HOW
TO MOTIVATE READING FOR CHILDREN
CHAPTER I
ABSTRACT
Some method of how to motivate reading for
children. Most of children like play game instead of reading book. Parents must
find the effective methods and choose the interesting book. After studied will
have improved reading skill.
Age differences in intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation and the relationships of each to academic outcomes were examined in
an ethnically diverse sample of 797 3rd-grade through 8th-grade children. Using
independent measures, the authors found intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to
be only moderately correlated, suggesting that they may be largely orthogonal
dimensions of motivation in school. Consistent with previous research,
intrinsic motivation showed a significant linear decrease from 3rd grade
through 8th grade and proved positively correlated with children’s grades and
standardized test scores at all grade levels. Extrinsic motivation showed few
differences across grade levels and proved negatively correlated with academic
outcomes. Surprisingly few differences based on children’s sex or ethnicity
were found. Causes and consequences of the disturbingly low levels of
motivation for older, relative to younger, children are discussed.
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
1.
Ideal situation
Parents must control the children, find
effective methods, make sure reading has becomea routine the children, make
them are eager to read the book, should continues to spend time reading
together with children everyday.
2.
Current situation
Most of children like play game instead of reading the book, the
parents don’t have time for children, bad environtment make the children not
eager to read book.
Reading skills for children are critical
for future academic and personal growth. Reading engagement is an important
component of a child’s ultimate literacy development. The level and amount of
time that a child spends engaged in literacy activities is an accurate
predictor of his or her motivation to read including gains in reading
achievement (Wigfield, Guthrie, Perencevich, Taboada, Klauda, Mcrae, &
Barbosa, 2008). Factors influencing engagement include motivation (Clarke,
Power, Hoffman, Kelleher, & Novak, 2003), home
I am always ready to learn although I do
not always like being taught. Winston Churchill For the past half century,
researchers have sought to study intrinsic motivation—the desire to engage in
behaviors for no reason other than sheer enjoyment, challenge, pleasure, or
interest (e.g., Berlyne, 1960; Hunt, 1965; White, 1959). This concept emerged in
the heyday of Skinnerian thought and research, partially as a contrast to the
motivation produced by the popular behavior modification programs of that era,
which featured a heavy reliance on more extrinsic incentives and contingencies.
Indeed, many early experimental studies on
this topic demonstrated that functionally superfluous, but salient and
contingent, extrinsic rewards can undermine existing intrinsic motivation
(e.g., Deci, 1971; Kruglanski, Friedman, &Zeevi, 1971; Lepper, Greene,
&Nisbett, 1973). Under specific conditions in these controlled experiments
(e.g., Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Lepper&Henderlong, 2000;
Sansone&Harackiewicz, 2000), intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation
appeared antithetical. As other researchers moved from the study of situational
manipulations to the study of individual differences in motivational
orientations, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation continued to be characterized
as opposing poles of a single dimension. Indeed, arguably the most famous of
these individual difference scales— that of Harter (1980, 1981)—assesses
intrinsic motivation solely in opposition to extrinsic motivation. On this
scale, for example, children are provided with an example of some academic
activity (e.g., reading books) and are asked to indicate the extent to which
they typically engage in that activity for intrinsic (e.g., enjoyment) versus
extrinsic (e.g., pleasing the teacher) reasons. Although it is a considerable
strength of Harter’s measure that children are explicitly asked about the
reasons for their behaviors, there is no way for them to indicate that both or
neither of these reasons may apply. Children can indicate only the degree to
which they endorse one reason over the other.1
Harter’s (1981) scale can be divided into
motivational and informational components, and the former component has been
used in numerous studies examining the relationships between intrinsic versus
extrinsic motivation and children’s academic behaviors (e.g., Ginsburg &
Bronstein, 1993; Guay, Boggiano, & 1 Within the attribution and
self-determination traditions, the distinction between intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic motivation depends on individuals’ perceived reasons for their
behaviors. In more recent years, however, the concept of intrinsic motivation
has been taken more generally as a measure of liking, enjoyment, interest,
curiosity, and challenge seeking, which we discuss briefly below. The other
widely cited scale of intrinsic motivation, Gottfried’s (1985) Children’s
Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, takes this latter approach. Mark R.
Lepper, Department of Psychology, Stanford University; Jennifer Henderlong
Corpus, Department of Psychology, Reed College; Sheena S. Iyengar, Graduate
School of Business, Columbia University. Portions of these results were
presented in Lepper, Sethi, Dialdin, and Drake (1997). Preparation of this
report was supported, in part, by National Institute of Mental Health Research
Grant MH-44321 to Mark R. Lepper and by National Institute of Mental Health National
Research Service Award 1F32MH12786–01 to Jennifer Henderlong Corpus. We thank
Fairmeadow Elementary School, Graystone
Elementary School, J. L. Stanford Middle School, and Bret Harte Middle School
for their generous participation. Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Mark R. Lepper, Department of Psychology, Jordan Hall, Building
420, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2130. E-mail:
lepper@psych.stanford.edu
Journal of Educational Psychology
Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 97, No. 2,
184–196 0022-0663/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184 Vallerand, 2001;
Newman, 1990; Tzuriel, 1989; Wong, Wiest, &Cusick, 2002). This motivational
component comprises three subscales.
The first measures a preference for
challenging schoolwork versus a preference for assignments that can be
accomplished successfully with little effort. The second measures the extent to
which behavior is motivated by curiosity or interest versus a desire to please
the teacher or to obtain good grades. The third measures a preference for
mastering academic material independently versus depending heavily on the
teacher for guidance.
Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation
Harter (1980, 1981) deliberately designed these three subscales to represent
intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation as contrasting ends of a single
dimension, but one might imagine that this opposition is not always necessary
or appropriate in the average classroom. The first subscale arguably could represent
two opposing poles of a single dimension: As the desire for challenging work
increases, the desire for easy work likely decreases. It is certainly possible,
however, that one’s desire for either challenging or easy work might depend on
the particular activity in question. The second subscale, representing
motivation based on curiosity or interest versus motivation based on pleasing
the teacher or receiving good grades, more clearly seems to represent two
potentially orthogonal motivations. Many children may engage in an academic
task both because it interests them and because it will please their teacher or
help them to earn a good grade. Finally, the third subscale of independent
mastery versus dependence on the teacher may also involve potentially orthogonal
constructs, in that children may prefer to solve problems independently up to
some point, beyond which they may need to turn to the teacher for guidance.
Thus, children may be motivated by both
independent problem solving and assistance from the teacher depending on the
stage in the learning process and the particular problem in question. Across
all three subscales, therefore, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation may not
necessarily be polar opposites.
Of course, with Harter’s (1981) scale, it
is simply not possible for children to report themselves as simultaneously
intrinsically and extrinsically motivated. A perfect negative correlation
between these two constructs has been built into the scale. As Harter herself
has noted, however, “one can also imagine situations in which intrinsic
interest and extrinsic rewards might collaborate, as it were, to motivate
learning” (Harter, 1981, p. 311). Indeed,
Harter and Jackson (1992) found that a
full 50% of their thirdgrade through sixth-grade participants endorsed a both
option added to her original scale. This leads to an interesting question:
Given an instrument that allowed an independent assessment of both intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation, would a perfect (or even a strong) negative
correlation necessarily result? A first aim of the present research, therefore,
was to examine the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
using independent measures of these two constructs.
Age Differences
Harter’s (1981) scale has nonetheless
proved an extremely important addition to the field, largely because of the
striking developmental trends it has revealed. Specifically, Harter and others
using her scale have consistently found a progressive and significant decline
in intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation across the elementary and middle
school years (e.g., Harter, 1981; Harter & Jackson, 1992; Newman, 1990;
Tzuriel, 1989). Of course, because of the construction of this scale, it is
possible that the real phenomenon demonstrated in these studies involves a
progressive increase in extrinsic motivation rather than a decrease in
intrinsic motivation. Such an increase would hardly be surprising given the
heavy use of extrinsic contingencies and incentives in many American classrooms
and the increasing importance attached to grades and test scores by American
schools as students get older (e.g., Eccles&Midgley, 1989; Kohn, 1993). The
origin of these age trends, therefore, remains unclear: Does extrinsic
motivation increase, or does intrinsic motivation decrease, as children
progress through school? If intrinsic motivation is decreasing, this suggests
that the solution may involve increasing the challenge, interest, and relevance
of the curriculum. However, if extrinsic motivation is increasing, this
suggests that the solution may involve minimizing the reward systems and
extrinsic contingencies prevalent in American school systems. A second aim of
the present research, therefore, was to examine age differences using
independent measures of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
In spite of this ambiguity in Harter’s
(1981) original scale, other evidence suggests that there is indeed likely to
be a developmental decrease in intrinsic motivation even when measured apart
from extrinsic motivation. Previous studies have revealed progressive declines
in children’s commitment to their class work (Epstein &McPartland, 1976),
their enjoyment of academic—but not nonacademic—activities (Sansone&
Morgan, 1992), their pursuit of learning goals (e.g., Anderman&Midgley,
1997; Maehr&Anderman, 1993; Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995), their
valuing of effort (e.g., Covington, 1984), their perceived competence (Eccles,
Roeser, Wigfield, & Freedman-Doan, 1999; Nicholls, 1978; Stipek&
MacIver, 1989), their ratings of the usefulness and importance of school
(Wigfield et al., 1997), and their mastery behaviors in the face of challenging
tasks (Rholes, Blackwell, Jordan, & Walters, 1980). Similarly, the most
recent studies using Gottfried’s (1985, 1990) more content-specific scales of
academic intrinsic motivation likewise have revealed a developmental decrease
in overall academic intrinsic motivation, with particularly marked decreases in
the critical content areas of math and science
(Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried,
2001).
By contrast, there is little evidence on
which to base predictions about age differences in extrinsic motivation. On the
one hand, given the increasing prevalence of rewards and other extrinsic
contingencies in the middle school years (Eccles et al., 1993), onemight expect
extrinsic motivation to be higher for older children. On the other hand, the
rewards and contingencies that teachers and parents provide may lose their power
over time, as adolescents may increasingly value the peer group and
decreasingly value authority figures. Clearly, it would be useful to examine
age differences in extrinsic, as well as intrinsic, motivation.
Links to Achievement
What are the consequences of a potential
decrease in intrinsic motivation as children progress through school? Several
studies have shown positive correlations between intrinsic motivation and
academic achievement (e.g., Gottfried, 1985, 1990; Harter & Connell, 1984;
Henderlong&Lepper, 1997; Lloyd &Barenblatt, 1984), suggesting that a
decline in intrinsic motivation may signify a decline in achievement. It is
certainly not surprising that children
CHAPTER III
BODY OF THE TEXT
Some methods of
how to motivate reading for children
took from AseanJurnal are:
1.
Paerents must make sure that kids can read very fluently,
and started teaching them at about 3 years old.
2.
Parent should continue to spend
time reading aloud together with childrenminimum 20 minutes every day.
3.
To find books that kids are
interested in and bring the kids to the library.
4.
If a child is not willing to
read on his own, give him books that are below his reading level.
5.
Give the suitable books for
years old kids; for example easy lots of text, and lots of beautiful pictures.
6.
Parents should show interest in
reading books to. The parents must read books first before the children read
it.
7.
Limit watching TV around one
hours a day, avoid the children from lay game or toys anything.
8.
SAurround kids with books at
home, collect more children books at home.
9.
Reward to child for reading,
give some small rewards every day.
Environment (Arzubiaga, Rueda, &Monzo,
2002), independent reading, and gains in reading achievement. It is
multidimensional and influenced by the cognitive and emotional engagement of
the reader (Wigfield, et al., 2008). Wigfield, et al. (2008) found a strong
correlation between reading engagement and reading achievement when they
studied the effects of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction on the reading
outcomes of fourth grade children. The authors concluded that children’s
reading engagement is enhanced when they are provided with instruction in
cognitive strategies associated with reading. Children who use sophisticated
strategies and enjoy literacy activities areconsidered to be engaged readers.
Consistently engaged readers actively seek appropriate books and become excited
about learning new material (Lutz, Guthrie, & Davis, 2006). Marinak and
Gambrell (2008) reported that children are motivated to read and remain engaged
in reading when rewarded with the opportunity to choose their own books.
Arzubiaga, et al., (2002) claimed that context within literacy activities was
an important factor crucial to reading engagement and literacy development.
Other factors reported include culture of the school, various intervention
programs, and the child’s home and classroom environment all influence reading
achievement. Based on earlier research, it is known that the materials that
parents decide to keep in their home (Arzubiaga, et al., 2002) or the material
that teachers select for the classroom (Flowerday, Shaw, & Stevens; 2004)
are crucial in shaping the literacy development of children. For example,
Arzubiaga, et al., (2002) studied the relationship between the reading
engagement and the literacy practices of Latino parents. They found that the
cultural practices established by parents as well as the reading material that
parents keep in their home greatly influenced the reading achievement of the
children. Jewell, Phelps, &Kuhnen (1998) studied the independent reading
habits of first graders in three diverse communities and found that children
are more likely to become engaged in reading if they have greater access to
books through home, school, or public libraries and are able to witness engaged
reading by adults. Additionally, Kasten&Wilfong (2007) found that teachers can
support children’s reading engagement if they provide ample opportunities for
independent reading. They found that opportunities for independent reading
build fluency and allow children to increase their level of confidence. Support
for independent reading is crucial for the reading success of children with
limited English proficiency (McGlinn& Parrish, 2002). Flowerday, et al.,
(2004) also found that children’s reading engagement is positively affected if
there is high-interest material available for children even when children are not
afforded the opportunity to self select their reading material. International
Journal of Instruction, July 2011 .
Vol.4, No.2
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION 185
might perform better in school to the extent that they seek
challenges, are curious or interested in their schoolwork, and desire to master
tasks. Hence, we expected a positive correlation between intrinsic motivation
and academic outcomes. How might extrinsic motivation relate to academic
achievement? On the one hand, it may be that children who are particularly focused
on the extrinsic consequences of their behaviors do particularly well on
objective indicators of performance. Indeed, recent research conducted with college-student
populations has revealed that performance goals—which arguably have a strong extrinsic
component—can predict positive achievement outcomes (Barron &Harackiewicz,
2001; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot,&
Thrash, 2002). On the other hand, such a performance orientation may be less
adaptive for elementary and middle school populations (Midgley, Kaplan, &
Middleton, 2001), as shown in research linking performance goals with decreased
cognitive engagement (Meece, Blumenfeld, &Hoyle, 1988), a focus on ability
rather than effort (Ames & Archer, 1988), self-handicapping
(Midgley&Urdan, 2001), and avoidance of challenge (Dweck, 1999). A third
aim of the present research, therefore, was to examine the relationship between
indicators of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and student achievement.
Ethnicity
A final aim of the present research was to examine these constructs
and their relationships in a diverse population of students. Most intrinsic
motivation research to date has involved largely middle-class participants of
European descent. More recent research in the motivational literature, however,
has begun to examine cultural differences, particularly between more
independent Western cultures and more interdependent Eastern cultures (Elliot,
Chirkov, Kim, & Sheldon, 2001; Iyengar&Lepper, 1999; Salili, Chiu,
& Hong, 2001). For example, the classic Western finding that providing
choices is beneficial to intrinsic motivation has proved more complicated than
previously thought among Asian American populations. Thus, in studies with
second-grade through fifth-grade children, Iyengar and Lepper (1999) found that
intrinsic motivation was maximized for Asian American children when choices
were made for them by their mother or by a group of their peers but was
maximized for European American children
when they personally made their own choices. In particular, in
cultures where the self has been hypothesized to be more interdependent and
intertwined with significant others (see Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, &Nisbett,
1998; Markus &Kitayama, 1991), it may be less clear exactly what constitutes
intrinsic and what constitutes extrinsic motivation. Is working to please one’s
mother extrinsic—as has been traditionally assumed in Western research—or intrinsic—as
might be the case when mother constitutes a significant part of the self? We
were therefore interested in examining the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in both Asian American and European American groups. Specifically,
we anticipated that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation would be less negatively
correlated in Asian American than in European American children. In summary,
the present study was designed to address four primary questions: (a) What is
the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, (b) are there significant
age differences in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation when these two constructs
are measured independent of one another, (c) how are these two motivational
orientations related to academic outcomes, and (d) with respect to the previous
three questions, are there significant differences between European American
and Asian American children?
Method
Participants
Participants were 797 third-grade through eighth-grade students from
two public school districts in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. The
first district (n 577) was in a large
urban area, and the second district (n
220) was in a suburban area known for its academic excellence. Overall,
participants in this cross-sectional study were roughly equally divided across
the grade levels from three to eight, and there were approximately equal
numbers of girls (n 401) and boys
(n 395), with one child not reporting
sex. In terms of ethnic identification, the total sample was primarily Asian
American (42%) and Caucasian (34%), with a small percentage of African American
(2%), Hispanic (5%), and children from other ethnic groups (10%). The Asian
American group was largely Chinese American (76%) but also included students
who identified themselves as Indian American, Korean American, Japanese
American, Vietnamese American, and Filipino American, in order of decreasing
frequency. A small group of children (7%) did not report their ethnic
backgrounds.
Measures
Motivational orientation. Harter’s (1980, 1981) scale of intrinsic
versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom provided the basis for our separate
measures of students’ reported intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The original
scale seeks to assess the extent to which students see themselves as either
more intrinsically or more extrinsically motivated in school by asking them to
report on their usual motivations for a variety of diagnostic classroom
behaviors. Specifically, this scale asks students to indicate whether they see
the reasons behind a number of their everyday classroom actions as more like
one group of students described to them as extrinsically motivated or another
group of students described to them as intrinsically motivated—as illustrated
in the top panel of Figure 1.2 In particular, Harter (1981) sought to assess
three major dimensions in students’ reported intrinsic versus extrinsic
motivational orientations: preference for challenge (i.e., a desire for
challenging vs. easy tasks), curiosity (i.e., a focus on personal
curiosity/interest vs. a focus on pleasing the teacher and/or getting a good
grade), and independent mastery (i.e., a desire for independent mastery vs. a
dependence on the teacher for guidance and direction). As noted above, this
scale has been widely used to assess student motivation across the elementary
and middle school years. In the present study, Harter’s (1980, 1981) original
scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivational orientation was modified to
allow for an independent assessment of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
by eliminating the assumption that these two constructs are necessarily polar opposites.
Rather than forcing students to choose between one intrinsic and one extrinsic
reason for performing each given behavior, this modified scale asked students
to rate the degree to which both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons independently
accounted for their academic behaviors in the classroom (see Lepper, Sethi,
Dialdin, & Drake, 1997). For example, Harter’s original item that asked
children to choose whether they were more like kids who “work on problems to
learn how to solve them” or kids who 2 Harter (1981) adopted this format to address
concerns that self-report measures often capture socially desirable responses
rather than accurate responses. Embedding examples of extrinsically motivated
students as well as intrinsically motivated students in the response format
implies that both types of students exist and that either choice is legitimate.
Our findings suggest that this strategy was effective.
186 LEPPER, CORPUS, AND IYENGAR
“work on problems because you are supposed to” was decomposed into two
separate items, each with its own 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from not
at all true for me to very true for me, as presented in the lower panel of
Figure 1. Thus, Harter’s original 18 items assessing intrinsic versus extrinsic
motivation were decomposed into 36 items—half of which assessed intrinsic
motivation and half of which assessed extrinsic motivation. As with Harter’s
original measure, our new intrinsic motivation scale was initially based on
subscales measuring preference for challenge, focus on curiosity, and desire
for independent mastery, whereas our new extrinsic motivation scale was
initially based on subscales measuring preference for easy work, focus on
pleasing the teacher and getting good grades, and dependence on the teacher for
guidance. To examine the cohesion of these new scales, item–whole correlations were
computed for each item with both the overall intrinsic motivation and the
overall extrinsic motivation scales, excluding of course the particular item
itself. These correlations revealed three items that proved problematic in our
new format. First, the two items that assessed the importance students attached
to grades (i.e., “I work really hard because I like to get good grades” and “I
do extra projects so I can get better grades”), which represented an extrinsic
motivational orientation in Harter’s (1980, 1981) original items, proved
correlated with both scales—and, surprisingly, more highly correlated with the
intrinsic than the extrinsic motivation scale. Additionally, a third item
asking about students’ desire to choose what to do next (i.e., “I like to make
my own plans for what to do next”), which represented intrinsic motivation in
Harter’s scale, proved minimally related to either scale. These three items
were therefore eliminated from our scales. The remaining 17 intrinsic items and
16 extrinsic items were then subjected to separate principal-components factor
analyses to examine the internal structure of these two new scales. Both
varimax and oblique rotations were tested, but oblique rotations are emphasized
because the subscales proved highly intercorrelated—though more so in the case
of the three intrinsic subscales (rs of .67, .55, and .52) than in the case of
the three extrinsic subscales (rs of .45, .36, and .33). For the intrinsic
motivation scale, examination of the eigenvalues and
scree plot suggested that a one-factor solution was most
appropriate. The first factor accounted for 40.0% of the variance, whereas the
second and third factors accounted for only 8.7% and 6.7% of the variance,
respectively. Therefore, we conducted a subsequent principal-components
analysis of the intrinsic motivation items with a one-factor solution. Each of
the 17 intrinsic items loaded .40 or higher on this one factor (see Appendix
A), and all were therefore retained in the final scale for subsequent analyses.
Items were internally consistent ( .90),
and test–retest data collected Figure 1. Sample item from Harter’s (1981)
original scale and the decomposed scales used in the present study.
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION 187
from participants in the second school district (n 208) 6 weeks after the initial administration
revealed a strong positive correlation between the two test administrations
(r .74, p .001). For the extrinsic motivation scale,
examination of the eigenvalues and scree plot revealed that a three-factor
solution was most appropriate and interpretable. All six of the items representing
a desire for easy work loaded on the first factor, which accounted for 26.9% of
the variance. Five of the six items representing a dependence on the teacher
loaded on the second factor, which accounted for 11.4% of the variance, and
three of the four items representing a desire to please the teacher loaded on
the third factor, which accounted for 9.4% of the variance. Therefore, we
conducted a subsequent principal-components analysis of the extrinsic items
with a three-factor solution (see Appendix B). One item originally designed to represent
a desire for easy work (i.e., “I like to just learn what I have to in school”)
was dropped both because it loaded on multiple factors and because of
children’s comments that it was difficult to understand. Two additional items
(i.e., “I ask questions because I want the teacher to notice me” and “When I do
not understand something right away I want the teacher to tell me the answer”)
were removed because they did not load on the factor they had been designed to
represent. Therefore, the 13 remaining items were combined to form an overall
extrinsic motivation scale ( .78) as
well as three component scales: desire for easy work (5 items; .77), desire to please the teacher (3 items; .73), and dependence on the teacher (5
items; .67). Test–retest reliability
was adequate for the extrinsic motivation composite (r .74, p
.001) as well as for the three extrinsic subscales (easy work r .71, p
.001; please the teacher r .65,
p .001; dependence on teacher r .65, p
.001). The validity of the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation measures
was substantiated by findings that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation showed significant
and differential correlations with two objective indices of academic achievement,
as discussed in greater detail below. In addition, these new measures also
showed some meaningful correlations with ratings of students’ classroom
motivation made on 7-point Likert-type scales by teachers in the first school
district (n 299). Thus, teachers’
ratings of intrinsic motivation proved positively correlated (r .26, p
.001) with students’ reported intrinsic motivation and negatively
correlated with students’ reported overall extrinsic motivation (r
.19, p .01) and desire for
easy work, (r
.29, p .001). All
analyses are reported using the 17-item scale of intrinsic motivation and
13-item scale of extrinsic motivation, as well as the three component scales of
extrinsic motivation when they yielded results that differed from the overall
composite. Analyses are not reported for the original subscales of intrinsic
motivation because the subscale structure was not supported by our factor
analysis. It is interesting to note that most subsequent researchers who have
made use of Harter’s (1980, 1981) scale also seem to have focused their
analyses on the overall composite rather than the three component scales (e.g.,
Boggiano, 1998; Boggiano& Barrett, 1985; Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993;
Harter & Jackson, 1992; R. M. Ryan & Connell, 1989; Tzuriel, 1989). Social
desirability. For students in the second school district (n 219), the Children’s Social Desirability Scale
(CSDS; Crandall, Crandall, &Katkovsky, 1965) was also administered to
assess the degree to which children were motivated by a need for approval or a
fear of disapproval in their responses to questions about intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, following the procedure of Harter (1981). The CSDS consists of 48
true–false items that describe everyday experiences of children (e.g.,
“Sometimes I do not like to share my things with my friends,” “I never shout
when I feel angry”) and has been widely used with children in the elementary
and middle school years. Because of the very high split-half reliabilities
reported by Crandall and colleagues, our participants were asked to complete only
half of the original scale, for a total of 24 items. Academic achievement.
Objective measures of academic achievement included both standardized
achievement tests and annual report cards. Students’ scores on the math and
reading portions of the California Achievement Test were collected for the new
academic period following the year of the survey administration. Grades on
report cards were collected
for the year concurrent with the survey administration. Grade point
averages (GPAs) were computed by transforming grades to a standard 4-point numerical
scale (that is, A grades received a weight of 4.0, B grades a weight of 3.0,
etc.) and averaging scores for language arts, math, social studies, science,
and an elective course. As noted below, each of these measures was available for
students in only one of the school districts studied.
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION
After the children studying (reading) and using above methods
make them reading has become a routine to themand make them
continue to spend time reading every day also have improved reading skill.
My suggestion : as a parents must focus to the children especially
when children study and teach them the right away early.
REFERENCES:
ASEAN JOURNAL
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., &Tighe, E. M.
(1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
950–967.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the
classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.
Anderman, E. M., &Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling
in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309.
Anderman, E. M., &Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement
goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the
transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22,
269–298.
Barron, K. E., &Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals
and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80, 706–722.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Boggiano, A. K. (1998). Maladaptive achievement patterns: A test of
a diathesis–stress analysis of helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1681–1695.
Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1985). Performance and
motivational deficits of helplessness: The role of motivational orientations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1753–1761.
Brown, A. L., &Campione, J. C. (1998). Designing a community of
young learners: Theoretical and practical lessons. In N. M. Lambert & B. L.
McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through
learner-centered education (pp. 153–186). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Question :
Cantel : Most of the students of junior and senior high school are
lazy reading
Process :
-
Government start from narrative
-
Capability of student (some
time the student from suburban area)
-
Student Characteristic
(Background of family)
-
Down town –High level
vocabuolary
-
Uptown-Low level vocab
