The Role of Motivation in Remedial Reading Curriculum
C. Patrick Proctor, Samantha Daley, Rebecca Louick, Christine M. Leider, and Graham GardnerPublisher
Learning & Individual DifferencesDate
- The authors studied the role of motivation on reading among students with disabilities.
- Half of the students were ELLs, making the population unique for motivation research.
- Students reported self-efficacy, intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation.
- Self-efficacy predicted reading, net instructional time and formative performance.
- ELL status did not moderate effects; ELL reading performance was lower than non-ELL.
The study examined self-reported levels of motivation in predicting reading comprehension among 76 linguistically diverse middle school-aged students with disabilities in an urban Northeastern school district in the United States. Fifty-one percent of the students were English language learners (ELLs), and all were enrolled in READ180, an online and classroom-based, commercial reading program designed to promote comprehension for students who struggle with reading. Controlling for time spent in READ180 and formative vocabulary and comprehension performance within the environment, we investigated whether reading-related motivations (intrinsic motivation; extrinsic motivation; self-efficacy) predicted comprehension outcomes, and whether language status (ELL or non-ELL) moderated any relationships with reading comprehension. Self-efficacy was positively and significantly associated with reading comprehension, while intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation were not. The effect of self-efficacy was not moderated by ELL status and ELL students scored significantly below their non-ELL peers on the measure of reading comprehension.
Proctor, C.P., Daley, S.G., Louick, R., Leider, C.M., & Gardner, G. (2014). How motivation predicts reading comprehension among native English-speaking and English-Learning middle school students with disabilities in a remedial reading curriculum. Learning & Individual Differences 36, 76–83. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.014