HOW TO MOTIVATE READING FOR CHILDREN

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