Reciprocal Effects between Reading Achievement and Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading Motivation

ABSTRACT

Research on reading achievement and reading motivation has rarely addressed the question if and how they affect each other over time. In our study, we investigate the reciprocal effects between reading achievement and both intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation during elementary school. We measured reading achievement and intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation in 966 students at 3 points of measurement during 3rd and 4th grade. Consistent with previous research, cross-lagged panel analyses revealed positive reciprocal effects between reading achievement and intrinsic reading motivation. Effects of reading achievement on intrinsic reading motivation were found during Grades 3 and 4, whereas effects of intrinsic motivation were limited to Grade 3. No reciprocal effects between reading achievement and extrinsic reading motivation were found. We discuss the implications of our results for daily teaching practices and effective reading instruction.

Acknowledgments

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The aim of the intervention study was to investigate effects of learning progress assessment and differentiated reading instruction on reading development. In the four groups of the study, the authors varied how much support teachers were given in assessing students’ reading progress and in reading instruction. Teachers in the first group employed a learning progress assessment (LPA) tool to monitor students’ reading progress. Teachers in the second group also employed the LPA tool and additionally received prepared teaching materials to differentiate reading instruction. Differentiated reading instruction was based on effective reading fluency and reading comprehension interventions. Teachers in the third group only received the prepared teaching material for differentiated reading instruction but did not employ the LPA tool. The fourth group served as a control group with “business as usual” reading instruction and no learning progress assessment.

2. We checked whether correlations were similar across treatment conditions using multigroup tests with fixed and free parameters between the groups (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Results revealed that the fit of the model in which the parameters were constrained to be equal between the four groups did not differ from the model with free parameters (ΔCFI = .003).