Running head: Does Motivation + Engagement Equal Achievement?

Does Motivation + Engagement Equal Achievement?

Carolyn Kay
East Carolina University

2
Abstract
Due to intense public scrutiny, implications of high-stakes testing and achievement
scores, and federal mandates such as No Child Left Behind, educators across the nation devote
large blocks of instructional time to language arts, often to the detriment of social studies,
enhancement subjects and play time. Regardless of the time, money, and effort involved, higher
student achievement in reading will not occur if the students are not engaged and motivated to
read.
Keywords: motivation, engagement, reading achievement

3
Does Motivation + Engagement Equal Achievement?
Elementary school reading teachers often use reward systems to bribe students, assign
reading as a task to be completed, or use it as a means to an end for high-stakes testing. This
coercion inhibits that naturally developing love for reading that every child deserves, attempts to
label students overall abilities based on a snapshot, and marginalizes underachieving students.
STAR Reading, Accelerated Reader, and iReady are just three examples of reading
programs used by school systems. Each time a new program is purchased, administrators and
educators expect promising results in reading. All too often, the software company fails to realize
the basic truth; testing does not make a better reader, sustained reading makes a better reader.
This paper explores the effects motivation and engagement have on reading achievement.
Motivation
Similar to the phrase You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink,
authors Applegate and Applegate (2010) tell us that regardless of the tools for instruction
available to teachers, if a child cannot or will not muster the motivational resources to
respond, then there is virtually nothing that teachers can do. How, as educators, can we identify,
measure, and increase reading motivation in children?
Merriam-Websters online dictionary defines motivation as the act or process of giving
someone a reason for doing something. In educational terms of reading motivation, it is the
likelihood of engaging in reading or choosing to read (Gambrell 2009, 2011). Gambrell
continues by adding the International Reading Association, or IRA, has consistently recognized
the significant role of motivation in reading development (2011).

4
In order to determine how to increase reading motivation, we must first examine the
characteristics. What does motivation look like?
Referring to Eccles expectancyvalue theory (1983), Applegate and Applegate state two
factors involved in motivation:
1. The extent to which an individual expects success or failure in an undertaking
2. The value or overall appeal that an individual ascribes to the task
While motivated readers are more likely to view tasks to be interesting, worthwhile, and
successful, Gambrell (2011) shares that the students are more likely to become motivated when
the assigned task or reading is relevant and meaningful. In the diverse classrooms of today,
educators must ensure that a wide variety of text selections, sources, and topics are available.
The use of teacher read aloud activities, peer to peer collaborations, book talks about possible
book choices, and time for sustained reading all aid in increasing reader motivation. Patricia
Geary opines that (it) not only improves students social and communication skills, it motivates
and fosters reading development (2006). Motivated students use reading strategies such as
questioning the text to discover meaning, questioning the authors purpose for writing the text,
understanding the purpose for reading the text, making inferences, and making connections
between the text and prior knowledge or personal experiences. Teachers model strategies,
explicitly teach reading behaviors in language arts lessons, and then reinforce the use of these
strategies during small group and reading conferences.
Therefore, having identified what a motivated reader looks like, researchers attempt to
measure the motivation of elementary students. Applegate and Applegates A Study of
Thoughtful Literacy and the Motivation to Read (2010) takes a look at 443 children in grades
second through sixth in the states of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. There were 202

5
male students and 241 female students from public (63%), parochial (26%), private (10%), and
homeschools (1%), with fourteen percent of the students classified as minorities and 86% listed
as Caucasian.
Participating students completed a reading inventory assessment. Students scoring 81%
or higher on the text based comprehension questions continued with the next phase of the study.
In order to compare results, researchers divided the students into two groups, Red Group and
Blue Group, based on the inventory scores. Red group students scored an average of 88.2% on
text based comprehension questions and 44.9% on higher level thinking questions. The blue
group scored an average of 91.9% on text based questions and 85.1% on questions requiring
higher level thinking skills. Applegate and Applegate found that the students scoring higher on
the deep thinking questions showed higher reading motivation. (2010). Though both groups
scored at a similar level when answering text based questions, the red group performed
significantly lower with the critical thinking questions. An educators next step would be to
create a plan for increasing the red group scores in this area.
Engagement
The first steps in creating plans for increasing reading motivation should include a reader
interest survey and a multiple intelligence quiz. According to Baker and Wigfields 1999 article,
Dimensions of childrens motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and
reading achievement, each students has an individual motivation for reading, which reinforces
the need for an educator to know and understand the students reading interests. A relatively
simple interest inventory can be used to guide the teacher in selecting topics and texts that appeal
to students, give ownership and responsibility for learning to the students, and accomplish the
learning objectives of the class. Gardners theory of multiple intelligences (1983) provides

6
invaluable information to teachers about their students learning styles, enabling differentiated
lessons within specific learning goals and standards. Once armed with materials that appeal to
student interests and information regarding student learning styles, the teacher is then prepared to
create engaging lessons that will increase the motivation to read.
Corcoran and Mamalakis studied 26 fifth grade students in order to determine students
perceptions of reading motivation techniques (2009). As motivation (or lack thereof) is the
driving force behind permanence of learning, the authors of the 2009 study felt it was prudent to
determine exactly what motivates children. Students, (seventeen males and nine females),
completed a survey regarding the importance of reading, methods used by their teacher, and
overall effectiveness in increasing motivation. Students were assured of anonymity in order to
encourage honest and authentic answers. The study found that teacher read-alouds and literature
discussions are an important part of the motivation to read for the surveyed students.
Interestingly enough, in this day of rushing to grow up, the fifth grade students studied still enjoy
and desire teacher read-aloud activities as part of their reading instruction and feel teachers
should devote more time to these activities. As noted by the authors, This success is pleasurable,
and will lead to an increased desire for more pleasure or success (Corcoran & Mamalakis,
2009).
Another positive influence on engagement is that of choice and ownership. When given
the opportunity to choose from various reading materials, themes, and genres, students develop a
sense of ownership over their learning, thereby increasing engagement and motivation. By taking
away that right, we leave students feeling powerless and discouraged. In Souto-Mannings article
Accelerating Reading Inequities in the Early Years (2010), seven year old students lament the
fact that reading material is selected for them based on computerized, multiple choice

7
comprehension tests rather than by preference. Additionally, young students notice that the car
riders (effectively those from higher socioeconomic status homes) are always at the ice cream
parties held for those with the highest AR scores. This prompts the teacher to address the issue of
how texts are assigned, without any consideration of interests or backgrounds of the students.
Students, parents, and the teacher become involved in selecting interesting texts, reading the
selections, and then creating tests so that students might earn points based on authentic reading
assignments and remain engaged in their learning.
An additional example of the positive benefits of self-selected texts and student interest
inventories is shared in Whites article What he Wanted was Real Stories, but no one Would
Listen: A Childs Literacy, a Mothers Understandings (2009). White shares her experience
with a young student who seemingly had no interest in reading. Though she initially blamed his
lack of interest on the fact that he lived in a very busy farming household, White, with the
assistance of the students mother, came to the realization that her student was just not interested
in fictional stories. During his time in first grade, he was given ample texts to read at home.
Upon his promotion to second grade, he was labeled a struggling reader due to his reluctance to
continue reading. According to White, he was no longer allowed to choose freely from nonfiction
topics and his reading abilities suffered. The student did not voluntarily read another book until
he was in fourth grade and discovered a series of books he enjoyed. From that moment on, the
student transformed into a strong, active reader. When students are given the opportunity to selfselect books, they will automatically choose a topic of interest. However, there are other factors
that must be taken into consideration.
Though student choice is a strong indicator that a reader will be engaged, students,
educators and parents need to ensure that the reading level of the chosen material is appropriate,

8
as well, in order to boost achievement. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Vygotsky developed
the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development. The importance of scaffolding student learning
is as vital today as it was in the last years of his life. In her study examining underachieving male
readers that have been assigned male tutors, Laura Sokal noted that of all the variables in her
study, choice of material alone did not increase achievement. It is possible that the variable
responsible for the higher reading comprehension (is) that they had weekly practice reading high
interest books that were appropriate to their reading level (2010). Informed decisions about appropriate
reading material led to a higher success in reading achievement than student choice alone.

If we are to believe the statement that success leads to a desire for more success as
Corcoran and Mamalakis suggest, then we must also consider its opposite; failure can create
learned helplessness, a lack of motivation, and low self-efficacy according to Donalson and
Halsey (2013). In Adolescent Readers Perceptions: A Case Study, (2013), the authors follow
eight students in a mandatory remedial reading class in order to determine how their perception
of reading affects their performance on criterion referenced tests. These participants were
selected due to scoring below average in reading ability, based on the State Mandated Criterion
Reference Exam (CRT). On the first day of school, without prior notification, the students
schedules were changed, removing an elective class and replacing it with a remedial reading
program. As part of this case study, the students completed a survey to identify learning styles,
based on Howard Gardners multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983) and a Reader Self-Perception
Scale. The surveys were read aloud to each of the students and information was recorded.
The study determined that the students perception of themselves as readers was damaged
by placement in the remedial reading class. Further, it was noted that placement in the Title I
class removed them from a self-selected elective where the student might have been successful,

9
as they fit with their individual learning styles. The inability to participate in a potentially
positive learning environment further damages their vision of themselves as a learner. Neither the
remedial nor the regular education teachers could expect students in situations such as those
studied by Donalson and Halsey (2013) to remain engaged in classroom activities.
Given that we have explored the possibility of a direct correlation between motivation
and engagement, we must now consider the third part of the equation. Does higher reading
motivation and engagement indicate that educators may assume higher reading achievement
scores are indicated? Conversely, can lower achievement scores be expected when a student is
not motivated to read?
Achievement
When examining the National Reading Conference Policy Brief High Stakes Testing and
Reading Assessment (Afflerbach, 2004), it is important to note that, by design, high stakes tests
for reading assess just a small slice of what we expect accomplished student readers to do,
limiting student ability to demonstrate other reading skills taught throughout the year. Similar to
the findings of Donalson and Halsey (2013), the brief posits that high stakes may be harmful to
students self-esteem and motivation. Additionally, Wolters, Denton, York, and Francis (2013)
declare that many studies have shown that students motivational beliefs and attitudes play an
important role in understanding their engagement in academic tasks and their achievement with
regard to those tasks (Anderman & Wolters, 2006; Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009). If the very tests
designed to assess learning are only assessing a portion of the knowledge students are expected
to gain during the school year, interrupt and shorten reading instructional time, and may in fact
do more harm than good, should we not examine their purpose and usefulness in order to
determine a more authentic method of evaluation?

10
In the study by Wolters et al. (2013), findings encourage the belief that motivation has an
effect on achievement. Additionally, it was noted that students with lower reading
comprehension skills (struggling readers as determined by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
Skills) were more likely to record lower levels of perceived control over reading tasks and higher
levels of anxiety when reading than those with higher TAKS scores. This knowledge can guide
teachers towards developing motivational goals for students.
Conclusion
As previously stated in this paper, students are better equipped to succeed and
demonstrate higher reading achievement when they are motivated and engaged in the reading
tasks set forth by their teachers. Motivation and engagement in reading is achieved by using
relevant texts and resources, student choices in regards to appropriate reading materials, and
activities that offer the opportunity to experience success. Not one study examined concluded
that students achieve a higher self-efficacy by increasing testing. While this information may
seem more common sense than ground breaking news, it has yet to be utilized and promoted by
those in charge of reading curriculum and testing budgets.

11
Reference List
Afflerbach, P. (2005). National Reading Conference Policy Brief: High Stakes Testing and
Reading Assessment. J. of Literacy Res. Journal of Literacy Research HJLR, 37(2), 151162. Retrieved March 01, 2016. Doi: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3702_2
Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2010). A study of thoughtful literacy and the motivation to
read. The Reading Teacher, 64(4), 226-234. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
10.1598/rt.64.4.1
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of Children's Motivation for Reading and Their
Relations to Reading Activity and Reading Achievement. Reading Research Quarterly,
34(4), 452-477. doi:10.1598/rrq.34.4.4
Corcoran, C. A., & Mamalakis, A. (2009). Fifth grade students' perceptions of reading
motivation techniques. Reading Improvement, 46(3), 137-142. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/215798226?accountid=10639
Donalson, K., & Halsey, P. (2013). Adolescent readers' perceptions of remedial reading classes:
A case study. Reading Improvement, 50(4), 189-198. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/1490491651?accountid=10639
Gambrell, L. B. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What's most important to know about
motivation to read. Read teach. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172-178. Retrieved February
18, 2016. doi:10.1002/trtr.01024

12
Geary, P. (2006). Every child a reader: A national imperative. Reading Improvement, 43(4), 179184. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/215796938?
accountid=10639
Hughes-Hassell, S. and Rodge, P. (2007). The leisure reading habits of urban adolescents.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51: 2233. Doi: 10.1598/JAAL.51.1.3
International Reading Association. (2014). Leisure reading [Position statement]. Newark, DE:
Author.doi:10.1598/0833.01
Sokal, L. (2010). Long-term effects of male reading tutors, choice of text and computer-based
text on boys' reading achievement. Language and Literacy, 12(1), 116-n/a. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/1428561975?
accountid=10639
Souto-Manning, M. (2010). Accelerating reading inequities in the early years. Language Arts,
88(2), 104113. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41804238
Wolters, C. A., Denton, C. A., York, M. J., & Francis, D. J. (2013). Adolescents motivation for
reading: Group differences and relation to standardized achievement. Read Writ Reading
and Writing, 27(3), 503-533. Retrieved February 19, 2016. Doi: 10.1007/s11145-0139454-3
White, C. L. (2009). "What he wanted was real stories, but no one would listen": A child's
literacy, a mother's understandings. Language Arts, 86(6), 431439. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41483572