Motivation for Reading Comprehension PDF

Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 252–256 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Learning and Individual Differences...

Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 252–256 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Learning and Individual Differences j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f Motivation for reading comprehension Øistein Anmarkrud, Ivar Bråten ⁎ Institute for Educational Research, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1092 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: In a sample of 104 Norwegian ninth-grade students, we examined whether perceived reading efficacy and Received 20 June 2007 reading task value uniquely predicted the comprehension of a social studies text after variance associated Received in revised form 27 June 2008 with gender, achievement in the domain, topic knowledge, deeper strategies, and surface strategies had been Accepted 7 September 2008 removed through forced-order hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Results showed that even after removing variance from these variables, the motivation constructs accounted for additional variance. Keywords: However, only reading task value was a statistically significant positive predictor of reading comprehension, Reading motivation Reading comprehension whereas the relationship between reading efficacy and reading comprehension did not reach statistical Prior knowledge significance. Thus, reading task value seems particularly important because it can override the contributions Strategies of other important constructs. In terms of education, the findings suggest that an emphasis on cognitive constructs such as prior knowledge and strategic text-processing should not make us overlook the specific importance of promoting motivation for reading comprehension. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction through interviews (interest, choice, and involvement) predicted reading comprehension when previous comprehension performance Good comprehenders are knowledgeable and strategic readers was controlled for. However, self-efficacy for reading did not explain a (Pressley, 2000). However, comprehension of challenging text seems statistically significant amount of variance in comprehension. to require not only cognition but also motivation (Guthrie & Wigfield, Whereas Guthrie and Wigfield have focused on aspects of reading 2000). Guided by a general expectancy–value model of academic motivation derived from several perspectives on academic motivation, motivation (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), our aim was to examine the this investigation was constrained by expectancy–value theory, contribution of motivation to text comprehension when achievement particularly addressing the predictability of expectancy and value in the domain, topic knowledge, and different forms of strategic components for comprehension. The predictability of reading task processing were controlled for. value has hardly been focused in prior reading comprehension The expectancy–value framework assumes that how well students research. The approach also allowed for comparison of the predict- believe they can do on achievement tasks and how valuable they ability of reading task value and reading efficacy. consider those tasks to be influence performance, effort, and Moreover, prior work was extended in two other directions. First, persistence, as well as choices of which tasks to pursue. While the reading motivation research was taken to a new level of specificity expectancy component is similar to Bandura's (1997) construct of self- (Wigfield, 1997). Rather than focusing on motivation for reading in efficacy, the value component refers to beliefs about how important it general, expectancy and value components were tailored to the is to do well on given tasks, how useful those tasks are in relation to comprehension aspect of reading. Essentially, the reading efficacy current and future goals, and how intrinsically interesting they are to construct could be captured by the question “Can I understand what I the individual (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). read?” Correspondingly, the reading task value construct could be Guthrie, Wigfield, and colleagues (Guthrie et al., 2007; Guthrie, captured by the question “Do I want to understand what I read and Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & why?” This further contextualization of reading motivation constructs Guthrie, 1997) have adapted motivation constructs to reading and used might make them relate more closely to comprehension performance. those constructs to predict reading comprehension, also controlling for For example, the reason why Guthrie et al. (2007) did not find reading the potential influence of other variables, such as socioeconomic status, efficacy to predict comprehension might be that readers conceptua- past reading achievement, and reading amount. Most recently, Guthrie lized efficacy more in terms of word-level skills than in terms of et al. (2007) showed that reading motivation constructs captured comprehension. Second, prior work was extended through control for achievement in the domain, topic knowledge, and different forms of strategic ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 22 85 52 82; fax: +47 22 85 42 50. processing. Taboada, Tonks, Guthrie, and Wigfield (2007) reported E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Bråten). that teachers' perception of student engagement in reading predicted 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002  Ø. Anmarkrud, I. Bråten / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 252–256 253 comprehension and its growth when student topic knowledge and motivation study was voluntary but only one student declined. Thus, question generating were statistically controlled. However, to our voluntariness did not seem to occasion that only students particularly knowledge no previous study simultaneously examined and con- high in motivation participated in this study. trolled for achievement in the domain, topic knowledge, and different forms of strategic processing in the prediction of text comprehension. 2.2. Materials Therefore, it is an open question whether the contribution of reading motivation will override the potential contributions of those variables. 2.2.1. Text According to Alexander and Jetton (2000), no other factor Participants read one 891-word social studies text assembled from influences understanding more than prior knowledge (see also, two texts about socialization used in the second year of junior college. Kintsch, 1998). Alexander and Jetton identified two forms of prior The first part defined the socialization process and described aspects knowledge: While domain knowledge refers to the breadth of one's of socialization in different cultures, the second part dealt with norms knowledge within a subject area (e.g., social studies), topic knowledge and sanctions and their influence on socialization. The text introduced describes the depth of one's knowledge about certain subject-matter a number of important concepts and illustrated them with examples concepts (e.g., socialization). In the current research, the contribution from daily life. of topic knowledge was controlled statistically. Moreover, we As an indication of text difficulty, we used a readability score based controlled for students' achievement in the domain. on Björnsson's formula (1968), considering word and sentence length. Also, the importance of strategic processing to text comprehension With that formula, readability scores range from about 20 (very easy) has been emphasized. Building on the strategy conceptualizations of to about 60 (very difficult). Vinje (1982) reported that textbooks in Weinstein and Mayer (1986) and Alexander, Graham, and Harris Norwegian high schools had a readability score of approximately 42. (1998), Bråten and Samuelstuen (2004) defined comprehension This text had a score of 38.8, suggesting that it represented a sufficient strategies as forms of procedural knowledge that readers voluntarily challenge for the participants and required considerable motivation use for acquiring, organizing, or transforming information, as well as and engagement on their part. Although the validity of readability for reflecting on and guiding their own text comprehension, in order scores is debatable (Klare, 1984; Weaver & Kintsch, 1991), it was usable to reduce a perceived discrepancy between a desired outcome and in this study because it gave some estimate of text difficulty that could their current state of understanding. This definition captures the be compared with the difficulty of other kinds of Norwegian reading strategy categories described by Weinstein and Mayer (1986) that we material. tried to operationalize. Readers are likely to profit from an active and flexible use of comprehension strategies and, in particular, there are 2.2.2. Achievement in the domain solid findings that the use of deeper level strategies is important for Achievement in the domain refers to participants' self-reported comprehension (Trabasso & Bouchard, 2002). However, we controlled previous semester social studies grades. Those grades were based on for not only deeper level strategies but also for surface text-processing teachers' running evaluations throughout the semester, averaged strategies because even adults may rely quite heavily on surface across various assessment tests and assignments, both oral and strategies (Pressley, El-Dinary, & Brown, 1992). written, and also reflecting students' engagement and participation in Finally, we controlled for the potential effect of gender. The main individual as well as group-based classwork. Based on the grading reason was that the gender gap in reading comprehension among system, ranging from 1 (not good) to 6 (excellent), achievement in the Norwegian adolescents, in the favour of girls, is one of the largest domain was assessed on a 6-point scale. among the OECD countries (Kjaernsli, Lie, Olsen, Roe, & Turmo, 2004). Girls have also been found to express more positive attitudes toward 2.2.3. Topic knowledge measure both academic and recreational reading (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, A 12-item multiple-choice test was used to measure topic knowl- 1995) but findings regarding gender differences in reading material edge. The items referred to concepts discussed in the text (see Appendix). preferences are not consistent (Worthy, Moorman, & Turner, 1999). Participants' score was number of correct responses. The reliability In summary, our study examined two questions: (Kuder–Richardson 20) for the measure was.55, with this somewhat low level probably due to the fact that many items were quite hard for our 1. To what extent does motivation for reading comprehension, participants. While a reliability estimate of.55 is certainly lower than specifically, reading comprehension efficacy and reading compre- desirable, it may still be considered within the acceptable range for hension task value, predict text comprehension when controlling measures developed and used for research purposes (Nunnally, 1978). for gender, achievement in the domain, topic knowledge, deeper strategies, and surface strategies? 2.2.4. Inventory of strategic processing 2. What is the relative contribution of the two reading motivation Participants were asked to mark a 20-item strategy-use inventory constructs with other variables controlled? immediately following their reading. The items were selected to reflect Weinstein and Mayer's (1986) categorization of strategies into 2. Method memorization, organization, elaboration, and monitoring. Those categories correspond to categories of reading strategies specified in 2.1. Participants Pressley and Afflerbach's (1995) review of think-aloud studies. Memorization is used to select and rehearse information, without Participants were 104 ninth-graders between 14 and 15 years transforming or moving beyond what is given in the text. Organization (50.5% female, 49.5% male) from four junior high schools. The is used to relate, group, or order information and ideas given in the majority (over 75%) were white native speakers of Norwegian, with text. Elaboration is used to make the text more meaningful by building the rest having mainly an Asian or an African background. None were connections between information given in the text and information second-language learners of Norwegian. In an international perspec- located in other sources. Finally, monitoring involves assessing or tive, the sample was relatively homogeneous (i.e., middle class) in regulating learning and comprehension. The four types of strategies regard to socioeconomic status. may be further classified into surface processing strategies (memor- The students attended schools that took part in a large qualitative ization) and deeper processing strategies (organization, elaboration, classroom study, with schools selected to represent variability with and monitoring) (Entwistle & McCune, 2004). respect to urbanization, pedagogical organization, and number of Participants rated to what extent they had performed described language minority students. Participation in the quantitative reading activities while studying the text on a 10-point scale (1= not at all, 254 Ø. Anmarkrud, I. Bråten / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 252–256 Table 1 and several concepts central to the understanding of the text (see Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all variables. Appendix). Both memory for facts and skill at making inferences were Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 tested. Measuring comprehension in terms of main ideas and concepts 1. Gender – made it difficult to distinguish between items focusing on literal 2. Achievement.10 – information and items requiring an inference. Thus, to answer the 3. Topic knowledge −.12.37⁎⁎⁎ – items correctly, participants were required to both remember the 4. Deeper strategies.04.19.03 – literal content of the text and to go beyond what was explicitly stated 5. Surface strategies.10.13.03.50⁎⁎⁎ – 6. Reading efficacy.04.52⁎⁎⁎.36⁎⁎⁎.26⁎⁎.29⁎⁎ – in the text. Because items could not be categorized into those 7. Reading task value.11.16.36⁎⁎⁎.19.18.36⁎⁎⁎ – measuring memory for facts and those measuring skill at making 8. Reading.04.41⁎⁎⁎.61⁎⁎⁎.12.19.46⁎⁎⁎.46⁎⁎⁎ – inferences, participants' score was the total number of correct comprehension responses. Although the capabilities of multiple-choice test items to M 4.15 4.33 5.07 5.54 6.87 7.87 9.84 SD.88 2.38 1.83 1.80 1.82 1.41 3.77 measure deeper levels of comprehension have been questioned, there Skewness −.48.17.21 −.36 −.61 − 1.31 −.13 is growing evidence that multiple-choice tests can be successfully used to measure literal as well as inferential understanding (Hala- Note. Male coded as 1, female coded as 2. ⁎⁎p b.01, ⁎⁎⁎p b.001. dyna, 2004). The Kuder—Richardson 20 for the measure was.77. 10 = very often). Principal component analysis with oblique rotation 2.3. Procedure resulted in two factors with high loadings (N.40) and low overlap (b.30) including 16 items. The first factor concerned deeper processing of text The materials were group-administered in the following order: information, with all nine items originally written to assess organiza- reading motivation inventory, topic knowledge measure, text, strat- tion, elaboration, and monitoring. The second factor concerned surface egy-use inventory, and reading comprehension measure. Participants processing of text information, with the items originally written to reported in writing their grade in social studies at the end of eight assess memorization falling on this factor together with some items grade. They were instructed to study the text so that they afterwards originally written to assess monitoring. That some items written to could take a test about its content, and they did not have access to the assess monitoring (e.g., I made sure that I remembered the most text during the comprehension test. important things) clustered together with typical memorization items (e.g., I practiced by saying the material to myself over and over again) in 3. Results the surface factor, indicates that participants had processes of rehearsal or repetition more than processes of remembering importance or self- Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix are presented in Table 1. testing in mind when responding to those items. Moreover, the Using hierarchical multiple regression analysis, gender and grades underlying structure of the strategy inventory was quite clear, with were entered into the equation in step one. In step two, topic the factor interpreted as surface processing strategies distinct from that knowledge and the two strategy variables were entered; in step three, identified as deeper processing strategies. reading efficacy and reading task value. The reading comprehension On the basis of the factor analysis, two scales were constructed measure was the dependent variable. Deletion of missing values (see Appendix). Scores on the scales were divided by number of items resulted in 100 participants available for the regression analysis. to range from 1 to 10. Reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) were.84 (deeper After step one, R2 =.14, Fchange(2, 97) = 7.82, p =.001. Table 2 shows strategies) and.75 (surface strategies). that in this step, grades were a positive predictor, β =.37, p =.000, indicating that high achievers in the social studies domain were more 2.2.5. Inventory of reading motivation likely to comprehend the text well. After step two, R2 =.42, Fchange(3, To assess motivation for reading comprehension, we used nine items 94) = 14.93, p =.000. In this step, only topic knowledge positively written to measure the expectancy component and 18 items written to predicted comprehension, β =.55, p =.000. Participants more knowl- measure the value component. With respect to the latter, five items edgeable about the topic were more likely to obtain high scores on the concerned the importance of reading comprehension, five the useful- comprehension measure. That achievement in the domain ceased to ness of reading comprehension, and eight the intrinsic interestingness of reading comprehension. Twelve of the items were adapted from the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire—Revised Version (Wigfield & Table 2 Guthrie, 1997), with items focusing on reading comprehension rather Results of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting reading comprehension. than on reading in general. Fifteen additional items were authored Variable B SE B β pertaining to either the expectancy or the value component. Step 1 Items were rated on a 10-point scale (1 = never true of me, Gender −.04.67 −.01 10 = always true of me). Principal component analysis with oblique Achievement 1.56.40.37⁎⁎⁎ rotation yielded two factors with high loadings (N.40) and low overlap Step 2 (b.30) including 16 items. The first factor concerned the value of Gender.48.57.07 reading comprehension, with items originally written to address the Achievement.65.36.16 importance (2), utility (4), and interestingness (3) of reading Topic knowledge.82.13.55⁎⁎⁎ comprehension. The second factor focused on participants' beliefs Deeper strategies.02.18.01 Surface strategies.27.18.14 about their capabilities to understand what they read, with all seven items originally written to assess the expectancy component. Step 3 On the basis of this factor analysis, two scales were constructed Gender.29.55.04 (see Appendix). Divided by number of items, the scores on each scale Achievement.49.38.12 ranged from 1 to 10. Reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) were.80 (reading Topic knowledge.65.13.44⁎⁎⁎ Deeper strategies −.06.17 −.03 task value) and.85 (reading efficacy). Surface strategies.18.17.09 Reading effcicay.23.19.12 2.2.6. Reading comprehension measure Reading task value.60.22.24⁎⁎ An 18-item multiple-choice test was used to measure comprehen- Note.R2 =.14 for step 1 (p=.001), ΔR2 =.28 for step 2 (p=.000), ΔR2 =.06 for step 3 (p=.006). sion. The items focused on the main purpose of the text, its main ideas, ⁎⁎p b.01, ⁎⁎⁎p b.001.  Ø. Anmarkrud, I. Bråten / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 252–256 255 be a positive predictor in the second step, is probably due to its positive and discuss interesting self-selected texts to increase their knowledge correlation with topic knowledge and the fact that topic knowledge was a about science topics and concepts introduced through hands-on better predictor. Finally, even after removing variance from the variables science activities. Students involved in CORI have been found to entered in steps one and two, the reading motivation variables accounted develop higher reading motivation and gain better understanding of for additional variance. After step three, R2 =.48, Fchange(2, 92) = 5.51, what they read (Guthrie et al., 2004), confirming the link between p =.006. However, a statistically significant positive relationship was motivation and comprehension demonstrated in this study. According only revealed for reading task value, β =.24, p =.007, indicating that to our findings, it may be particularly important to attend to students' participants considering reading comprehension to be important, useful, valuing of text comprehension in such endeavours. and intrinsically motivating were also more likely to perform well. That reading efficacy did not contribute statistically significantly even though Acknowledgements it had a positive zero-order correlation with comprehension, may be due to its positive correlation with several other predictor variables (see This research was supported by the PISA+ project at the University Table 1). Thus, some of the variance that reading efficacy shared with of Oslo and the program Knowledge, Education, and Learning from the reading comprehension may already have been accounted for. Research Council of Norway. Thanks are due to Marit S. Samuelstuen for giving us access to some of the materials developed in connection 4. Discussion with her doctoral dissertation. This study indicates that motivation constructs derived from Appendix expectancy–value theory can improve prediction of text comprehen- sion beyond that afforded by gender, achievement in the domain, Sample items for the topic knowledge measure topic knowledge, and strategic processing. In particular, valuing of text comprehension seems important because it can uniquely predict 1. Norms can be explained as concrete expressions of … comprehension after variance associated with those constructs has *a. the values in a society been removed. While previous research has found that task value is b. penalty in a society more strongly related to choice than to performance (Wigfield & c. law-abidingness in a society Eccles, 2000), this study indicates that with respect to text d. rules that we should not follow in a society comprehension, it may uniquely predict performance. e. class distinctions in a society The predictability of reading efficacy was not competitive with that 5. Socialization is a process … of reading task value. However, in terms of simple correlations, rela- a. where the goal is to become as like each other as possible tionships between the two motivation constructs and text comprehen- b. where one adapts oneself to a socialist party sion were the same. The reason why reading efficacy did not survive as a c. where one primarily learns about socialism unique predictor may be that it is more strongly related to achievement *d. where one learns to adapt oneself to the society in the domain and strategy use (Bandura, 1997). By controlling for e. where the goal is to learn about the cultures of different countries those variables, the unique predictability of reading efficacy was lost. However, different results might have been obtained if the reading 12. Conformity can mean that … efficacy and task value scale items had been tailored to social studies. a. you do exactly the opposite of what others expect you to do Given such further contextualization, reading efficacy might well have b. you feel well contributed statistically significantly to comprehension. c. you ask about something in class that nobody understands Some other limitations should also be mentioned. First, strategic d. you wear clothes that you think others will find terrible text processing was assessed by means of a self-report questionnaire. ⁎e. you dress in the fashion that is followed by your classroom While the methodology that we used has produced valid strategy scores in other studies (Bråten & Samuelstuen, 2007; Samuelstuen & Items used in strategy scales Bråten, 2007), on-line think-aloud protocols (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995) or trace methodology (Winne & Perry, 2000) should preferably Deeper strategies be used when trying to control for strategic text processing. Second, I tried to find connections between the different parts of the text. because we used only correlational data, conclusions regarding I asked myself questions about the content of the text. causality are not warranted. We simply focused on testing motiva- I tried to make all the content of the text fit together. tional beliefs as contributors to comprehension and observed I summarized the most important information in the text in my relationships consistent with the assumption that such beliefs may own words. be causal predictors. Finally, it should be cautioned against imputing I tried to imagine situations in which new words or ideas in the generalizability to findings based on a Norwegian sample of junior text might fit in. high students reading only one social studies text. Future work should I tried to figure out how the topic of the text fitted in with what I encompass varied student populations and use more than one text in have already learned. the same or in different domains. I tried to create an overview of all the content of the text. Despite the limitations, our findings may afford implications not I tried to understand the content better by relating it to something I only for theory but also for educational practice. It is recognized that know. the promotion of prior knowledge and deeper-level strategies should While I was reading, I thought about situations in or outside school be components of reading comprehension instruction (Block & that were related to the text content. Pressley, 2002). However, an emphasis on such cognitive constructs should not make us overlook the importance of promoting motivation Surface strategies for reading comprehension. Given the general decline in academic I tried to memorize as much as possible. motivation observed across the school years (Schunk, Pintrich, & I made sure that I remembered the most important things. Meece, 2008), this represents a great challenge. One approach I tried to memorize what I thought was important. designed to promote students' motivation for reading comprehension I practiced by saying the material to myself over and over again. is Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI; Guthrie, Wigfield, & Now and then I stopped reading to think through or repeat what I Perencevich, 2004). In this approach, students collaboratively read had read. 256 Ø. Anmarkrud, I. Bråten / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 252–256 I tested myself to be sure that I knew the material. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Björnsson, C. H. (1968). Läsbarhet [Readability]. Stockholm: Liber. I tried to think through the content and assess the meaning of it. Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: The Guilford Press. Items used in motivation scales Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students' topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324–336. Reading efficacy Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2007). Measuring strategic processing: comparing task- I will not have problems understanding even the most difficult specific self-reports to traces. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 1–20. Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. texts that we read in ninth grade. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 325–345. It is easy for me to understand the content of a book. Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). I am not particularly good at understanding the content of what I Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–313. read (reversed). Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. I understand what I read well. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, I will probably have problems understanding much of what's in the Vol. 3 (pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. textbooks this school year (reversed). Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept- Compared with the others in my class I have a good understanding oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423. of books that I read. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive Most of the others in my class are probably better than me at predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256. understanding what they read (reversed). Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reading task value Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Even if it can be difficult to understand the content of the Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge textbooks, I think it is important to understand it. University Press. Good reading comprehension is useful in all subjects. Kjaernsli, M., Lie, S., Olsen, R. V., Roe, A., & Turmo, A. (2004). Rett spor eller ville veier [Right track or off road]? Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. It is particularly fun to read when I understand the content of the Klare, G. R. (1984). Readability. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal texts well. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 681–744). New York: Longman. I don't think it is possible to do well in school if I don't understand McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children's attitudes toward reading: a national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934–956. what I read. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill. I am always interested in understanding what I read. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In Good reading comprehension is useful to get a good job. M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading I don't think it matters if I don't understand what I read (reversed). research, Vol. 3 (pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. To understand what I read is not even useful in the subject Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., & Brown, R. (1992). Skilled and not-so-skilled reading: good Norwegian (reversed). information processing and not-so-good information processing. In M. Pressley, K. R. I really like to understand the texts that I read at school. Harris & J.T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy: Cognitive research and instructional innovation (pp. 91–127). San Diego: Academic Press. Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2007). Examining the validity of self-reports on scales Sample items for the reading comprehension measure measuring students' strategic processing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 351–378. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: 1. What was the main purpose of this text? Theory, research, and application (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice a. To explain what function language has for us as humans. Hall. b. To show how praise and punishment mould us as humans. Taboada, A., Tonks, S., Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (2007, November). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Paper presented at c. To explain the development of a complex society. the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. *d. To explain how we become members of our own society. Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E. (2002). Teaching readers how to comprehend text strategically. e. To show what the breaking of a norm may lead to. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 176–200). New York: Guilford Press. 2. One of the main ideas in the text was … Vinje, F. E. (1982). Journalistspråket [The journalist language]. Fredrikstad, Norway: Institute for Journalism. a. that children ask many questions. Wang, J. H. -Y., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, *b. that children gradually become socialized as they learn the extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text language. comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, c. that one cannot make oneself understood in other countries if 162–186. Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal one does not know the language & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 230–245). New York: d. that parents are preoccupied with questions concerning Longman. morality and values. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: e. that one cannot make oneself understood with finger language Macmillan. in other countries. Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: a domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32, 59–68. 14. The process of socialization … Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. *a. lasts the whole life. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the b. ends when one has finished junior high school. amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, c. lasts until one marries and has a family of one's own. 420–432. d. ends when one has finished one's education. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532–568). San Diego, CA: e. ends when one starts school. Academic Press. Worthy, J., Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to read is hard to find References in school. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 12–27. Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129–154. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: a multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.