This research assessed the impact of combining small-group cognitive reading intervention with a motivational program targeting students’ goals, emotions, and self-efficacy beliefs on the reading performance and motivation of third-grade students at risk for reading difficulties (n = 25, Mage = 8.99, SD = 0.38). Using a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test efficacy trial design, effects of the intervention on phonological awareness, listening comprehension, accuracy, fluency, reading comprehension, and motivation were assessed. Results indicate that compared with students who received Cognitive-Only reading intervention, students who received the combined Cognitive plus Motivational reading intervention showed greater gains in reading comprehension and phonological awareness. Findings provide preliminary evidence that supplementing cognitive reading intervention with the proposed motivational program can improve the reading performance of students at risk for reading difficulties.
AhmadiM. R.GilakjaniA. P. (2012). Reciprocal teaching strategies and their impacts on English reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2, 2053–2060. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.10.2053-2060
2.
American Institutes for Research (2017). Group assessment and diagnostic evaluation. Center on Response to Intervention at American Institute for Research.
3.
AndermanE. M.WoltersC. (2006). Goals, values, and affect: Influences on student motivation. In AlexanderP.WinneP. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874790.ch17
BatesC. B.D’AgostinoJ. V.GambrellL.XuM. (2016). Reading recovery: Exploring the effects on first-graders’ reading motivation and achievement. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7380-6_5
6.
BildirenA. (2017). Reliability and validity study for the coloured progressive matrices test between the ages of 3-9 for determining gifted children in the pre-school period. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i11.2599
7.
BuskP. L.SerlinR. (1992). Meta-analysis for single case research. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315725994
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
9.
DignathC.BüttnerG. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x
10.
DunnL. M.DunnL. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2007). DIBELS oral reading fluency skills (6th ed.). Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
13.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A.SimmonsD.Kame’enuiE. J. (2001). Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model: Steps to reading outcomes. OSSC Bulletin, 44, 28.
14.
GuthrieJ. T.McRaeA.KlaudaS. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42, 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621087
15.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (3rd ed., pp. 403–422). Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203840412
16.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA.BarbosaP.PerencevichK. C.TaboadaA.DavisM. H.TonksS. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403
17.
HaahrM.HaahrS. (2005). Random.org. random integer generator. www.random.org
KrugerJ.DunningD. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121
20.
LinnenbrinkE. A.PintrichP. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308223
21.
LoganS.MedfordE.HughesN. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation for high and low ability readers’ reading comprehension performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011
22.
MalloyJ. A.MarinakB. A.GambrellL. B.MazzoniS. A. (2013). Assessing motivation to read: The Motivation to Read Profile–Revised. The Reading Teacher, 67, 273–282. https://doi.org/10/1002/trtr.1215
23.
MarinakB. (2013). Courageous reading instruction: The effects of an elementary motivation intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.658455
24.
MarinakB.MalloyJ. B.GambrellL. B.MazzoniS. A. (2016). Me and my reading profile: A tool for assessing early reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 69, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1362
25.
McBreenMSavageR. (in press). The impact of motivational reading instruction on the reading achievement and motivation of students: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
26.
MorganP. L.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.CordrayD. S.FuchsL. S. (2008). Does early reading failure decrease children’s reading motivation?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408321112
27.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the subgroups. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.36.3.5
28.
NelsonJ.Manset-WilliamsonG. (2006). The impact of explicit, self-regulatory reading comprehension strategy instruction on the reading-specific self-efficacy, attributions, and affect of students with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 213–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035507
29.
RaudenbushS. W.SpybrookJ.CongdonR.LiuX. F.MartinezA.BloomH. (2011). Optimal design software for multi-level and longitudinal research (Version 3.01) [Software]. www.wtgrantfoundation.org
ReeveJ. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690
32.
SavageR. S.GeorgiouG.ParrilaR.MaiorinoK. (2018). Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22, 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1427753
33.
SchrawG.PotenzaM. T.Nebelsick-GulletL. (1993). Constraints on the calibration of performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1034
34.
SmithM. W.BradyJ. P.Clark-ChiarelliN. (2008). Early language & literacy observation tool. K-3. Paul H. Brookes.
35.
SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for reading and language difficulties: Creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02014.x
36.
Statistics Canada (2016). 2016 Census dictionary. Statistics Canada.
37.
TosteJ. R.CapinP.VaughnS.RobertsG. J.KearnsD. M. (2017). Multisyllabic word-reading instruction with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A pilot investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 117, 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1086/691684
38.
VollmeyerR.RheinbergF. (2006). Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9017-0
39.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing (CTOPP). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
40.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.KimA.-H.CavanaughC. L. (2006). The effects of reading interventions on social outcomes for elementary students with reading difficulties: A synthesis. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560500242192
41.
WilkinsonG.S.RobertsonG.J. (2006). Wide range achievement test (4th ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
42.
WilliamsK. T. (2001). Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. American Guidance Service.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
