. After ex-periencing an initial fascination with tangible, concreteobjects, students began to wonder and to ask questionsthat led to conceptual interests. Students brainstormedand explicitly stated the questions they wanted to ex-plore with additional observations, data collecting, read-ing, writing, and discussion. Observing the real worldwas a point of departure for extended literacy, and itprovided a frame of reference that enabled students toselect reading and writing activities and to self-monitortheir pursuits.

Grade 3 classrooms studied the adaptation of ani-mals to their environments beginning with a 12-weekunit on birds. By observing bird nests, attempting tobuild their own bird nests, drawing feathers, recordingbehavior at feeding stations, simulating the crop in aclassroom experiment, and visiting a display of stuffedbirds, students gained a long-lived curiosity. Studentskept journals of their observations, which are presentedwithout alteration of syntax or word choice althoughspelling and punctuation were corrected for ease ofreading. One student reported that

We built our nest with leaves, grass sticks and twigs. Mudtoo. But first we looked for each of these things at theplayground. Clay was to stick our nest together because ifwe didn’t have clay our nest would break. We called theclay mud. I learned that it’s hard to make a nest unlessyou really try to. I learned that birds have a hard timemaking nests but we read a book that helped us learnand I found out that if you try with a group it might beeasy. And you might make a lot of friends.

Students personalized their interest in learningabout birds and their environments by writing questionsboth as teams and individuals. Questions were placedon the classroom walls, forming the cornerstone of a co-


herent sequence of learning activities that connected sci-ence with language arts activities. Students were excitedand gratified by having their questions legitimated andpublicly displayed.

Grade 3 science goals included observing, gather-ing and recording data, recognizing patterns, comparing,and developing explanations. Science content in Grade 3emphasized structural characteristics of birds such asbeaks and feathers and functional characteristics such asflying and feeding that aid survival.

Search and retrieve. Teaching students how tosearch was fundamental to enabling them to pursue theirinterests and answer the questions they generated fromobservational activities. Students were encouraged tochoose subtopics for learning and to search for books,resources, references, pictures, and explanations of thetopics they chose. Students were taught how to searchfor books in the school library and to find books in theclassroom. They learned to use the table of contents, in-dex, headings, and pictures as guides.

Strategies for searching were taught explicitlythrough teacher modeling, peer modeling, teacher scaf-folding, guided practice, and teamwork. Typically, teach-ers presented a directed lesson using a class set of onebook for all students. Teachers emphasized book organi-zation, relevance of information, appropriateness of de-tail, and the differences between facts, explanations, andopinions. Teams of students then explored their groupsets of information books and exchanged ideas abouthow to search for ideas in them.

Students were taught four fundamental searchprocesses identified by previous investigators(Armbruster & Armstrong, 1993; Guthrie, Weber, &Kimmerly, 1993) including (a) forming goals, whichrefers to knowing what you want to find or having anobjective for the search activity; (b) categorizing, whichrefers to understanding how materials are organized; (c)extracting, which refers to finding critical details, notetaking, paraphrasing, and summarizing, within a book orresource; and (d) abstracting, which refers to synthesiz-ing or putting ideas together and forming a general un-derstanding.

For 3–4 weeks in the middle of each unit, teachersaddressed at least one aspect of the search daily for15–30 minutes. Teachers modeled each of these stages,and students discussed them in groups and recordedprogress toward each of them in their journals.

Comprehend and integrate. As students followedthe interests they had generated from their observationalactivities, they identified a wide range of texts and re-sources that were relevant. The phase of search and re-trieve yielded a rich reserve of interesting material, butthe students faced the challenge of comprehending and

integrating. To help students in fully comprehending andintegrating the texts with their own previous knowledge,teachers emphasized (a) determining the topic of a textselection, (b) detecting critical details, (c) summarizingthe text, (d) making comparisons between texts, (e) re-lating illustrations to text, (f) developing criteria forevaluating a book, and (g) critically reflecting on the or-ganization of information and the author’s point of view.Students also learned that a novel or short story may ad-dress the same topic as an informational book and willprovide a different experience of the theme.

Trade books were used exclusively. Basal readerswere not used for any purpose, and science textbookswere used rarely for reference. Grade 3 students beganthe year by reading narratives such as Owl Moon byYolen (1987). At later points in the unit they read thenovels White Bird by Bulla (1966) and Wingman byPinkwater (1975), and poetry on birds. Within thesebooks, teachers emphasized imagery, aesthetics of lan-guage, and characterization as well as the traditionalconstituents of setting, plot, conflict, and resolution.

Third graders were taught to use informationalbooks to pursue the interests they formulated during theobserving and personalizing phase of instruction.Practice searches were conducted, first using teacher-generated questions. Later students formulated their ownquestions and found appropriate informational texts. Tohelp students comprehend books, teachers provided ex-plicit instruction in identifying topic, details, and writingsummaries. Through teacher modeling, peer modeling,and small-group discussion, students were provided in-struction in fix-up strategies, enabling students to (a) usepictures, illustrations, diagrams, and graphs; (b) refer totheir own questions; (c) look up vocabulary in an index,glossary, or dictionary; (d) break text into parts and putit back together; (e) ask peers and teams; (f) form im-ages about what they know; (g) reread the text in a newway; (h) slow down or speed up; and (i) consult theirown background knowledge.

Besides comprehension strategies, students weretaught notetaking and critical reflection on informationfrom expository books. Using their own questions, inter-ests, and topical knowledge as criteria for judgment,students learned to critique books.

Communicate to others. Through CORI, studentsbecame experts on the topic about which they chose tolearn. As they gained knowledge, students wanted to ex-press their understandings to others. To foster this self-expression, teachers provided instruction that enabledstudents to present their understanding in many forms,including a written report, a class-authored book, diora-mas, charts, and informational stories. Teachers coachedstudents in identifying an audience, adapting their mes-


sage to the audience, identifying critical details, andelaborating their writing. Students were encouraged toexpress their understandings in a variety of coherent,persuasive, and accurate communications to classmatesor other audiences of their choosing.

Grade 3 teachers invited students to make chartsabout their observations of birds. One class created walldisplays of the materials found in bird nests. Anotherclass created charts of adaptive features such as beaksand feet. The students wrote journals, and small class-room teams composed books on their favorite bird thatwere illustrated, covered, and shared with other teams.

MaterialsPerformance assessment of engaged reading. We

conducted an assessment designed to reflect a widespectrum of motivational and strategic literacy processesthat appeared in CORI. The assessment was intended togenerate data for addressing questions 1–3.

Our performance assessment was designed to en-able students to do seven distinct, but connected tasks:(a) stating prior knowledge (writing what they knowabout the topic); (b) searching (finding resources andideas about the topic); (c) drawing (expressing whatthey have learned through drawing); (d) writing (com-municating their learning through composition); (e)conceptual transfer (addressing a related problem usingconceptual knowledge learned during the unit); (f) infor-mational text comprehension (understanding an exposi-tory text related to the theme); and (g) narrative interpre-tation (understanding and responding to a literary texton the theme of the unit). See Appendix A for a descrip-tion of the performance assessment.

Although performance on these tasks reflects theuse of cognitive strategies, the assessment was also re-sponsive to motivations. The tasks were open-ended andunhurried, thus rewarding effort, persistence, and elabo-ration. For example, in the search task, students weregiven packets. Each packet was a two- to four-page textwith illustrations. The third-grade booklet contained 12 packets and the fifth-grade booklet contained 14packets. A question was presented to the student withinthe booklet. Students were free to use the table of con-tents, index, headings, and illustrations to find informa-tion about the question. The log of the search describedwhich resources were selected, the reasons for selectingthem, and the information they learned from reading.

In addition, tasks were integrated into a theme,permitting students to fulfill their motivations of curiosityand involvement. To reflect these motivations, the cod-ing rubrics recognized elaboration and extended effort.For example, in the search rubric, students who gave de-tailed reasons for choosing packets scored higher than

students who gave vague reasons. Extended effort wasrecognized by giving higher scores to students whorecorded notes from many relevant packets. The interestvalue of the assessment was apparent as students inmost classes asked to take the assessment home to showtheir parents.

Appraisal of motivations for literacy. To determinethe nature of the students’ motivations for literacy, weidentified 24 students, 6 students from each classroom inthe fall of 1993. Each teacher selected students to repre-sent two highly engaged, two moderately engaged, andtwo less engaged readers. The interviewer followed asemistructured, student-responsive questionnaire andtape-recorded the exchange. These appraisals were in-tended to generate data for addressing questions 3 and4. The questionnaire began with a set of 13 questionsabout favorite activities beginning with “What do youlike to do for fun?” The second section contained 37questions about reading for enjoyment. Beginning with“Do you ever do any reading for your own interest?”,these questions allowed students to describe the depthand breadth of their motivation for reading. The thirdsection contained 21 questions about reading in school,which also elicited the students’ depth and breadth ofreading activities and motivation for reading.

Transcripts were coded using an inductive analyticprocedure (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). According tothis procedure, we divided the statements from four in-terviews into categories of motivations and volitions; wethen classified statements from a second set of fourinterviews and attempted to find new or redundant cate-gories. This final set consisted of our rubric for motiva-tions and volitional strategies.

Following Corno’s framework (Corno & Kanfer,1993), motivations were characterized as goals for partic-ipating in literacy events, volitional strategies were de-fined as the students’ actions or procedures to attain themotivational goals, and styles were characteristic modesof participating in events (see Appendix B). Each moti-vation, volitional strategy, and style was given a strengthrating of 1 (low) to 3 (high). High ratings reflected moti-vational processes that were highly important, frequent,detailed, and occurring across contexts.

To examine interrater agreement, one author andanother independent person rated two randomly select-ed transcripts on all of the categories in the rubric.Agreement was 82% for exact coding, and 89% for adja-cent coding, in which rating within one number wasaccepted.

ProcedureThe performance assessments were conducted in

Grade 3 and Grade 5 classrooms as teacher-led instruc-


tional units lasting 4 to 6 days. Half the students tookone topic (owls for Grade 3; trees for Grade 5), and halftook a different topic (ponds for Grade 3; tides for Grade5) in September 1993; and the topics were reversed inthe March 1994 administration. Student responses werecoded according to the rubric in Appendix C. This rubricwas constructed by an inductive-analytic method(LeCompte & Preissle, 1993).

The first two authors (Guthrie and Van Meter) sort-ed a sample of 12 student responses into the largestnumber of categories that we thought would be repro-ducible. We then sorted a second sample of 12 respons-es, adjusting our categories and classification ofresponses, until we attained a consensus. To determinethe level of interrater agreement, two other raters exam-ined the responses to each section of the performanceassessment of 6 third-grade students and 6 fifth-gradestudents. Each rater gave a numerical rating to each sec-tion of the assessment for each student. Across all stu-dents and sections, the two raters had 93% agreement.To chart growth, we compared the performance of allstudents on the seven measures on the counterbalancedtopics, permitting us to see generalized gains in literacyengagement.

The motivation interviews were conducted by onegraduate student with the same 20 students in October1993 and March 1994. Although we began with 24 inOctober, we lost 4 students who left the school district.A graduate student, not involved in the performance as-sessments, gave the interviews to increase the perceivedindependence of the motivational interviews and theperformance assessments. Coding procedures are de-scribed under the section on the appraisal of motivationsfor literacy.

The program of CORI was provided for the stu-dents from the beginning of September 1993 through theend of May 1994. All reading/language arts and sciencewere taught through this instructional framework for allstudents in these classrooms.

Results

Question 1: Which aspects of literacy engagementincreased during Concept-Oriented ReadingInstruction?

The performance assessment of reading and lan-guage arts was administered to all Grade 3 and Grade 5students in the fall and spring. Because each studenttook the assessment on different topics in the fall andspring, the differences in student performance during thetwo periods represent changes in the processes of litera-cy engagement independent of the particular topics. As

indicated in the Method section, the assessment con-tained tasks that required cognitive strategies in a situa-tion that was sensitive to motivations. Table 1 presentsthe results of the performance assessment. Preliminaryanalyses showed very few differences across topics ineach grade; therefore, we collapsed across topics andpresent the results that way.

Stating prior knowledge. There were no differencesbetween levels of prior knowledge in the fall and springat either grade level.

Searching. As described in the Method section, thispart of the assessment provided a substantial, realisticopportunity for students to search for ideas in a collec-tion of packets. Table 1 shows the gain in performancesfrom fall to spring, summed across both topics for thetwo age groups. Although Table 1 contains means andthe statistical analyses were computed on means, we usemedians to discuss the findings because medians can bedirectly related to the rubric levels.

Grade 5 students began the year with a median oftwo on this measure. As the rubric shows, a median oftwo indicated that these students could locate at leasttwo relevant packets and some irrelevant ones. They


Table 1 Increases in literacy engagement during theyear for fifth- and third-grade students

Fifth grade Third grade

Fall Spring Fall Spring

Stating prior knowledgeX 1.90 2.00 2.33 2.63SD .78 .68 .70 .95

SearchingX 2.16a 2.76a 2.72 f 3.80f

SD 1.05 .95 1.05 1.05

DrawingX 2.64b 3.12b 2.35 2.41SD 1.16 1.12 .99 1.22

WritingX 2.50c 2.88c 2.48g 3.26g

SD .95 1.06 .84 .98

Conceptual transferX 2.48 2.82 2.61h 3.06h

SD .84 1.20 .98 .95

Informational text comprehensionX 1.60d 2.35d 1.67 i 2.27i

SD .76 .65 .78 .71

Narrative interpretationX 3.69e 4.29e 2.85 j 4.04j

SD 1.14 .89 1.01 1.07

Note. Cells sharing the same subscripted letter differ significantly.Possible score is 5.

gave at least one clearly stated reason for the selectionof a relevant packet, and they wrote simple, clear notesillustrating what they had learned from one selection.

In the spring, the typical student progressed to alevel of three on the rubric. This showed s/he couldidentify three relevant packets and may have found sev-eral irrelevant ones. Appropriate reasons for selecting atleast two of the resources were given. The increase re-flects not only many relevant packets selected but alsoimprovements in the notes taken. Most prominently, stu-dents’ notes showed an accumulation of informationgained during the search process, illustrating metacogni-tive awareness in a conceptually driven search activity.

Change over time from fall to spring was analyzedquantitatively with a paired sample t-test. The springscores were significantly higher than the fall scores, t (47)= 3.84, p <.001. There were 72 Grade 5 students who be-gan CORI in the fall, but only 48 students remained inthe spring due to the transient population in the school.For Grade 5, these 48 students were used in the analysisof stating prior knowledge, searching, drawing, writing,and conceptual transfer. Note that the number of stu-dents for whom data on informational text comprehen-sion and narrative interpretation were available wasreduced to 43 and 45, respectively.

Grade 3 students made comparable progress dur-ing the year of instruction. The typical learner gainedone level, moving from a score of 3 to 4, which was sta-tistically significant according to a paired sample t-test, t (45) = 4.56, p <.001. Although 68 Grade 3 students be-gan the year, only 46 students remained in the springdue to the transient population. These 46 were used inthe Grade 3 analysis of stating prior knowledge, search-ing, drawing, writing, and conceptual transfer. For Grade

3, data were available for 48 students on informationaltext comprehension and narrative interpretation.

In the fall, Grade 3 students performed at a level ofthree, indicating that they could locate two relevantpackets of information and very few irrelevant ones, giv-ing an appropriate reason for at least one of their selec-tions and sensible notes on one packet. Progressing onelevel forward in the rubric meant that these studentswere capable in the spring of locating at least three rele-vant packets, with few irrelevant packets, and giving ap-propriate reasons for at least two of their selections.Clear and detailed notes for at least two selections wereprovided, and irrelevant notes did not contradict the oth-er information in the search log. Again, these increasedscores show that more packets were read and the qualityof notes improved. Note that the scores of Grade 3 andGrade 5 cannot be compared because the rubric levelswere referenced within grade and not across grades. Asample of a spring search log for owls is shown in Table 2.

Drawing. This was a measure of ability to repre-sent conceptual understanding through drawing. Grade 5students began the fall at a median of two, indicatingthat they generally included appropriate objects or partsof a system in their drawings. However, the functions ofthese elements and their relations to each other were ab-sent or vaguely described at best. Students typically pro-gressed to a median of three, showing an understandingnot only of the objects, parts, and elements but also therelationships among them.

The relationships, however, were vague and unde-fined. Students at a median of three in the tide taskshowed the scientifically correct objects such as moon,earth, sun, and water, with no scientifically incorrect ob-jects such as beach chairs and blankets. A vague depic-tion of relationships was included. Level three drawingsalso showed several connections represented in a vagueand undefined form. Students increased significantly dur-ing the year according to a paired sample t-test, t (47) =2.13, p < .038. Grade 3 students did not increase signifi-cantly during the year.

Writing. The writing task provided students an op-portunity to display their conceptual understanding. Thedrawing they had completed was available for their in-spection during the writing activity. In the fall, Grade 5students performed at a level of two, which indicatedthey could describe a few parts or objects, but any com-parisons or functions were vaguely described or absent.The typical fifth-grade student progressed to a level ofthree indicating s/he could show an understanding of re-lationships among relevant objects. Although the rela-tions were not presented in a high amount of detail, theywere scientifically correct. The student gain from the fall


Table 2 Third-grade search log

Bird sample

Why did you choose What did you learnPacket this packet? from this packet?

D To see how they hunt I learned that an owl cansilent. turn his head all the way

round. It can eat a skunk.

I I want to know how they I learn that only small clawskill. can kill snakes.

G I want to know what I learn that a flamingo eats kind of bird eats fish. fish.

K I want to know how they I learned that....talk to each other.

B I want to know if a male I learned that a female hawk is big. hawk is bigger.

to spring on the writing task was statistically significant,t (47) = 1.96, p <.05.

A typical Grade 5 student in the spring who per-formed at level three on the trees assessment stated that

Leaves can help the plant turn light into food and rootshelp the plant suck up water. The trunk holds the tree to-gether and leaves change color in the fall; trees don’t onlydepend on roots but their leaves too, they help give offgas oxygen and help the tree get food. A plant has tohave roots to help the tree stay in the ground.

Typical Grade 3 students began the fall at the levelof two on the writing task. They listed some parts of thetopic and possibly a vague function for one of the parts,but fewer relationships or other functions were included.Students moved to a level of three in the spring. Notonly did they include several parts of their object, butalso functional connections were made between at leasttwo of the parts. Elements of the object were connectedto the total system in a vague fashion. Gains from fall tospring for Grade 3 students were statistically significant,t (45) = 4.09, p <.001.

This example shows Grade 3 writing in the spring.A student who wrote about birds stated:

The beak lets it eat and his feet help him catch food. Hislegs so he can walk his claws to catch food and hismouth to eat food and his big yellow eyes to see with.The wings help it fly and the horns help it to know if it isanother barn owl. Its claws help it catch food and its eyeshelp it to see. The heart helps the owl to live and thefood helps the owl live too. The claws help the owl catchhis prey.

Conceptual transfer. The conceptual transfer activi-ty required an extension and application of conceptslearned during the search activity. The problem consist-ed of a novel situation in which students were expectedto use the conceptual knowledge and science principlespreviously learned. Grade 5 students did not increasesignificantly on this measure. However, Grade 3 studentsprogressed significantly in conceptual transfer from thefall to the spring, t (45) = 2.36, p <.023.

In the fall the typical third grader had a median oftwo that indicated s/he gave an incorrect, illogical, ornonscientific solution. S/he progressed to a level ofthree. S/he could present the problem and some require-ments for the task, but s/he could not construct a com-plete solution.

An example of Grade 3 conceptual transfer in thespring is shown for a student who took the owl versionof the assessment. This version asked what an owlwould be like if it were blind but were surviving suc-cessfully in the wild. A student who answered at a levelof three stated that

These owls will have good hearing be very good at catch-ing. Their beaks will help them eat. Their wings helpthem fly. Their nose will help them dig. They will have tofeel what they pick up and will have to be good at catch-ing mice.

Informational text comprehension. For both gradesand all assessment topics, students were given an illus-trated, informational text that was relevant to the topic. A question was presented that required the student tosynthesize information from the text and illustration, andto write an answer. Grade 5 students began the fall at thelevel of one, which showed they relied heavily on priorknowledge or on information from only one portion ofthe text. Separate sections were not integrated, and someincorrect information may have been included.

Fifth graders moved to a level of two in whichtheir answers integrated information from two or moreparts of the text and referenced the text appropriately.However, significant portions of text were omitted, andthe statements were not elaborated. Gain for fifth graderswas statistically significant, t (42) = 4.99, p <.001.

Third graders began the fall at the level of one, in-dicating they provided answers that came from only onepart of the text, and may have included incorrect or irrel-evant information. They moved to a level of two, indicat-ing they could integrate information from two or moreparts of the text, but the integrations were not elaborateor detailed. Third graders’ change from fall to spring wasstatistically significant t (47) = 4.16, p <.001.

Narrative interpretation. In this portion of theperformance assessment, students were given one inte-grated episode of approximately 1,000 words from a nar-rative book. Students were first asked to read the textand then answer three different questions. The firstquestion requested a low level of reproduction of oneportion of the narrative. The second question requestedstudents to make inferences and generalizations aboutthe character in the story. The third question asked stu-dents to reflect on their own experience in relation toone character. Answers to all of the questions were cod-ed about whether they were consistent with the text andwhether they were elaborated.

Grade 5 students began the year with a median ofthree. They had two answers to two of the questionsthat were consistent with the text, but the answers werenot elaborated. Fifth graders progressed to a level of foursuggesting that they had three answers consistent withthe texts but little elaboration. This increase from fall tospring was statistically significant, t (44) = 3.42, p <.001.

Grade 3 students in the fall performed at a level ofthree indicating they gave text-consistent answers to twoof the questions. Third graders progressed to the level of


four in the spring showing three text-consistent answersbut little elaboration. Third grade progress was statistical-ly significant, t (47) = 6.25, p <.001.

Question 2: Were the increases in literacy engage-ment educationally significant?

The previous results may not reveal whether thegains in literacy engagement were educationally andpractically significant. We did not compare the gains inliteracy engagement to standardized reading test scoresor grades, because standardized scores may not reflecthigher order learning, and grades are too normativewithin one classroom. However, to describe the magni-tude of the impact of the CORI on students’ literacy en-gagement, we compared third graders’ performance inthe spring, after receiving a year of CORI, to the fifthgraders’ performance in the fall before the year began,and before CORI had been presented. Of course, thefifth graders in the fall were more than 1 year older, with 1 year more of schooling than the third graders in the spring.

To make the comparison, we selected two typicalcases (Erickson, 1986). Typicality was defined in the fol-lowing manner. Averages of all students were obtainedfor the searching, drawing, writing, and conceptualtransfer tasks for both the Grade 3 spring performanceon the owl assessment and the Grade 5 fall performanceon the tree assessment. All scores were then inspectedfor each of these stages to identify typical performancesat each stage (i.e., those performances that were equal tothe average group score).

Two third graders and three fifth graders fit thesedescriptions of typical performance across each of thefour stages inspected. Scores for stages six (informationaltext comprehension) and seven (narrative interpretation)were then used as tie breakers. The two selected caseswere thus typical of their grade levels. Comparisonswere then made regarding the quality of the perfor-mances at each stage. Quality was defined in a mannerconsistent with the scoring rubrics.

Stating prior knowledge. On the prior knowledgetask, third graders responded to a question about owls:“Tell how the parts of an owl help it to live.” The thirdgrader wrote:

The owl’s ear help him to know wind a hunter is here.The owl’s feet help him to grab its food in the air.

The fifth grader responded to the questions: “What arethe parts of a tree? How do these parts help it to live?”

I selected the branch because you could swing on it andstuff. How does it live well some people put water at thebottom of the tree that pushes the water up in the branchand keep it alive.

These answers are nearly indistinguishable al-though several points of distinction favor the Grade 3student. This third grader included two systems of adap-tation (i.e., protection and body parts related to hunting)while the fifth grader included only one system (i.e., wa-ter helping the tree branch to survive). Quality of writingalso favored the third grader who used complete sen-tences and punctuation.

Searching. Performances in the search stage wereroughly equivalent. The Grade 5 student selected fourpackets, including two about the topic of tree parts andadaptation. Notes taken on these packets were vague(e.g., “I learned that plant can be different and same be-cause some don’t grow flowers or leaves and somedo.”). The Grade 3 student selected three packets, in-cluding two relevant ones. The third grader was more ef-ficient, selecting 67% relevant packets, compared to 50%relevant packets for the fifth grader. The third grader’snotes were more specific, containing structures and func-tions (e.g., “Their feet are usually bare and scaly—un-feathered feet are much easier to clean.”). Both sets ofnotes were nonspecific and incomplete in relation to theabundance of information that was available in the re-spective packets of text.

Drawing. Drawings showed a clear advantage forthe Grade 3 spring performance over the Grade 5 fallperformance. Each student included two drawings, anoverview with labels for major structures and a close-up.The third grader’s close-up showed an extension of heroverview, depicting the method of hunting and a nestwith eggs. Close-up drawings of the fifth grader, howev-er, were irrelevant to the question asked, simply listingthe labeled structures and adding flowers to the scene.

Writing. When Grade 5 students were asked towrite what they had learned about the parts of the treeand how the parts help it to live, one fifth grader wrote:

What I know about trees. They have different parts likethe Roots The trunk and the branch. Some trees live mil-lions of years ago and that they lived in different time.Some trees you have to water under roots or they willdie.

In this answer, the only portion of the tree connected toa survival function was the roots, which were part of thisstudent’s background knowledge. The only other refer-ence to tree parts involved a listing of the trunk andbranch. Again, information irrelevant to the question wasincluded in the statement that some trees lived millionsof years ago. This answer included only one adaptivesystem with a number of plant structures.

The third grader responded to the question of “Tellhow the parts of an owl help it to live” by stating that


The owl uses its feet to get a mouse or a rat and eat it alive. Some owls hunt at night. Owls take birds nest andlive in it.

Although this Grade 3 student included some back-ground (e.g., hunting), she added that the kind of preycan be a mouse or a rat. She also added a new adapta-tion, nesting. The third grader included two systems ofadaptation, hunting and nesting, while the fifth-grade an-swer included only one relevant system, the need forwater at the roots of a tree.

Conceptual transfer. The Grade 5 student wasasked to solve the problem of how a tree could live in1,000 feet of snow 10 months a year. This student wrote:

I don’t think the trees will live. because if we had thatmuch snow the tree will keep falling off branch bybranch because too much pressure is going on to it. be-cause when the snow balls drop it is just too much pres-sure.

No solution was forwarded, and adaptations for survivalwere not presented. The Grade 3 student was askedhow a species of blind owls could survive. She wrote:

The owl would have to be a good smeller, hunter, Motheror Father, fast thinker and able to use his feet, head,wings. The owl would need to be a good hunter. Hewould need to teach his or her child to use its wings, feetand head.

This was a viable solution to the survival problem. Twonew adaptations were introduced, smelling and teaching.Not only would an owl have to be a good hunter, usingits sense of smell and its feet and wings, it would alsohave to be a good parent to teach the child how to sur-vive without sight. The principle that structures and theirfunctions are modified by the conditions of the environ-ment was evident.

In sum, comparison of one statistically typicalGrade 3 student in the spring with one statistically typicalGrade 5 student in the fall suggests that the third graderat the end of the year was equivalent to, or higher than,the fifth grader at the beginning of the year. The thirdgrader showed a more integrated knowledge representa-tion using a greater variety of adaptive systems and usedthis knowledge to solve problems more effectively thanthe fifth grader. While both students brought equivalentprior knowledge to this text-based learning situation, theGrade 3 student built on this knowledge and extended itto solve a novel problem; the Grade 5 student did not.

It should be noted that the fifth grader read a set ofmaterials with more pages and more complexity than thematerials read by the third grader. This could be a disad-vantage to the fifth grader because this student had hard-er texts. On the other hand, both students had materials

suitable to their grade levels. The fifth grader had a larg-er number of texts that contained more information,affording more opportunity to select and write about rel-evant information. Therefore, it is unlikely that the thirdgrader had an advantage.

The coding rubrics in this study were constructed to be appropriate for the two grade levels separately;therefore, a simple rubric level comparison was not pos-sible. However, similarities between these assessmentswere that each assessment involved texts that were at thestudents’ grade level. In addition, questions were equatedby focusing on the same characteristics of the studiedtopic (i.e., “Tell how the different parts of an owl help itto live,” “What are the parts of a tree? How do these partshelp the tree to live?”). These similarities increased thecomparability of Grade 3 and Grade 5 responses.

Question 3: How highly correlated were intrinsicmotivation and engagement within and acrosstime?`

The performance assessment was designed to besensitive to intrinsic motivations as well as strategies forliteracy. Our view of engagement is that motivations areintegral to the learning and use of strategies. If this istrue, motivations should be correlated with the levels ofengagement observed in the performance assessment.To examine this question, we compared the results ofthe motivation interview with the engagement assess-ment.

From the motivation interview, we constructed acomposite measure of intrinsic motivation. The compos-ite was formed by summing the scores of involvement,curiosity, social interchange, emotional tuning, and self-efficacy for each of 20 students, reduced from 24 due toattrition during the school year. We also constructed acomposite measure of engagement by summing thescores on searching, drawing, writing, and conceptualtransfer for 19 of these students who completed thespring performance assessment.

We rank-ordered all students on the motivationcomposite and the engagement composite. For Grade 5,the correlation of the rank orders was .81, which wasstatistically significant at p <.01. For Grade 3, the rank or-der correlation was .70, which was statistically significantat p <.05. These correlations show that students whowere intrinsically motivated by involvement, curiosity,social interchange, emotional tuning, and self-efficacywere highly engaged in literacy as evidenced by theirhigh performance in text-based searching, drawing, writ-ing, and conceptual transfer in the assessment. Studentswith lower intrinsic motivations were lower in literacyengagement. This confirmed our expectation that (a)intrinsic motivations and strategy learning were highly


associated, and (b) the assessments were sensitive toindividual differences in motivations for literacy.

To address the question of how intrinsic motivationand engagement changed across time, we used the com-posite of literacy engagement consisting of the combina-tion of searching, drawing, writing, and conceptualtransfer. We classified each student as either increasing,not changing, or decreasing from fall to spring in thiscomposite. We also used the intrinsic motivation com-posite, which was the sum of involvement, curiosity, so-cial interchange, emotional tuning, and self-efficacy foreach student. Each student was classified as increasing,not changing, or decreasing in intrinsic motivation.

We related the changes in literacy engagement tothe changes in intrinsic motivation for both third andfifth graders combined as shown in Table 3. Studentswere placed in the quadrant of increase/increase if bothengagement and motivation increased or if one in-creased and the other did not change. Students wereplaced in a decrease/decrease quadrant if both de-creased or if one decreased and the other was un-changed. Students were placed in the increase/decreasequadrant only if the motivation increased and theengagement decreased. They were placed in thedecrease/increase quadrant if the motivation decreasedand the engagement increased.

A pronounced relationship can be observed be-tween change in intrinsic motivation and change in liter-acy engagement. Thirteen students of the 19 increased inboth motivation and engagement. At the same time noneof the students increased in intrinsic motivation and de-creased in literacy engagement. In other words, 100% ofthe students who increased in intrinsic motivation fromfall to spring increased in literacy engagement as well.

Students who decreased in intrinsic motivationwere equally likely to increase and decrease in literacyengagement. Fifty percent of those who decreased inmotivation decreased in literacy engagement. These fre-

quencies showed a statistically significant association ac-cording to the chi-square statistic X2(1, N = 19) = 4.57,p <.05. This association supports the theoretical expecta-tion that increasing the strength and breadth of intrinsicmotivations will be associated with the enhancement ofstrategy-based literacy engagement.

To exemplify these changes in motivation and liter-acy engagement, we report some interview results withone Grade 5 student. Joy, a 10-year-old Asian Americanstudent, exhibited the pattern of noticeable gains in in-trinsic motivation during the year. According to herschool’s reading specialist, Joy had completed the fourth-grade basal text and had consumed the first quarter ofthe Grade 5 reader before entering Grade 5. AlthoughJoy showed an understanding of the material covered inclass through her finished products, she was not quickto volunteer her thoughts when the teacher called forparticipation from the students.

Recalling the characters in the Sweet Valley seriesof books created by Pascal (1992), Joy reflected herinvolvement as follows:

Well um, the girls are about sixth graders, so they’reabout my age so, they well, it’s about their every day life,how they get in trouble and stuff. Well, I, sometimes it’slike a mystery, who takes something, so I always um,want to finish it so I could find out who took it or some-thing. Like um, there was this really um, Jessica’s friendum, Lila, she’s really rich and um, once um, lots of um,their stuff was missing so they—it turned out in Jessica’slocker—so they think she took it but she was framed.

From fall to spring, Joy exhibited growth in thestrength of her self-efficacy for reading (from medium to high) by volunteering that reading was an activity inwhich she was competent to participate. She was confi-dent in pursuing her classroom-based interests by re-trieving related books in the classroom library. Forexample, she explained that

We have three book shelves and one that’s really big ithas um, the topics that we um, pasted up there so weknow where to look for the books about the moon.There was these—table of contents and I looked for aspecific topic and then, then I skimmed through the bookand I got, I just read the whole thing....

Joy’s involvement, curiosity, and self-efficacy werecomplemented in the fall by the more extrinsic motiva-tion of recognition. In the spring, however, Joy did notmention any reading for recognition. Instead, she report-ed a new, social motivation for reading.

Her 11-year-old female cousin became a compan-ion and a discussant for their shared interest in seriesbooks like the new, highly sought-after Sweet Valley se-ries books created by Pascal (1992). This new interaction


Table 3 Changes in literacy engagement and intrinsicmotivation during 1 year of Concept-OrientedReading Instruction

Literacy engagement

Increase Decrease

Increase 13 0

Intrinsic motivation

Decrease 3 3

Note. This table contains an N of 19 because the spring literacy engagementscore was not available for 1 student.

was formed not only out of family ties, but of a desire toshare opinions of a text.

When my cousin gave it to me, she said it was reallygood, ’cause she read one and she bought it in the book-store.... If I read a new book for her I always tell herwhat happens so, she always has to read it first. And shetakes a long time to read a book. So I have to wait for along time, I have to beg her to read her books.

Question 4: How do changes in intrinsic motiva-tion, amount and breadth of reading, and volitionalstrategies relate to each other?

Intrinsic motivation with amount and breadth ofreading. Enabling students to read widely and frequentlyis an aim of CORI. Our theoretical expectation is that in-trinsic motivation should be related to frequency andbreadth of reading. Furthermore, changes in intrinsicmotivation should be related to changes in frequencyand breadth of reading. To examine this expectation, we used portions of the interview in which studentswere asked how frequently they read fiction, sports, na-ture/animals, romance, biography, directions, science,stories, and history. A score of 0–3 was given to eachstudent on each topic. The sum reflected both thebreadth and frequency of reading interests and prefer-ences. For Grades 3 and 5 combined, we classified eachstudent as increasing, not changing, or decreasing in fre-quency and breadth of reading. These classificationswere related to students’ changes in intrinsic motivationsas reported in the previous paragraph.

The association of changes in intrinsic motivationwith the changes in frequency and breadth of readingwas substantial. As Table 4 indicates, 11 students in-creased in both intrinsic motivation and frequency andbreadth of reading. Eighty-five percent of the studentswho increased in intrinsic motivation also increased infrequency and breadth of reading. Of the 7 students whodecreased in intrinsic motivation, 5 of them (70%) de-creased in frequency and breadth of reading. This asso-ciation was statistically significant according to a chi-square test X2(1, N = 20) = 4.06, p <.05.

One 11-year-old African American student in Grade5, Mariah, increased in her intrinsic reasons for readingand increased in the variety of books that she chose toread. Mariah was described by her CORI teacher aspainfully shy and not a visibly enthusiastic reader. Thereading specialist indicated she was reading on gradelevel at the time of the interviews.

Mariah read for involvement in the spring, report-ing the elements of mystery novels that captured herattention.

In interesting mysteries, they like, they leave follow-upclues to the mysteries so it takes more to figure it out.And in boring ones, it’s just easier to figure out what it is,and you don’t need any clue.

Mariah read a more diverse selection of books in thespring than in the fall. She maintained a strong prefer-ence for fiction, including a series of mysteries by a par-ticular author. A new interest in biographies of favoritestars emerged in reading that she did outside school.Mariah showed increased curiosity about nature, refer-ring to the most recent book about animals that she hadread.

It was about this lady, who was, um, in college and shewanted to see if she could get instead a chimpanzee tocommunicate with her. They communicated with signlanguage. She’d teach them that sometimes. They lived ina trailer together. And then, when she got a new—she got another gorilla, so that the other one wouldn’t belonely....

Frequency and breadth of reading with volitionalstrategies. Breadth and frequency of reading were ex-pected to be related to volitional strategies and intrinsicmotivations. Volitional strategies are deliberate proce-dures used to fulfill motivational goals, such as manag-ing resources of time and materials (Corno & Kanfer,1993). Managing time was evidenced by students whohad a time of the day they reserved for reading. Fromthe interviews, we combined the volitional strategies re-lated to time with the volitional strategies related tofinding, keeping, and organizing books. We classifiedstudents as increasing, unchanging, or decreasing in voli-tional strategies, and related the strength of their strate-gies to their frequency and breadth of reading.

There was a substantial association of the students’changes in frequency and breadth of reading with thechanges in their volitional strategies that was statisticallysignificant, X2(1, N = 20) = 11.43, p <.01. As indicated inTable 5, 14 students increased in both volitional strate-gies and reading frequency and breadth. One-hundredpercent of those who increased in frequency andbreadth of reading also increased in volitional strategies.


Table 4 Changes in frequency and breadth of readingand intrinsic motivation

Frequency and breadth of reading

Increase Decrease

Increase 11 2

Intrinsic motivation

Decrease 2 5

At the same time, 5 students decreased in frequency andbreadth of reading and volitional strategies. These fewstudents chose to read less widely and frequently, andthey used fewer volitional strategies. In sum, volitionalstrategies for reading were correlated with amount ofreading activity.

These trends for the whole group were illustratedby Mariah. Her increased breadth of reading was accom-panied by her expanded volitional strategies. Volitionalstrategies of interest to the investigators included makingtime to read and finding interesting, appropriate books.In the fall, Mariah cited the public library as her mainsource for texts to read. In the spring, she reported fre-quent visits to the public library where she could use thecomputer to search for book titles. She also talked of re-ceiving books as gifts. In the spring, Mariah found a newsource for fiction books to read for her own enjoyment.

Well, we have TAP day—it’s trade-a-paperback day. Andwe all bring in paperback books, and I got one new. AndI’ve had that one in my desk, so when I leave it in thedesk, I know I have at least two books in my desk.

Mariah commented on the ways that she coordi-nates reading around other activities in her daily life. Athome, she stated that she tried to read a little bit beforeshe would go outside to play with friends, and then con-tinue her reading afterwards. At school, Mariah ex-plained what she did with her free time.

Sometimes our teacher gives us time in the morning. Youcan either read a book, or you can make up work thatyou have to do. I usually read.

Discussion

What were the main findings of this study?This investigation was intended to initiate our

study of how classroom contexts can be designed toenhance the development of literacy engagement. Therewere several limitations to our purposes. We did not at-

tempt to compare the patterns of change in CORI class-rooms to change in control or comparison classrooms.We did not seek to identify which dimensions of thecomplex classroom environment were more or less influ-ential in promoting engagement. This was not a compo-nential analysis. We did not attempt to compare whetherthe patterns of change in literacy engagement varied fordifferent demographic groups, such as age and gender.Finally, we did not attempt to describe all aspects of lit-eracy engagement that we believe are important. For ex-ample, we have not measured word-level fluency orsocial dispositions for sharing literacy. Despite thebreadth of our descriptive account, there are manyaspects of engagement that call for extended research.

Growth of literacy engagement. Our basic conclu-sion from this investigation is that literacy engagement of third and fifth graders increased during their year-longexperience in CORI. Not only did teachers observe theseincreases in literacy engagement through students’ port-folios and classroom participation, but our performanceassessment also documented statistically significantincreases.

Students’ enhanced literacy engagement was evi-dent in their work on tasks that reflected the merger ofcognitive strategies and intrinsic motivations. We docu-mented the growth of literacy engagement related to (a) searching for information in multiple texts, (b) repre-senting ideas through drawing and writing, and (c) trans-ferring conceptual knowledge to new situations.

Success in these authentic literacy activities permitsus to infer the successful use of strategies. Althoughmany investigators use self-report as a measure of strate-gies (Collins-Block, 1992; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), webelieve that successful performance on authentic literacyactivities in the classroom is a more secure ground forinferring the learning and use of literacy strategies.

Our notion of literacy engagement combines theconstruct of self-regulation with intrinsic motivation. For both the third and fifth graders in this study, intrinsicmotivation was highly correlated with literacy engage-ment during the performance assessments. This findingis consistent with the results observed by Pintrich andDe Groot (1990) that self-reported intrinsic interest andstrategy use were highly associated. Our data showedthat successful learners were distinguished from the lesssuccessful learners in their ability to combine complexhigher order strategies with intrinsic motivations of in-volvement, curiosity, and self-efficacy.

These results confirm that literacy engagement in-creased during the year for these groups of students.Although the amount of increase was not compared tothe changes in a control group because this was not acomparative, experimental study, the magnitude of the


Table 5 Changes in frequency and breadth of readingand volitional strategies

Frequency and breadth of reading

Increase Decrease

Increase 14 1

Volitional strategies

Decrease 0 5

increase was noteworthy. Across time during elementaryschool, intrinsic motivation usually declines (Harter,1981; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1995), leading us to supposethat literacy engagement might decline during the year.However, in this study, literacy engagement, which com-bines cognitive strategies with intrinsic motivation, in-creased during a year of schooling. In fact, in the casestudies, one typical Grade 3 student in the spring, afterparticipating in CORI for 6 months, surpassed the levelof literacy engagement observed in one typical Grade 5student in the fall before receiving any CORI. After docu-menting these increases in literacy engagement for thegroups, we next described the nature of the growth.

Intrinsic motivation and literacy engagement in-creased concurrently. The second finding was that in-creases in literacy engagement during the year were tiedto increases in intrinsic motivation. Despite the previous-ly cited trend for intrinsic motivations to decrease duringthe elementary school years, we observed that 68% ofthe students in our CORI classrooms increased in theiroverall levels of intrinsic motivation for literacy. Amongthe students who increased in intrinsic motivation, 100%increased markedly in literacy engagement.

Among students who did not increase in intrinsicmotivation (e.g., who stayed the same or who de-creased) 50% increased in literacy engagement, and 50%decreased. These findings suggest that instruction thatincreases intrinsic motivations for literacy may improvethe higher order cognitive competence of an extremelylarge proportion of learners. Of course, strategies mayalso increase for some learners who do not becomemore intrinsically motivated due to the power of extrin-sic incentives such as recognition and rewards or generalcognitive maturation.

Our data do not permit us to determine whichcomes first, motivation or engagement. We expect theyare reciprocal and mutually supportive during long-termliteracy learning. These findings are consistent with con-clusions from correlational studies reviewed by Ames(1992) and Blumenfeld (1992) that point to high associa-tions between student interest in subject matter and de-velopment of cognitive competencies. Our findingscontribute to the knowledge base by documenting thatlong-term increases in motivational and cognitive aspectsof literacy are interdependent.

Intrinsic motivations enhanced breadth of readingactivity. The third finding of this investigation was thatincreases in intrinsic motivation were tied to frequencyand breadth of reading. Students who became more in-volved, curious, and social in their literacy activities reada broader range of topics and reported higher frequen-cies of reading activities than less motivated students.This linkage was particularly important because being an

active reader is vital for many aspects of development. Amount and breadth of reading are related to read-

ing achievement, general knowledge, and societal partic-ipation (Guthrie & Greaney, 1991; Stanovich &Cunningham, 1993). Therefore, it is valuable to knowthat students expanded their reading activities as their in-trinsic motivation increased. Also contributing to amountand breadth of reading were volitional strategies (Corno& Kanfer, 1993) such as finding time to read every day,keeping a private place for personal books, and know-ing how to get to the library. In sum, amount andbreadth of reading increased when it was energized byintrinsic motivations and enabled by volitional strategies.

Classroom contexts that enhance literacyengagement

Literacy engagement in Grades 3 and 5 was associ-ated with distinctive qualities of the classroom context.Although space does not permit an elaborate descrip-tion, we identified several aspects of the CORI classroomcontext based on classroom observation, discussion withteachers, and analysis of videotapes.

Consistent with the motivational literature, our ob-servations of CORI suggested that engaging classroomcontexts were (a) observational, encouraging students toinitiate learning by generating their own questions fromreal-world observation (Lepper, 1988; Newby, 1991); (b) conceptual, with a focus on substantive topics ratherthan reading skills (Maehr & Fyans, 1989); (c) self-directing, supporting student autonomy and choice oftopics, books, and peers (Skinner & Belmont, 1993); (d)metacognitive, with explicit teaching of reading strate-gies, problem solving, and composing (Collins-Block,1992); (e) collaborative, emphasizing social constructionof meaning and communities of learners (Almasi &Gambrell, 1994); (f) expressive, creating opportunitiesfor self-expression through writing, debating, and groupinteraction (Oldfather & Dahl, 1994) and; (g) coherent,containing connections between classroom activities andtasks across the day, week, and month (Gamoran &Nystrand, 1992). Our theoretical perspective is that theseclassroom qualities accelerate the development of litera-cy engagement.

Several of these dimensions of classroom contexthave been examined in other investigations. For exam-ple, our conceptual focus is shared by Brown (1992) inher studies of how communities of learners pursue top-ics in environmental science. Our reliance on writingand problem solving is consistent with Calfee’s (1994)program for critical literacy in which children read andwrite extensively.

Our emphasis on metacognitive strategies ofsearching for information, representing ideas graphically,


planning, evaluating, and integrating is similar to thethinking guidelines of Collins-Block (1992). Althougheach instructional theme is important, we expect that itis the integration of all seven dimensions within one in-structional unit that enhanced the development of litera-cy engagement of the students in this study.

REFERENCESALEXANDER, P.A., KULIKOWICH, J.M., & JETTON, T.L. (1994).

The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing oflinear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64(2),201–252.

ALMASI, J.F., & GAMBRELL, L.B. (1994). Sociocognitive conflict inpeer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature (Reading ResearchReport #12). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.

AMES, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivation-al climate. In D.H. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions inthe classroom (pp. 327–349). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

ARMBRUSTER, B.B., & ARMSTRONG, J. (1993). Locating informa-tion in a test: A focus on children in the elementary grades.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(2), 139–161.

BLUMENFELD, P.C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation:Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 272–281.

BLUMENFELD, P.C., SOLOWAY, R., MARX, R.W., KRAJCIK, J.S.,GUZDIAL, M., & PALINCSAR, A. (1991). Motivation project-basedlearning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 369–398.

BROWN, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and method-ological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom set-tings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.

BULLA, C.R. (1966). White bird. New York: Philomel.CALFEE, R. (1994). Critical literacy: Reading and writing for a new

millennium. In N.J. Essworth, C.N. Headley, & A.N. Baratta (Eds.),Literacy: A redefinition (pp. 19–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

COLLINS-BLOCK, C. (1992). Strategy instruction in a literature-basedreading program. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 139–151.

CORNO, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of vo-lition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14–22.

CORNO, L., & KANFER, R. (1993). The role of volition in learningand performance. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research ineducation (pp. 301–341). Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

COVINGTON, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspec-tive on motivation and school reform. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

DECI, E.L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.

DECI, E.L., VALLERAND, R.J., PELLETIER, L.G., & RYAN, R.M.(1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective.Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.

DOLE, J.A., DUFFY, G.G., ROEHLER, L.R., & PEARSON, P.D.(1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading compre-hension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264.

ERICKSON, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching.In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161).New York: Macmillan.

FINN, J.D., & COX D. (1992). Participation and withdrawal amongfourth-grade pupils. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1),141–162.

FORD, M.E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and per-sonal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

GAMORAN, A., & NYSTRAND, M. (1992). Taking students serious-ly. In F.M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement inAmerican secondary schools (pp. 40–61). New York: Teachers CollegePress.

GOTTFRIED, A.E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elemen-tary and junior high school students. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 77, 631–645.

GRAHAM, S., & GOLAN, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cog-nition: Task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of informationprocessing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 187–194.

GUTHRIE, J.T., MCGOUGH, K., BENNETT, L., & RICE, M.E. (1996).Concept-oriented reading instruction: An integrated curriculum todevelop motivations and strategies for reading. In L. Baker, P.Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in schooland home communities (pp. 165–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

GUTHRIE, J.T., & GREANEY, V. (1991). Literacy acts. In R. Barr,M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of readingresearch (pp. 68–96). New York: Longman.

GUTHRIE, J.T., WEBER, S., & KIMMERLY, N. (1993). Searchingdocuments: Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs,tables, and illustrations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18,186–221.

HARTER, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus ex-trinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informationalcomponents. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300–312.

HARTER, S., WHITESELL, N.R., & KOWALSKI, P. (1992). Individualdifferences in the effects of educational transitions on young adoles-cents’ perceptions of competence and motivational orientation.American Educational Research Journal, 29, 777–808.

HIDI, S., & ANDERSON, V. (1992). Situational interest and its im-pact on reading and expository writing. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, &A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp.215–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

JAGACINSKI, C.M. (1992). The effects of task involvement and egoinvolvement on achievement-related cognitions and behaviors. InD.H. Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom(pp. 307–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

KUHL, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognition-behavior consis-tency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. InJ. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behav-ior (pp. 101–128). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

LECOMPTE, M.D., & PREISSLE, J. (Eds.). (1993). Ethnography andqualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

LEPPER, M.R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study ofinstruction. Cognition & Instruction, 5, 289–309.

MAEHR, M.L., & FYANS, L.J. (1989). School culture, motivation andachievement. In M.L. Maehr & C. Ames (Eds.), Advances in motivationand achievements: Motivation enhancing environments (Vol. 6, pp.215–247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

MEECE, J.L., BLUMENFELD, P.C., & HOYLE, R.H. (1988). Students’goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.

NEWBY, T.J. (1991). Classroom motivation: Strategies of first-yearteachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187–194.

NEWMAN, F.M., WEHLAGE, G.G., & LAMBORN, S.D. (1992). Thesignificance and sources of student engagement. In F.M. Newman(Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondaryschools (pp. 11–39). New York: Teachers College Press.

OLDFATHER, P., & DAHL, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivistreconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning.Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 139–158.

PASCAL, F. (1992). Sweet valley. New York: Bantam.


PINKWATER, D. (1975). Wingman. New York: Bantam Skylark.PINTRICH, P.R., & DE GROOT, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-

regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

PINTRICH, P.R., MARX, R.W., & BOYLE R.A. (1993). Beyond coldconceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroomcontextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review ofEducational Research, 63(2), 167–199.

PINTRICH, P.R., & SCHRAUBEN, B. (1992). Students’ motivationalbeliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks.In D.H. Schunk & J.L. Meese (Eds.), Student perceptions in the class-room (pp. 149–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

SCHIEFELE, U. (1992). Topic interest and levels of text compre-hension. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role ofinterest in learning and development (pp. 151–212). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

SCHUNK, D.H., & RICE, J.M. (1985). Verbalization of comprehen-sion strategies: Effects on children’s achievement outcomes. HumanLearning, 4, 1–10.

SKINNER, E.A., & BELMONT, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the class-room: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagementacross the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,571–581.

STANOVICH, K., & CUNNINGHAM, A. (1993). Where does knowl-edge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and in-formation acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211–230.

STEVENSON, C., & CARR, J.F. (1993). Integrated studies in the mid-dle grades: Dancing through walls. New York: Teachers College Press.

THAGARD, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral andBrain Science, 12(3), 435–507.

TURNER, J. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on youngchildren’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,410–441.

WENTZEL, K. (1991). Social and academic goals at school:Motivation and achievement in context. In M. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regu-latory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 185–212). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

WIGFIELD, A., & GUTHRIE, J. (1995). Dimensions of children’smotivations for reading: An initial study (Reading Research Report#34). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.

WIGFIELD, A., & HAROLD, R. (1992). Teacher beliefs and chil-dren’s achievement self-perceptions: A developmental perspective. InD.H. Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom(pp. 95–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

YOLEN, J. (1987). Owl moon. New York: Philomel Books.ZIMMERMAN, B.J., BANDURA, A., & MARTINEZ-PONS, M. (1993).

Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy be-liefs and personal goal setting. American Educational ResearchJournal, 29, 663–676.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J., & MARTINEZ-PONZ, M. (1992). Perceptions ofefficacy and strategy use in the self-regulation of learning. In D.H.Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp.185–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Received December 20, 1994Final revision received September 22, 1995

Accepted October 12, 1995

AUTHOR NOTEThe work reported herein is a National Reading Research

Center project of the University of Maryland and the University ofGeorgia. It is supported under the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as ad-ministered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education.

The findings and opinions expressed in this report do not re-flect the position or policies of the National Reading Research Center,the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.


326 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1996 31/3A

PP

EN

DIX

AP

erfo

rman

ce a

sses

smen

t o

f li

tera

cy e

nga

gem

ent

Tas

ks

Purp

ose

Ques

tion

Mat

eria

lRes

ponse

form

atConditi

on

Stat

ing

prior

know

ledge

Det

erm

ines

the

amount

of co

nce

ptu

al k

now

ledge

about th

e to

pic

bef

ore

the

star

t of th

e as

sess

men

t.

Open

-ended

ques

tion

with

one

or

two p

arts

.Exa

mple

for

third g

rade:

“What

are

the

body

par

tsof an

ow

l, an

d h

ow

do

thes

e body

par

ts h

elp it

to liv

e?”

One

shee

t of pap

er is

pro

vided

to a

nsw

er the

ques

tion.

Studen

ts w

rite

thei

rre

sponse

in e

ssay

form

.St

uden

ts a

re g

iven

appro

xim

atel

y 10

min

ute

sto

com

ple

te, but al

lst

uden

ts a

re e

xpec

ted to

finis

h.

Sear

chin

gThis

tas

k m

easu

res

the

stra

tegi

es invo

lved

in

sear

chin

g fo

r in

form

atio

nfr

om

multi

ple

tex

ts.

Cogn

itive

strat

egie

sin

clude

mai

nta

inin

g fo

cus

on the

ques

tion;

under

stan

din

g th

eorg

aniz

atio

n o

fin

form

atio

n tex

ts u

sing

the

table

of co

nte

nts

,in

dex

, hea

din

gs;

sequen

cing

to g

ener

ate

new

info

rmat

ion;

extrac

ting

appro

priat

eid

eas

from

sel

ecte

d tex

ts;

and tak

ing

coher

ent

note

s. M

otiv

atio

nal

attrib

ute

s m

easu

red in

this

tas

k in

clude

effo

rtan

d p

ersi

sten

ce in

sele

ctin

g m

ulti

ple

sourc

es, el

abora

tion o

fre

asons

for

choosi

ng

sele

ctio

ns,

and topic

inte

rest

as

reflec

ted in

exte

nded

note

s ab

out th

eto

pic

of th

e se

arch

.

Use

thes

e pac

kets

of

info

rmat

ion to h

elp y

ou

answ

er the

ques

tion

“What

are

the

body

par

tsof an

ow

l, an

d h

ow

do

thes

e body

par

ts h

elp it

to liv

e?”

Kee

p a

log

of

your

work

show

ing

your

pac

ket

let

ter, r

easo

ns

for

choosi

ng

the

pac

ket,

and

your

note

s on y

our

read

ing.

Studen

ts a

re g

iven

a s

etof 12

-14

pac

kets

of tw

oto

four

pag

es e

ach o

fin

form

atio

nal

tex

ts. H

alf

are

direc

tly

rele

vant to

the

ques

tion, an

d h

alf ar

eab

out an

imal

s or

birds

oth

er than

ow

ls. Tab

le o

fco

nte

nts

, in

dex

, pag

enum

ber

s, h

eadin

gs, an

dill

ust

ratio

ns

are

pro

vided

.D

ifficu

lty o

f th

e te

xtra

nge

s from

one

grad

ebel

ow

to tw

o g

rades

bel

ow

.

Studen

ts a

re g

iven

are

sponse

log,

with

colu

mns

for

pac

ket le

tter

,re

asons

for

choosi

ng

apac

ket,

and n

ote

s on

what

they

lea

rned

.

Studen

ts a

re e

nco

ura

ged

to fin

d a

ll of th

e re

leva

nt

info

rmat

ion, an

d a

re a

llgi

ven s

uffic

ient tim

e to

fill

in a

t le

ast one

pac

ket

sele

ctio

n, w

ith a

rea

son

and n

ote

s (3

0–60

min

ute

s). St

uden

ts a

reen

coura

ged to k

eep

work

ing

until

they

hav

efo

und a

ll of th

e use

ful

idea

s. S

tuden

ts w

ho fin

ish

early

are

asked

to w

ait

quie

tly for

5 m

inute

s an

dar

e th

en p

erm

itted

to

read

.

(con

tin

ued

)


Dra

win

gThis

tas

k m

easu

res

the

abili

ty to r

epre

sent

conce

ptu

al k

now

ledge

about birds

and thei

rsu

rviv

al thro

ugh

dra

win

g—vi

sual

illust

ratio

n. D

raw

ing

may

incl

ude

idea

s ga

ined

in

the

sear

ch c

om

bin

ed w

ithprior

know

ledge

.M

otiv

atio

nal

attribute

s of

task

invo

lvem

ent an

din

tere

st a

re r

efle

cted

by

atte

ntio

n to d

etai

l,bre

adth

of in

form

atio

n,

and lab

elin

g.

Studen

ts a

re a

sked

to

mak

e a

pic

ture

that

show

s w

hat

they

know

about th

e to

pic

(e.

g.,

what

are

the

body

par

tsof an

ow

l, an

d h

ow

do

thes

e body

par

ts h

elp it

to liv

e?)

One

hal

f pag

e of bla

nk

pap

er is

pro

vided

with

the

written

direc

tions.

Studen

ts d

raw

with

pen

cil

and lab

el the

pic

ture

.Tim

e is

pro

vided

for

all

studen

ts to fin

ish, ab

out

15 m

inute

s. C

olo

ring

isnot per

mitt

ed. The

sear

chm

ater

ials

and logs

are

not

avai

lable

.

AP

PE

ND

IX A

Per

form

ance

ass

essm

ent

of

lite

racy

en

gage

men

t (c

on

tÕd

.)

Tas

ks

Purp

ose

Ques

tion

Mat

eria

lRes

ponse

form

atConditi

on

Writin

gSt

uden

ts r

epre

sent th

eir

conce

ptu

al k

now

ledge

about th

e to

pic

of th

eta

sk (

e.g.

, th

e body

par

tsof ow

ls a

nd h

ow

they

hel

p s

urv

ival

) th

rough

writin

g. I

dea

s from

the

sear

ch a

ctiv

ity a

nd p

rior

exper

ience

may

be

in-

cluded

. M

otiv

atio

nal

at-

trib

ute

s in

clude

the

effo

rtan

d p

ersi

sten

ce in w

ritin

gel

abora

te, co

her

ent par

a-gr

aphs,

the

expre

ssio

n o

ffa

scin

atio

n a

bout so

me

aspec

t of th

e to

pic

, an

dse

lf-e

ffic

acy

in the

acqui-

sitio

n o

f co

nce

ptu

alunder

stan

din

g.

Studen

ts a

re a

sked

to

write

what

they

know

about th

e to

pic

(e.

g., th

ebody

par

ts o

f an

ow

l an

dhow

thes

e body

par

tshel

p the

ow

l to

surv

ive)

.St

uden

ts a

re e

nco

ura

ged

to w

rite

eve

ryth

ing

they

know

.

Studen

ts a

re g

iven

one

hal

f pag

e of lin

ed p

aper

,w

hic

h is

the

bottom

hal

fof th

e pap

er o

n w

hic

hth

ey d

rew

thei

r under

-st

andin

g in

the

pre

vious

task

.

Studen

ts w

rite

or

print in

the

spac

e pro

vided

.Am

ple

tim

e is

pro

vided

for

all st

uden

ts to c

om

-ple

te the

task

, ab

out 20

min

ute

s. T

he

pac

kets

and

thei

r se

arch

logs

are

not

avai

lable

.

(con

tin

ued

)

328 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1996 31/3A

PP

EN

DIX

AP

erfo

rman

ce a

sses

smen

t o

f li

tera

cy e

nga

gem

ent

(co

ntÕ

d.)

Tas

ks

Purp

ose

Ques

tion

Mat

eria

lRes

ponse

form

atConditi

on

Conce

ptu

altran

sfer

This

tas

k m

easu

res

whet

her

the

conce

pts

and

princi

ple

s th

at w

ere

lear

ned

during

sear

chin

gw

ere

lear

ned

in a

form

that

per

mits

pro

ble

mso

lvin

g. M

otiv

atio

nal

attrib

ute

s in

clude

the

enjo

ymen

t of ch

alle

nge

and the

satis

fact

ion o

fen

counte

ring

nove

lty.

A q

ues

tion is

asked

that

invi

tes

multi

ple

appro

aches

and a

nsw

ers,

usi

ng

the

conce

ptu

alkn

ow

ledge

that

was

repre

sente

d d

uring

the

dra

win

g an

d w

ritin

gta

sks.

For

exam

ple

, th

eth

ird-g

rade

ow

l ques

tion

was

“Su

ppose

you s

aw a

type

of ow

l th

at w

asliv

ing

a go

od life.

What

would

its

body

par

ts b

elik

e, a

nd h

ow

would

thes

e par

ts h

elp it to

surv

ive?

”

Studen

ts a

re g

iven

a lin

edpie

ce o

f pap

er w

ith the

ques

tion a

t th

e to

p.

Pre

vious

mat

eria

ls a

re n

ot

avai

lable

.

Studen

ts w

rite

and/o

rdra

w thei

r an

swer

to the

ques

tion.

Tim

e is

pro

vided

for

all

studen

ts to fin

ish, ab

out

20 m

inute

s. T

hey

are

enco

ura

ged to c

om

pose

any

answ

er they

thin

km

ight be

appro

priat

e.

Info

rmat

ional

text

com

pre

-hen

sion

This

tas

k m

easu

res

the

exte

nt to

whic

h s

tuden

tsca

n c

om

pre

hen

d the

mai

n idea

s in

an

illust

rate

d tex

t of ab

out

200

word

s. T

he

optim

alan

swer

will

inte

grat

ein

form

atio

n fro

m b

oth

the

illust

ratio

n a

nd s

ever

alpar

ts o

f th

e te

xt.

The

ques

tion is

a tw

o-

par

t ite

m o

f th

e sa

me

com

ple

xity

as

the

ques

tion in the

prior

know

ledge

tas

k.

The

studen

t is

pre

sente

dth

e te

xt a

nd illu

stra

tion

with

the

ques

tion

follo

win

g on the

nex

tpag

e.

One

pag

e of lin

ed p

aper

is p

rovi

ded

.Su

ffic

ient tim

e is

giv

en for

all st

uden

ts to fin

ish,

about 15

min

ute

s.Pre

vious

mat

eria

ls a

re n

ot

avai

lable

. The

text

is

on

the

sam

e ge

ner

al topic

(e.g

., birds)

, but sp

ecific

info

rmat

ion fro

mpre

vious

task

s w

ill n

ot be

use

ful.

(con

tin

ued

)

Growth of literacy engagement 329A

PP

EN

DIX

AP

erfo

rman

ce a

sses

smen

t o

f li

tera

cy e

nga

gem

ent

(co

ntÕ

d.)

Tas

ks

Purp

ose

Ques

tion

Mat

eria

lRes

ponse

form

atConditi

on

Nar

rativ

e in

-te

rpre

tatio

nThis

tas

k m

easu

res

bas

icte

xt c

om

pre

hen

sion a

nd

liter

ary

inte

rpre

tive

pro

cess

es in r

esponse

to

nar

rativ

e.

Thre

e ques

tions

are

pre

-se

nte

d to b

e an

swer

ed in

ord

er. The

firs

t ques

tion

reques

ts a

sim

ple

rec

all,

(i.e

., re

pro

duct

ion o

f a

portio

n o

f th

e te

xt). T

he

seco

nd q

ues

tion r

eques

tsth

e st

uden

t to

des

crib

eth

e sp

ecific

motiv

e of one

spec

ifie

d c

har

acte

r, u

sing

text

-bas

ed info

rmat

ion

and infe

rence

. The

third

ques

tion r

eques

ts the

stu-

den

ts to w

rite

a p

erso

nal

resp

onse

about w

het

her

ach

arac

ter’s

actio

n w

asrigh

t or

wro

ng

and to d

e-sc

ribe

his

/her

ow

n b

elie

fab

out th

e si

tuat

ion.

A b

rief

nar

rativ

e (i.e

., a

folk

tale

, or

epis

ode

from

a st

ory

is

pro

vided

, w

ithan

illu

stra

tion).

Studen

ts w

rite

answ

ers

toth

e th

ree

ques

tions

on

lined

pap

er p

rovi

ded

.

Tim

e is

pro

vided

for

all

studen

ts to a

nsw

er a

tle

ast so

me

of th

e ques

-tio

ns,

about 20

min

ute

s.


APPENDIX BRubric for motivations and volitional strategies for reading

Motivations1. Involvement—Reading to get lost in a story, for theenjoyment of the plot, character development, the lan-guage/prose, or format of the story. Showing a genuineinterest, or a passion for a type of reading. Experiencinga positive feeling from being engrossed in what they arereading, talking about the good qualities of the book,why they like reading it (e.g., fast-moving, sweeps theminto the story, interesting characters, etc.).

2. Curiosity—Reading to explore a new topic or to buildupon previous knowledge of a topic or personality/char-acter that they are interested in. Reading to answer aquestion, or to compare competing answers or theories.

3. Social—Engaging in interactions with others that pro-mote literacy, such as sharing reading interests with an-other person, sharing or discussing reading materials, orparticipating in the reading process with another personby reading to or with them. May also include using read-ing as a means for spending time with someone.

4. Investment—Reading to build experience that will cul-minate in achieving a long-term goal, such as attendingcollege or becoming a member in a certain type of pro-fession (e.g., “I read a lot of books because I want to besmart and become a science teacher...”).

5. Challenge—Being willing to undertake or persist in areading activity despite the perceived difficulty level ofthe text. Choosing to read a particular text because itmay be more difficult or stimulating than other choices.

6. Emotional tuning—Reading to change an existingmood or feeling, such as alleviating sadness or loneli-ness, beating boredom (very common), or extinguishinga fear. Reading to unwind mentally, release tension, orrelax after hard work. Reading jokes, riddles, brain-teasers, or funny comics for the purpose of beingamused.

7. Compliance—Reading to meet a goal or expectationset by someone else. Completing assignments set by theteacher. Reading to conform to the behavior of class-mates/peers, reading to finish a task without extensionor exploration beyond the original limits of the task.

8. Recognition—Reading to be known as a competent oravid reader. Reading to increase status among teachers,peers, and others. Reading to be a successful participantin a drive or contest geared towards consuming books.

9. Grades—Reading to achieve a certain score on anexam, to receive a desired letter grade. Reading to attaina prestigious level of academic achievement or honorroll status.

10. Rewards—Reading to gain desirable privileges in theclassroom or at home. Rewards for reading can be tangi-ble like books, gold stars, stickers, and treats or intangi-ble like praise, free-choice time, or attention from ateacher/family member.

11. Competition—Reading to be a better reader than oth-er people. Reading to amass more information or re-sources than others.

12. Utilitarian—Reading to learn a procedure or rules fora game, hobby, or craft, including manuals and direc-tions. The how-to is the important aspect of this reading.

13. Work avoidance—Reading to avoid (more) work.Using reading as a buffer to avoid punishment or un-pleasant consequences. Combining reading assign-ments/activities to minimize reading commitments.

14. Reading efficacy—Feeling that reading behaviors arecompletely under one’s own control (e.g., I choose whatI read, when, where, and how). Perceiving that there arechoices about when, where, and how to read. Believingthat one can read independently. Confident in one’s ownabilities.

Volitional strategies 1. Spending/managing time—Investing in reading as anactivity at home, choosing to read during free time atschool (other than Drop Everything And Read or DEARtime) when there are other possibilities (like drawing orcomputer time). Scheduling a time for reading that fitsaround the other activities of daily life at home and atschool. Having a particular place where literacy activitiesoccur, such as a room or specific area of a home orclassroom. Having a system to go about reading, with atime, place, and situational factors (listens to music whilereading, etc.) Some children give responses with severalsituational components.

2. Finding/keeping materials—Having knowledge ofwhere to obtain reading materials, borrowing from a li-brary, trading with peers, buying from a store or order-ing books from a club, subscribing to magazines, etc.Also, includes knowledge of how to retain materialssuch as renewing a book or keeping a collection of theirreading materials.

(continued)


3. Coping with distractions—Maintaining a comfort levelfor engaging in reading, asking for quiet, tuning othersout, changing the place to read if necessary, getting thehelp of an adult to enforce quiet, etc.

4. Interpreting text—Trying to decipher the form andcontent of the reading by clue reading in context, usingimagery or illustrations, sounding out difficult words,rereading texts, or asking another person for help.

5. Browsing for books—Deciding what to read, and whatnot to read by perusing the shelves, scanning book jack-ets for reviews, comparing titles, replacing a book that istoo hard or unavailable. Showing a keen knowledge of

the organizational system or labeling of a classroombookshelf or library/bookstore.

6. Communicating to others—Having successful methodsfor telling other people about experiences with literacy,discussing plot turns, characters, etc. Sharing these expe-riences may be through speaking or writing.

7. Finishing text—Indicating an expectation to completethe materials and finish books.

8. Succumbing to obstacles—Describing something thatprevents literacy from happening (e.g., my parents can’ttake me to the library, homework takes up all my freetime for reading). Not overcoming this obstacle.

APPENDIX BRubric for motivations and volitional strategies for reading (contÕd.)


APPENDIX CRubric for coding engagement in performance assessment

Stating prior knowledge1. No conception—Student writes nothing at all or theanswer does not contain information relevant to thequestion.

2. Preconception—Student may list objects or parts andtheir functions may be vaguely described; the answer isscientifically incorrect but demonstrates an understand-ing that there are relationships among objects or eventsrelevant to the concept.

3. Partial conception—Student answer is scientificallycorrect and shows a limited understanding of some rela-tionships among a few of the relevant objects or events,but the statements are vague.

4. Incomplete conception—Student answer is scientifical-ly correct, shows an understanding of relationshipsamong many but not all of the relevant objects orevents, and the relationships are clear but incomplete.

5. Full conception—Student answer is scientifically cor-rect, shows an understanding of relationships among allimportant objects or events, and the relationships are de-picted in clear and complete form.

Searching1. No search—No evidence of search or selection ofmaterials.

2. Minimum—Students choose at least two relevantpackets and some irrelevant ones, take good notes fromone packet and give one clear reason for choosing apacket.

3. Moderate—Students choose at least three relevantpackets and very few irrelevant ones with appropriatereasons for their selections and good notes on twopackets.

4. Adequate—Students choose at least four relevantpackets with few or no irrelevant ones, giving clear rea-sons for all their selections and clear notes.

5. Proficient—Students select all of the relevant packetswith no irrelevant ones, and all of their notes are relatedto the theme. Their reasons for choosing packets are di-verse, and their notes show they learned during thecourse of the reading and note-taking activity.

Drawing

Use same coding categories as stating prior knowledge.

Writing

Use same coding categories as stating prior knowledge.

Conceptual transfer1. No solution—No answer is given.

2. Presolution—Solution is scientifically incorrect, or thesolution is not relevant to the problem; some conceptualknowledge of the topic is evident.

3. Partial Solution—Some objects are present, but theconcepts are not applied to solving the problem; solu-tion is scientifically correct, but the answer is vague orincomplete.

4. Incomplete solution—All objects and/or events arepresent, and the concepts are related to solving theproblem, but the answer is incomplete or vague.

5. Full solution—All objects and events are present. Theconcepts are fully applied, and the answer is complete.

Informational text comprehension1. No answer—No answer is given. The answer relies onprior knowledge not related to the text; or information isincorrect, nonspecific, or verbatim copy.

2. Accurate—Response accurately integrates informationfrom two or more parts of the text.

3. Elaborated—Response connects an integrated state-ment with additional information in the text that elabo-rates, explains, or contextualizes the statement.

Narrative interpretationQuality of narrative interpretation was judged with arubric based on response to all of the questions. Studentresponses to the reproductive, explanatory, and open-extension questions were rated as appropriate (accurateand text-based) or elaborated (embellished with detailsand characteristics). The scoring scheme was:

1. No appropriate responses

2. One appropriate response

3. Two appropriate responses

4. Three appropriate responses

5. Three appropriate responses and at least twoelaborated responses

Documents

Growth of Literacy Engagement: Changes in Motivations and Strategies During Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction