Upload
maria-love
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
John T. GuthrieUniversity of Maryland
Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing Classroom contexts (CORI +)
Policy – present and future (?)
Meanings: Behavioral –doing reading actively
Motivational –reasons for reading
Cognitive –deep processing Social –interpersonal interaction
Knowledge –as generator and enhancement
Meaning--JG:Active reading (behavior) that is strategic (cognitive), internally motivated (motivation), knowledge driven (cognitive), and socially interactive (social).
Disengaged reading? Yes,Time on task or eyes on page? No
Origins—How does engaged reading develop?
Self-determination theory—(internalization)
External goal—You read this book (-)
Introjected goal—I’ll read if I have to (-)
Identified goal—Read. helps me (+)
Intrinsic goal—I enjoy reading (+)
Origins—How does engaged reading develop?
Socio-cultural theory (socialization) Literacy practices are negotiated in
a social context (Gee) Social affordances shape cognitive
competencies (Scribner & Cole) Social interactions enable
motivations to occur and develop (Pianta, others)
Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing and readership
Classroom contexts Policy – present and future (?)
PsychInfo(Reading; Literacy
Motivation; Engagement)
ERIC Combined
2955 8528 11483 less 20%
9186
Major research finding #1Amount of engaged reading
correlates with reading achievement, higher than gender, family income, parental education.
Engaged readers from Mothers with H.S. education achieve higher than disengaged readers from Mothers with College education.
Engaged 8th graders in poverty achieve higher than disengaged 12th graders in affluence.Guthrie, NAEP—9 year olds in USA. Kirsch, PISA 2000 ---15 year olds in 30 countries.
Major finding #2Reciprocal determination—Motivation (self-efficacy; intrinsic mot.)
and achievement spiral upward and downward.For Primary grades K-2; For intermediate
grades 3-5(Finnish studies; self-determination studies;
self-concept studies; Morgan & Fuchs EC)Matthew effect—Stanovich—rich get richer
because they get more motivated
Major finding #3Motivations drive engagement (behavioral and cognitive)
True for internal motivations—interest, intrinsic, pleasure
Not true for external—Grades, competition.
Why Grades ?
Affirming1. Intrinsic
motivation2. Autonomy/
Ownership3. Self-efficacy
4. Social accept.5. Mastery goals
Undermining1. Avoidance
2. Lack of Ownership
3. Perceived difficulty
4. Social rejection5. Performance
avoidance
Major finding #4Classroom practices increase reading motivations that drive engagement.
Short term—30 minutesLong term---16 weeksProfessional development can increase practices
Multi-methods: Observational, Correlational, Experimental
Affirming motivations
1. Intrinsic2. Ownership 3. Self-efficacy4. Social
acceptance5. Mastery goals
Classroom practices
1. Relevance2. Micro-choice3. Success4. Relations—T &
S5. Thematic units
Major finding #5Variation across ethnic groupsIntrinsic motivation increases
achievement (correlational—and experimental evidence)
Confirmed for Caucasian and Asian students
Doubtful (initially disconfirmed) for African American and Hispanic students
Major finding #5Variation across ethnic groupsAvoidance is well associated with low
achievement for African American students (Ogbu, 2003; Graham, 2006; Guthrie, 2007; Long, 2007)
Avoidance has moderate-low correlation with achievement for Caucasian (Baker, 1999; Meece, 1993)
Cultural, experiential, educational sources are probable.
NRRC---1992 Georgia – Maryland Alvermann – Guthrie Co-Directors Thematic Center
Contributors to literatureQualitative—Alvermann, Moje,
O’Brien, Dillon, Brozo, Gee, Ivey, Fink, Au, Taylor, Pearson, Taylor, Smith, Morrow, Bean, Rueda, Pressley, others
Quantitative—Guthrie, Skinner, Deci, Almasi, Gambrell, Blumenfeld, Otis, Unrau, Greene, Baker, Pianta, Wentzel, Lapola, Wigfield, others
Paradigm of research for engagement ?Epistemology—beliefs, methods, findingsMultiple paradigms—multiple speech
communitiesMixed methods—deterred by dysfunctions in
publication system; Journal A—no voicesJournal B—no numbers
Engagement research is incrementalist;Engagement fuses with cognitive and socio-cultural knowledge base in reading
Paradigm sharing rather than paradigm shift
Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing Classroom contexts (CORI +)
Policy – present and future (?)
How does motivation (value, belief, goal) impact cognitive systems of reading?
1. Cognitive effort, attention, persistenceSelf-efficacy increases resilience
Social acceptance increases trying hard
Perceived control (ownership) increases perseverance
How does motivation (value, belief, goal) impact cognitive systems of reading?
2. Motivation ELICITS existing cognitive and metacognitive strategies; such as activating knowledge, organizing, on-line summarizing, self-monitoring
Internally motivated student seeks understanding; externally motivated student seeks task completion.
How does motivation (value, belief, goal) impact cognitive systems of reading?
3. Affective link to text memory—How? Internally motivated S. has positive
affective link to text feature (character, concept)
Feature with affective link is salient, e.g., retrievable
Feature with affective link is generative, e.g., feature connects to other features with pos. link.
Evidence - ?
Upward spiral for: motivation, readership, knowledge,
achievement Internal motivation propels high
volume of reading Amount of reading fosters
knowledge growth (West & Stanovich)
Knowledge generates reading achievement.
Downward spiral occurs also—see graph next
Ga
in in
Re
ad. C
om
pre
hen
sio
n
Gra
de
Le
vel
Low Interest
Increased Efficacy or
Involvement
High Interest
6.0
4.0
2.0
0
Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing and readership
Classroom contexts (CORI +)
Policy – present and future (?)
Terrarium (students fill)Aquarium (students fill)Owl pellet dissectionAnt farmGrow grass from seedsCrack nutsObserve bird feathers
Teacher affords student selection of text, task, partner, expression, link.
Select story.. Select page to read.. Select sentences to explain.. Identify goal for day.. Choose 3 of 5 questions to answer.. Write 3 inferences as true/false items
for partner exchange..
Teacher strongly controls text, task, partner, expression, link to outside.
Teacher selects all text Teacher questions are only questions Student predicts—only on request Teacher starts, stops all reading Text is right; student opinion is not Best answers are right or wrong
Students work together to gain meaning from text, and share
Partners read aloud Partner question exchange Team summarize chapter Literature circles Idea circles (CORI) Jig saw—habitat teams; Peer editing
Instructional units have conceptual complexity and duration
Students learn “big ideas” of survival, COMMUNITY, conflict
Reading topic persists over days and weeks
Students write concept maps of pages, chapters, books, unit
Themes are substantive-and fun Students become experts on theme
Intrinsic motivation (curiosity, self-efficacy, involvement, social)
ES = 1.26
Teacher rating of student engagement
ES = 1.00
Students amount of reading
ES = .49
Reading comprehension
Standardized tests
ES = .91
Multiple text comprehension
ES = .93
Reading strategy performances
ES = .91
Oral reading fluency ES = .70
Guthrie, et. al. 2007 Educational Psychologist
Pianta—Science—2007 Pianta—Child Development—2005 Study
1364 students; 827 classrooms; 747 schools; 295 districts; 32 States
80 minutes classroom observation in day
At risk –behavior, social, academic
Mothers education
Emotional support (engagement practices)
T. sensitivity to Ss needs, moods, interests
Climate of excitement, laughter, warmth Routines are flexible Teacher-centeredness (reversed) Detachment of teacher from Ss (rev.) Negative climate of anger, punishment
(rev.) Over-control and rigid regimentation
(rev.)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
Read. Achieve.
Low Mod. High
Engagement Support-Grade 1
No riskRisks
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Reading Achieve.
Low Mod High
Reading Instruction Quality-Grade 1
M.Ed.HighM.Ed.Low
Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing and readership
Classroom contexts (CORI +)
Policy – present and future (?)
Cassidy---What’s Hot? Motivation is Not Hot—high
agreement Motivation should be Hot---high
agreement WHY? Why is fluency hot and engagement
cold?1.both correlate with achievement; 2.both are measurable; 3.neither is “same thing” as
comprehension;4.teaching fluency does not increase
comprehension, 5.but teaching for engagement does
increase comprehension.
Cassidy---What’s Hot?Engagement is not hot, because… Reading is perceived as
cognitive. Cognitive revolution rescued reading from disrepute, in 1970s.
Reading is perceived as socio-cultural, which shapes text interaction in dynamic relations, which are inherently situated.
Engagement is not policy.
Cassidy---Why Should Engagement be Hot?
Engagement is a means and an end in schooling.
Past educators have been replicators—promoting existing literacy, of Bible, or textbook.
Future educators will empower students’ invention of new literacies (internet).
Invention demands context of engagement—students seeking internally to know, share, design.
New policies are imminent.Accountability for engagement via
Outcomes and Classroom Practices
Outcomes of engagement are: fluency in text interaction, competence in reading
comprehension, expertise in content, expressive communication.
Standards about classroom practices for engagement in reading.RelevanceChoiceSuccessCollaborationThemes
Research base is young, but enlightening.
Implementation depends on you.
Education is not The filling of a pail,
But the lighting Of a fire