View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teacher Beliefs about Reading Motivation and Their Enactment in Classrooms: The Development of a Survey Questionnaire

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teacher Beliefs about Reading Motivation and Their Enactment in Classrooms: The Development of a Survey Questionnaire
Language: English
Authors: Quirk, Matthew, Unrau, Norman, Ragusa, Gisele, Rueda, Robert, Lim, Hyo, Velasco, Alejandra, Fujii, Kayoko, Bowers, Erica, Nemerouf, Ann, Loera, Gustavo
Source: Reading Psychology. 2010 31(2):93-120.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 28
Publication Date: 2010
Intended Audience: Teachers
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Self Efficacy, Validity, Student Motivation, Reading Motivation, Measures (Individuals), Teacher Attitudes, Reliability, Surveys, Questionnaires, Correlation, Literacy, Reading Achievement, Reading Instruction
DOI: 10.1080/02702710902754051
ISSN: 0270-2711
Abstract: This study examined teachers' beliefs about motivating students to read through the development of a new survey questionnaire. The current investigation reports on initial tests of the scale's reliability and validity. The items for this measure were developed from an engagement perspective to reflect the motivational constructs represented in an established measure of student motivation for reading. Tests of internal consistency revealed that teachers' beliefs about motivating students to read can be reliably measured. In addition, significant relationships were found between teachers' beliefs about motivating their students to read and their teaching self-efficacy, providing initial evidence of the scale's validity. (Contains 4 tables.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 38
Entry Date: 2010
Accession Number: EJ881055
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHVFyzyOVE9jg0v1JwMYRB-AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIdGBKE_DKEqij9KSgIBEICBmmfIgrXEgfPWSverWq1Di8QHxa8vlTFRoWJPdbL2tZQIA3gXTV76tVAT0lXiPp8PYj12skKX4YpNeeH1mYZ-J-sL-Y-VjjEtzUivRjAYxJwzdnswgEC0SUHsefGByM4nUvxwOicJVtCsPLSQo2NdwHw8B5OqHMLCIsAIJSDtp8kuH01ixCreFdDDfddahC0YxjkTFUSHa-lXpvs=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0049151970;bcw01mar.10;2019Feb15.14:46;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0049151970-1">Teacher Beliefs About Reading Motivation and Their Enactment in Classrooms: The Development of a Survey Questionnaire. </title> <p>This study examined teachers' beliefs about motivating students to read through the development of a new survey questionnaire. The current investigation reports on initial tests of the scale's reliability and validity. The items for this measure were developed from an engagement perspective to reflect the motivational constructs represented in an established measure of student motivation for reading. Tests of internal consistency revealed that teachers' beliefs about motivating students to read can be reliably measured. In addition, significant relationships were found between teachers' beliefs about motivating their students to read and their teaching self-efficacy, providing initial evidence of the scale's validity.</p> <p>Concern about students' reading performance and their development as readers has contributed to research that focuses on students' motivation for reading and reading engagement. That research has led to the development of a series of instruments, including self-report surveys and questionnaires that measure students' motivation for reading. One such measure is the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire or MRQ ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>], 1997; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]). Studies using the MRQ and other survey instruments have provided evidence for the relationship between motivation for reading, reading engagement, and reading comprehension among students ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref6">31</reflink>]). These studies have expanded our knowledge and understanding of factors to which students attribute their motivation for reading and how we might begin to affect that motivation through instruction. Although interest in and attention to student motivation and engagement has increased over the past 15 years, few studies have explored teachers' knowledge and beliefs about motivation and the application of their motivational knowledge and beliefs. In a study of beginning teachers, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>] discovered that teachers' beliefs influenced their teaching practice and their students learning behaviors. Therefore, our research team designed a questionnaire, the Teacher Beliefs about Student Motivation to Read Questionnaire (TBSMRQ), to discover teachers' beliefs about motivation for reading and the application of those beliefs in order to begin to close that gap in understanding.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-2">Teachers' Knowledge and Beliefs About Motivation and Engagement</hd> <p>In one of the few studies that have focused on teachers' knowledge and beliefs about motivation for reading, researchers (Sweet, Guthrie, & Ng, 1998) investigated teacher perceptions of students' intrinsic motivation for reading from the perspective of self-determination theory (SDT; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]) and reading achievement. Though the Sweet et al. study did not directly assess teachers' beliefs about students' motivation for reading, inferences about those beliefs can be made based on the study. Teachers in Grades 3 through 6 rated their students on six features of motivation for reading. These included individual, topical, activity-based, autonomy-supported, socially supported, and writing-related features. The individual motivational construct, which represented intrinsic motivation in SDT, referred to teachers attributing students' motivation for reading to an internal or intrinsic orientation. The topic construct referred to students' interests in reading about a preferred topic. The autonomy construct referred to teachers' views that students were motivated by opportunities for choice. The activity-based construct described teacher perceptions that students were motivated by activity-based supports for reading. The writing construct referred to the teachers' perceptions that some students were motivated by a desire to write about texts they read. The researchers wanted to discover the magnitude of importance that teachers attributed to the six features of student motivation for reading, a finding that would help the researchers understand teachers' beliefs about motivation for reading among their students.</p> <p>Both quantitative and qualitative studies that Sweet and her associates (1998) conducted revealed that the teachers saw higher achieving readers to have relatively higher intrinsic motivation than extrinsic reading motivation. This finding provided indirect evidence of teachers' beliefs about students' motivation to read. Statistical analyses based on the whole sample of teachers revealed a main effect for motivation across all grade levels (3 through 6) with the individual category significantly below the means for topical, activity-based, autonomy-supported, and socially supported categories. However, an analysis using students' data whose reading achievement was in the upper and lower 20% revealed that all six categories were perceived to have been more strongly exhibited in a positive direction among students in the upper 20%. Furthermore, the individual category that represented intrinsic motivation and a self-determination perspective and the topic category that reflected students' interests were significantly higher in relative strength compared with the other four constructs. Lower achievers, however, were perceived to be more motivated by external factors, such as autonomy support, activity-based instruction, and social scaffolding.</p> <p>Based on these findings, the researchers argued that teachers hold implicit theories and beliefs about motivation that align with a self-determination perspective of motivation and reading achievement. Teachers believed that students experience literacy growth more rapidly if they become "agents" of their own literacy development. Furthermore, the study confirmed [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref9">13</reflink>] conclusion that teachers' perception of intrinsic motivation and achievement in reading were positively related. It also supported the findings of [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref10">20</reflink>], who found that experienced teachers believed that motivation can be increased through providing choices, promoting cooperation, providing stimulating tasks, and giving student responsibility for their learning. In sum, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>] concluded that teachers in the study appeared to hold an implicit theory of association of self-determination and achievement that the researchers considered to be "remarkably compatible" (p. 220) with self-determination theory ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-3">Development of the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire</hd> <p>Research on motivation for reading by the National Reading Research Center (NRRC; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref14">34</reflink>], 1997; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>]) served as a base for the development of our teacher questionnaire. We believe that developing a measure of teacher beliefs about reading motivation that aligned theoretically with a measure of student motivation for reading would enable us to examine and interpret these relationships in later studies. Inquiry related to motivation at NRRC was grounded in an engagement perspective integrating cognitive, motivational, and social aspects of reading with achievement motivation theory, which includes readers' competence and their beliefs about their own efficacy as readers, as well as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and purposes for achievement. Using those domains of research and theory as resources and building on previous related investigations, Wigfield, Guthrie, and associates (1996) developed the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ), which consists of 11 dimensions of reading motivation: (a) self-efficacy, (b) challenge, (c) work avoidance, (d) curiosity, (e) involvement, (f) importance, (g) recognition, (h) grades, (i) competition, (j) social motives, and (k) compliance. The MRQ was initially designed to assess upper elementary school students motivation for reading through self-reports. Combining theoretical and empirical perspectives, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref16">35</reflink>] created intrinsic and extrinsic composites of reading motivation based on their research using the MRQ scales. Although intrinsic and extrinsic composites were adapted through the years ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]), the intrinsic composite proposed by [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>] consisted of the curiosity, involvement, and challenge scales from the MRQ, whereas their extrinsic composite included the recognition, grades, social, competition, and compliance scales. The research that has been conducted using the MRQ has led to the understanding that students' motivation to read is comprised of a multifaceted system of interrelated constructs and is related to a number of student outcomes including the amount of reading that children engage in and various aspects of their reading achievement ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref21">35</reflink>]). The instrument designed for our study was constructed to closely align to the constructs in the elementary school students' MRQ.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-4">Autonomy Support</hd> <p>Although the MRQ includes scales sensitive to many dimensions of motivation for reading, one dimension not explicitly developed in the questionnaire is that of autonomy support. Autonomy is our capacity to make independent decisions, have our actions arise from within ourselves, and feel that those actions are our own rather than arising from some external source ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref22">9</reflink>]). When students are autonomously motivated, they report that the cause for their actions comes from within themselves and sense they have a choice over those actions (Reeve, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]). They feel uninhibited during the self-chosen activities and are able to make decisions about when, how, and whether to pursue them. Inflexible, externally controlled assignments exemplify the flip side of autonomy.</p> <p>Autonomy support occurs when a teacher nurtures students' internally centered, freely chosen actions. Nurturing may take many forms in school settings. It occurs when teachers ask students what or how they want to learn. Whenever teachers find ways to identify and increase their students' internally initiated acts of learning, whether those acts entail a choice over curriculum or the independence to ask and answer their own questions, they are engaged in autonomy support ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref24">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref25">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>The significance of teachers' belief in autonomy support and in their acting on that belief in classrooms is apparent in recent studies demonstrating the impact that autonomy support has on student motivation. Researchers ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>]) interested in the effects of autonomy support trained high school teachers across content areas to nurture student interest, provide rationales for assignments, and use noncontrolling language. The more teachers used autonomy support during instruction, the more their students were engaged ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref27">25</reflink>]). Evidence suggests that literacy programs emphasizing autonomy support, including a wide range of choices in learning opportunities, can promote intrinsic motivation, conceptual understanding, and perceived confidence, all of which enable students to engage more deeply in the development of their literacies ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]). This dimension may be especially important for students in urban schools. One common response to low achievement in urban school settings is to reduce autonomy in terms of curriculum and activities by enforcing standardization of practice and materials. This enforced standardization has the perhaps unintended motivational effect of reducing autonomy for both students and teachers.</p> <p>Although instruments such as the MRQ have been developed to provide rich information on students' motivation for reading and studies conducted to discover students' motivational responses to teachers' autonomy support, little is known about teachers' knowledge of students' motivation for reading and how that knowledge is applied in classrooms. This gap in the research provided the impetus for creation of our teacher questionnaire.</p> <p>In spite of a few exceptions, the limited attention to the study of teachers' knowledge and application of motivation may, in part, be a result of recent educational emphasis on standards-based curriculum developed at the state level, the realization of those standards, and the assessment of students to discover their progress toward meeting state standards. Two questionable assumptions that educators embrace may also contribute to limited attention to motivational issues ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>]). One of these is the belief that curriculum and instruction will adequately and automatically address the motivational needs of students. However, curriculum and instruction may not address what is driving students' interests, what makes them curious, what gives them a sense of challenge—all of which lead to deeper student engagement. A second questionable assumption is a belief among educators that classroom management is likely to address students' motivation and engagement. Though teacher credential programs commonly include at least one course in classroom management, which is often viewed as the solution to student engagement and learning issues, such courses rarely include significant exposure to motivational theory and its practical classroom application, especially from a diagnostic perspective that would encourage a close look at individual student and class-wide motivational needs.</p> <p>One of the early challenges we faced in our investigation was the development of an instrument that would be sensitive enough to detect and measure teachers' beliefs about motivation and their enactment of those beliefs during instruction. To develop this instrument, we turned to the MRQ because of its being based on an engagement view of motivation for reading and its role in the study of reading motivation. Essentially, we used the MRQ as a foundation to design the TBSMRQ.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-5">Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Performance</hd> <p>Although few studies have investigated teachers' beliefs about students' motivation and the teaching behaviors they base on those beliefs, a number of studies have explored teachers' own self-efficacy and its effects on teaching. Because we intended to explore relationships between the results of our TBSMRQ and teachers' beliefs about their own self-efficacy, we also sought instruments that would measure teacher self-efficacy independent of our own TBSMRQ.</p> <p>Grounded in social cognitive theory, the construct of self-efficacy was primarily developed by Albert [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>] within the context of self-regulatory processes that affect a person's selection and construction of environments. Self-efficacy beliefs affect one's cognitive, motivational, affective, and selection processes. Self-efficacy may be defined as a person's judgments of his or her capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated performance (Bandura). Efficacy is primarily associated with judgments of how one can perform with the skills one possesses. Self-efficacy plays a role in the effort a person devotes to accomplishing a specific outcome as it relates to the person's beliefs about his or her capabilities to achieve that outcome ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref31">12</reflink>]). Efficacy has been found to be situational and contextual (Bandura; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teacher self-beliefs in the form of expectations and predispositions about themselves and their students are important mediators of teachers' experiences and teaching behavior ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>]). This self-belief, when measured in teachers, is often referred to as <emph>teacher efficacy</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>]). Research has revealed that teachers with higher levels of teaching efficacy use techniques and strategies that are more challenging and enhance student mastery of cognitive and affective goals in their classrooms ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref39">24</reflink>]). It is well documented that teachers' self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes toward teaching change during the course of their years of teaching ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref40">29</reflink>]). Efficacy beliefs of preservice and beginning teachers have been linked to attitudes toward children and control ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref41">37</reflink>]). Teachers with a low sense of teaching efficacy have been found to have an orientation toward control, taking a pessimistic view of students' motivation and relying on strict classroom regulations, extrinsic rewards, and punishments to make students engage in school work ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref43">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-6">Purpose for This Study</hd> <p>In light of our limited knowledge of teachers' beliefs about student motivation for reading and their use in classrooms, we designed a survey questionnaire to explore the scope and depth of knowledge about motivation that teachers bring to their classrooms and how they use that knowledge when planning lessons and interacting with students. To ascertain that information, we developed and administered the TBSMRQ, a teacher-oriented survey based upon the MRQ that focused on teachers' beliefs about students' motivation for reading. The current study aimed to answer the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Can teachers' beliefs about student motivation for reading be reliably measured?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. What are teachers' beliefs about student motivation for reading?</item> <p></p> <item> 3. What is the relationship between teachers' beliefs about student motivation for reading and their teaching self-efficacy?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0049151970-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0049151970-8">Participants and Procedures</hd> <p>Participants for this study included 86 teachers of urban classrooms in the southwestern United States. The respondents' teaching experience ranged from less than 1 year to 37 years (<emph>M</emph> = 10.38, <emph>SD</emph> = 7.82), with 30.6% having taught for 5 years or less, 23.5% having taught for 6–10 years, 28.2% having taught for 11–15 years, and 17.6% having taught more than 15 years. Of the participating teachers, 42% were Caucasian, 36.4% Hispanic, 5.7% African American, 6.8% Asian American, 6.8% multiracial, and 2.3% other. All of the participating teachers taught in either the upper elementary or middle school grade range (Grades 3–8), with 66.3% of teachers reporting that they taught all or most school subjects, 18.8% taught only English/language arts, 6.2% team taught and were responsible for the language arts instruction, 6.2% did not teach language arts, and 2.5% reported that they integrated language arts instruction into their content area teaching. A battery of three surveys was administered to gather data on (a) teachers' beliefs about student motivation for reading, (b) teachers teaching self-efficacy, and (c) background/demographic information. The surveys were delivered to participating teachers either in hard copy or electronically using a Web-based survey generating platform via a Web link to the questionnaires. The online survey platform provides a convenient and secure user interface for data collection. Two methods of data collection were utilized to maximize the potential for teacher participation. Data collection was accomplished over a 4-week period through the platform. Responses were collected in a database that was downloaded and cleaned of cases with missing data (total <emph>N</emph> = 86).</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-9">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0049151970-10">Teachers' beliefs about students' motivation for reading</hd> <p>The TBSMRQ was developed from a theoretical base resulting from Wigfield et al.'s (1996) research on the MRQ, which is a measure designed to assess upper elementary school students' self-reported motivation for reading. This work has led to the understanding that students' motivation to read is comprised of a multifaceted system of interrelated constructs and is related to a number of student outcomes including the amount of reading that children engage in and various aspects of their reading achievement ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref46">35</reflink>]). The TBSMRQ was constructed to closely align to the constructs in the elementary school students' MRQ.</p> <p>Our reasons for choosing the student MRQ as a model for the development of the TBSMRQ were threefold. First, when we examined the existing research base for all published instruments designed to assess students' reading motivation, the MRQ was the most extensively used, including a number of studies that have primarily focused on its psychometric development/validation ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref49">36</reflink>]). Second, our group holds a shared belief in the multifaceted and interrelated nature of academic motivation; therefore, the breadth of the MRQ (spanning a wide range of motivational constructs) was particularly appealing. Third, our interest in examining teachers' beliefs about student motivation is driven, at least in part, by our curiosity regarding how these beliefs relate to student outcomes. Therefore, we determined that having a measure of teacher beliefs that aligned theoretically with a measure of student motivation could strengthen our ability to examine and interpret these relationships in subsequent research.</p> <p>To develop the TBSMRQ, a team of researchers from four urban universities with expertise in educational psychology, literacy, teacher practice, and teacher education came together with a shared interest in studying teacher belief systems and reading motivation. Our team thoroughly analyzed the MRQ and its constructs and carefully crafted parallel survey items that addressed the major constructs measured in the MRQ. Several iterations of the TBSMRQ were vetted within the team over a 9-month time period. The resulting 64-item survey was designed to asked teachers to rate the importance of addressing various aspects of their students' motivation for reading, including reading self-efficacy (4 items), challenge (6 items), work avoidance (6 items), curiosity (9 items), involvement (5 items), importance (2 items), recognition (5 items), grades (6 items), competition (5 items), social reasons for reading (6 items), compliance (3 items), and autonomy support (7 items).</p> <p>Reading self-efficacy items were designed to assess the importance that teachers place on helping students come to see themselves as a good reader. Challenge items were developed to assess the importance teachers place on using challenging reading materials to motivate their students to read. The Work Avoidance subscale items were written to measure teachers' awareness level regarding why students persist or give up when reading challenging materials. Items from the Curiosity subscale were designed to assess the importance that teachers place on piquing student curiosity to increase their reading motivation. The items on the Involvement subscale were written to assess whether teachers believed it was important to encourage students to become deeply involved in what they are reading. Items on the Importance subscale were written to assess whether teachers perceived it was necessary to establish the importance of becoming a good reader to their students. The items from the Recognition subscale were designed to assess whether teachers emphasized the use of recognition to motivate their students to read. The Grades subscale consisted of items that were developed to assess whether teachers felt that grades were an important motivator for students. Items from the Competition subscale were written to capture whether teachers believed it was important to use competition to motivate their students to read. The Social subscale items were developed to assess whether teachers felt it was important to motivate students to read through emphasizing the many ways you can socialize around reading material. Finally, the Compliance subscale was designed to assess whether teachers believed that students were motivated to read by feelings of wanting to comply with the wishes of authority figures. In addition to the 11 subscales that were developed from the original MRQ framework, a 12th subscale consisting of 7 items was added to assess the perceived importance that teachers place on supporting their students' autonomy in reading.</p> <p>All items on the TBSMRQ were scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with a 1 indicating <emph>not at all like me</emph> and a 7 indicating <emph>very much like me</emph>. A pilot test screening procedure was completed by having two teachers complete the survey and then complete an interview whereby they answered questions about the survey related to item clarity, variation, ease of completion, and mutual intelligibility.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-11">Teacher efficacy</hd> <p>Teachers' sense of teaching efficacy, or their confidence in their ability to teach effectively, was assessed using 8 items selected from a 12-item scale developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001; <emph>Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale–OSTES: Short Form</emph>). The original OSTES: Short Form was a 12-item scale; however, our research team removed the 4 items associated with the instrument's Classroom Management subscale because this subscale was not a focus of the study. The remaining items assessed teachers' efficacy in student engagement (4 items) and efficacy in instructional strategies (4 items). They were scored on a 9-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from 1 (<emph>nothing</emph>) to 9 (<emph>a great deal</emph>). The items asked teachers to rate their confidence in their ability to effectively teach students with items such as, "How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school?" Internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) for the Instructional and Engagement Efficacy subscales was.73 and.76, respectively. The teacher efficacy composite (combining both subscales) had an overall coefficient alpha of.85.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-12">Teacher background</hd> <p>Demographic and relevant background information was obtained from the participating teachers using items that were selected or adapted from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Teacher Background Questionnaire ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref50">32</reflink>]). The selected items asked teachers to identify their ethnic background, years of teaching experience, highest academic degree held, any specialized training they have completed in either undergraduate or postgraduate studies, the type(s) of teaching credentials/certificates held, type of classroom organization they teach (number of students per class), and the amount of time that they spend focusing on reading/language arts during instruction. They were also asked to identify any instructional practices they used (from a list of 15 potential reading instructional practices) if they taught reading/language arts.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0049151970-14">Item Analysis: Development of the Final Scales</hd> <p>Various analyses were conducted in an attempt to identify whether the same constructs identified empirically in research on student motivation to read (using the MRQ) could be empirically identified in teachers' beliefs about student motivation to read. To this end, our initial task was to examine how well the newly developed TBSMRQ items were functioning across the 12 hypothesized subscales. Therefore, we conducted a series of item analyses on the 64-item TBSMRQ including an examination of subscale internal consistency (using coefficient alpha), inter-item and item-total correlations, and relationships between the various subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-15">Internal consistency</hd> <p>Coefficient alpha was computed for each of the 12 hypothesized subscales on the TBSMRQ. Reliability coefficients for each of the subscales can be found in the left half of Table 1. The most reliable scales included the Self-Efficacy, Competition, Importance, Grades, and Autonomy subscales, all of which had alpha coefficients greater than.77. The internal consistency coefficients for the remaining subscales were not as strong, indicating that there were some items that did not cohere with one another on each of the remaining subscales. Item-total correlations were subsequently investigated to identify these potentially problematic items.</p> <p>TABLE 1 Internal Consistency (Alpha Coefficients) for Each Subscale: Full and Revised</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td><italic>N</italic> (Full)</td><td>Alpha (Full)</td><td><italic>N</italic> (Revised)</td><td>Alpha (Revised)</td><td>Increase in Alpha</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social</td><td>6</td><td>.50</td><td>3</td><td>.85</td><td>.35</td></tr><tr><td>Compliance</td><td>3</td><td>.66</td><td>2</td><td>.79</td><td>.13</td></tr><tr><td>Importance</td><td>2</td><td>.82</td><td>2</td><td>.82</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy</td><td>4</td><td>.91</td><td>4</td><td>.91</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Competition</td><td>5</td><td>.88</td><td>5</td><td>.88</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Involvement</td><td>5</td><td>.37</td><td>3</td><td>.82</td><td>.45</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomy</td><td>7</td><td>.78</td><td>6</td><td>.81</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>Curiosity</td><td>9</td><td>.53</td><td>7</td><td>.81</td><td>.28</td></tr><tr><td>Grades</td><td>6</td><td>.80</td><td>5</td><td>.89</td><td>.09</td></tr><tr><td>Challenge</td><td>6</td><td>.53</td><td>4</td><td>.84</td><td>.31</td></tr><tr><td>Avoidance<sup>a</sup></td><td>6</td><td>.16</td><td>6*</td><td>.46*</td><td>.30</td></tr><tr><td>Recognition<sup>a</sup></td><td>5</td><td>.32</td><td>4*</td><td>.60*</td><td>.28</td></tr><tr><td>TMRQ (total)</td><td>64</td><td>.90</td><td>41</td><td>.94</td><td>.04</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>. The Avoidance subscale's revision involved the elimination of the reverse scoring for items 59 and 60 but did not include the elimination of any items.</td></tr><tr><td><sup>a</sup>Signifies that the Avoidance and Recognition subscales were dropped from all other correlational analyses due to low reliability (thus they are not included in the TBSMRQ total for the revised scale numbers); n/a signifies not applicable.</td></tr><tr><td>*Signifies that the subscale was removed from subsequent analyses due to low reliability.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0049151970-16">Item-total correlations</hd> <p>After closer examination of the item-total correlations for items on each individual subscale, it was clear that most items were moderately to highly correlated with their respective subscale's total score. It was common to find that one or two items on each subscale were the primary cause of the relatively low subscale internal consistency found in our previous analysis. Any item that had an item-total correlation below the conventionally acceptable level (<emph>r</emph> <.30) was considered for removal from the revised scales. This process resulted in the identification of 12 items with low item-total correlations, including items from the Social (3 items), Compliance (1 item), Grades (1 item), Curiosity (2 items), Involvement (2 items), Challenge (2 items), and Autonomy (1 item) subscales. In addition, this analysis revealed that there were more significant problems with the Recognition and Avoidance subscales, which were removed from subsequent analyses. Though disappointing, the difficulties with these subscales were not completely surprising, given that previous research has shown these subscales are often among the least reliable on the student version of the MRQ ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref51">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Following the removal of items with low item-total correlations, the alpha coefficients for each revised subscale increased significantly. Internal consistency coefficients for the revised subscales ranged from.79 to.91 and the overall internal consistency of the TBSMRQ increased from.90 to.94. A listing of the internal consistency coefficients for the revised scales can be found in the right half of Table 1.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-17">Examination of content validity</hd> <p>To guard against the elimination of items that might compromise the content validity of the instrument, our research group convened periodically throughout the revision process to discuss the implications of suggested revisions. This process helped to guard against the strictly statistical decision to remove items that are theoretically important to the construct being assessed. In fact, these discussions resulted in the retention of 5 items that would have been removed if the decision were based solely on their statistical significance to their respective subscale. This included the retention of items that had low item-total correlations on the Grades (1 item), Self-Efficacy (2 items), Curiosity (1 item), and Competition (1 item) subscales. The internal consistency coefficients reported in Table 1 reflect the revised subscales including these retained items. Sample items from each subscale on the revised 41-item TBSMRQ can be found in the Appendix A.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-18">Correlations of the motivation scales</hd> <p>Correlations between the subscales on the TBSMRQ were examined to see whether their relationships were similar to those found in research on the student MRQ. Correlations between all of the motivation scales are presented in Table 2. In particular, the relationships between subscales hypothesized to represent intrinsic motivational variables and those hypothesized to represent extrinsic motivational variables were important to examine. Using the works of Wigfield and Guthrie ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref53">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref54">35</reflink>]) as a guide, we determined that the Grades and Competition subscales represented extrinsic constructs and the Efficacy, Challenge, Curiosity, Involvement, and Autonomy subscales represented intrinsic constructs. An examination of Table 2 reveals that the Grades and Competition subscales were significantly correlated with one another (<emph>r</emph> =.48, <emph>p</emph> <.01). All of the subscales from the intrinsic composite were moderately to highly correlated, with the correlation coefficients ranging from.60 to.82 (<emph>p</emph> <.01). As expected, no significant correlations existed between subscales from the extrinsic and intrinsic composites, providing discriminant validity evidence for the intrinsic and extrinsic composites used in subsequent analyses.</p> <p>TABLE 2 Correlations Between TMRQ Motivation Scales</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td /><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>1. Social</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Compliance</td><td>.28**</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Importance</td><td>.63**</td><td>.28*</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. Efficacy</td><td>.61**</td><td>.26*</td><td>.81**</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5. Competition</td><td>.16</td><td>.34**</td><td>.07</td><td>−.04</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6. Involvement</td><td>.65**</td><td>.15</td><td>.57**</td><td>.62**</td><td>.05</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. Autonomy</td><td>.63**</td><td>.22*</td><td>.66**</td><td>.74**</td><td>−.03</td><td>.82**</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>8. Curiosity</td><td>.55**</td><td>.12</td><td>.64**</td><td>.70**</td><td>−.05</td><td>.74**</td><td>.75**</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>9. Grades</td><td>.31**</td><td>.45**</td><td>.23*</td><td>.15</td><td>.48**</td><td>.11</td><td>.16</td><td>.14</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>10. Challenge</td><td>.61**</td><td>.33**</td><td>.71**</td><td>.77**</td><td>.01</td><td>.72**</td><td>.79**</td><td>.70**</td><td>.19</td><td>—</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>11. TE-Instructional</td><td>.29**</td><td>.11</td><td>.33**</td><td>.31*</td><td>−.11</td><td>.34**</td><td>.34**</td><td>.27*</td><td>.09</td><td>.40**</td><td>—</td><td /></tr><tr><td>12. TE-Engagement</td><td>.25*</td><td>.09</td><td>.21</td><td>.27</td><td>−.17</td><td>.42**</td><td>.43**</td><td>.28*</td><td>.13</td><td>.39**</td><td>.75**</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>*<italic>p</italic> <.05, two-tailed. **<italic>p</italic> <.01, two-tailed.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Subscales not included in either the intrinsic or extrinsic groups were also significantly correlated with most of the other scales on the TBSMRQ. The Social scale correlated significantly with all of the subscales (<emph>r</emph> =.28 to.65, <emph>p</emph> <.01) except for the Competition scale (<emph>r</emph> =.16, N.S.). The Compliance subscale was significantly correlated with both the Competition (<emph>r</emph> =.34, <emph>p</emph> <.01) and Grades (<emph>r</emph> =.45, <emph>p</emph> <.01) subscales, which was expected given that it is considered to be a somewhat extrinsic indicator of motivation. In addition, the Importance subscale, which is viewed to be somewhat intrinsic, was moderately to highly correlated with all of the intrinsic subscales with correlation coefficients ranging from.57 to.81 (<emph>p</emph> <.01). On the other hand, the Involvement subscale, which is a component of the intrinsic composite, was not significantly correlated with competition and grades. These results provide preliminary evidence to support the construct validity of the various subscales measured on the TBSMRQ.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-19">Teachers' Beliefs Regarding Student Motivation to Read</hd> <p>We computed means and standard deviations for the motivation scales on the TBSMRQ to get a preliminary picture of what teachers believed about the importance of fostering various aspects of student motivation to read. These descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3. Overall, the Self-Efficacy (<emph>M</emph> = 6.59), Challenge (<emph>M</emph> = 6.38), and Importance (<emph>M</emph> = 6.38) subscales received the highest mean ratings by the teachers. These results indicated that the teachers believed that it was most important to foster students' reading motivation by creating an environment where students feel they can succeed, by using materials that challenge their reading skills, and by establishing the importance of becoming a good reader. On the other hand, the teachers' lowest mean ratings were on the Competition (<emph>M</emph> = 2.57), Grades (<emph>M</emph> = 3.85), and Compliance (<emph>M</emph> = 4.53) subscales. These results indicated that the teachers believed that it was least important to foster student motivation by creating competitive environments, by using grades, and by utilizing students' feelings that they need to comply with the orders given by authority figures. Overall, the teachers tended to rate the relatively intrinsic motivational scales the highest and the relatively extrinsic motivational scales the lowest.</p> <p>TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Teachers' Beliefs on the TBSMRQ Subscales</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td>Standard Deviation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social</td><td>86</td><td>6.18</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>Compliance</td><td>86</td><td>4.53</td><td>1.53</td></tr><tr><td>Importance</td><td>76</td><td>6.38</td><td>.92</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy</td><td>86</td><td>6.59</td><td>.81</td></tr><tr><td>Competition</td><td>86</td><td>2.57</td><td>1.44</td></tr><tr><td>Involvement</td><td>86</td><td>6.24</td><td>.95</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomy</td><td>86</td><td>6.20</td><td>.86</td></tr><tr><td>Curiosity</td><td>86</td><td>5.98</td><td>.83</td></tr><tr><td>Grades</td><td>86</td><td>3.85</td><td>1.44</td></tr><tr><td>Challenge</td><td>86</td><td>6.38</td><td>.87</td></tr><tr><td>TBSMRQ total</td><td>86</td><td>5.39</td><td>.72</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note.</italic> Teachers' mean ratings across subscales are based on a scale from 1 to 7 with a rating of 1 indicating the aspect of student motivation as less important and a rating of 7 indicating the aspect of motivation as very important.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Following our examination of subscale means for all of the teachers surveyed we conducted a series of analyses to examine whether there were significant differences in their beliefs across meaningful subgroups of teachers. These analyses showed no significant differences in teachers' beliefs about student motivation for reading across (a) years of teaching experience, (b) role in teaching language arts, and (c) teachers with high vs. low teaching self-efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-20">Examining the Relationship Between the TBSMRQ and Teachers' Self-Efficacy</hd> <p>The correlations of the TBSMRQ subscales to the teacher efficacy subscales (Instructional efficacy and Engagement efficacy) are located at the bottom of Table 2. Both of the teacher efficacy subscales correlated significantly with the Social, Involvement, Autonomy, Curiosity, and Challenge subscales of the TBSMRQ. All of these subscales, except Social, were included in the intrinsic motivation composite. Perhaps more compelling is the finding that neither of the teacher efficacy subscales correlated significantly with the extrinsically oriented subscales of the TBSMRQ (competition and grades).</p> <p>To follow-up on these initial findings, we subsequently examined the relationships between the two scales of teacher efficacy (Instructional and Engagement efficacy) with the intrinsic composite (comprised of the Efficacy, Challenge, Curiosity, Involvement, and Autonomy subscales of the TBSMRQ). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4. Similar to the results of the previous analyses, both of the teacher efficacy subscales (Instructional efficacy and Engagement efficacy) were positively correlated with the intrinsic composite of the TBSMRQ (<emph>r</emph> =.37 and.41, <emph>p</emph> <.01, respectively). Again, neither of the teacher efficacy subscales correlated significantly with the extrinsic composite of the TBSMRQ.</p> <p>TABLE 4 Correlations Between the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Composites of the TBSMRQ and the Teacher Efficacy (TE) Subscales</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Intrinsic</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Extrinsic</td><td>.09</td><td>—</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Instruction TE</td><td>.37*</td><td>−.01</td><td>—</td><td /></tr><tr><td>4. Engage TE</td><td>.41*</td><td>−.02</td><td>.75*</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>*<italic>p <</italic>.01, two-tailed.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0049151970-21">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0049151970-22">Development of the TBSMRQ</hd> <p>An important result of this study is the finding that teachers' beliefs about student motivation to read can be reliably measured across a range of motivational constructs. Following revision of the TBSMRQ, 10 of the 12 subscales revealed good to excellent internal consistency, with the exception of the Avoidance and Recognition subscales. Most importantly, the 10 adequately functioning subscales captured teachers' beliefs regarding aspects of motivation that have been identified in previous research to relate to key aspects of students' reading development, such as reading amount and reading comprehension growth ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref56">35</reflink>]). Additionally, the adequately functioning subscales included all of the motivational constructs in the intrinsic (Efficacy, Challenge, Curiosity, Involvement, and Autonomy Support) and extrinsic (Grades and Competition) composites that were the primary focus of our subsequent examinations of the relationship between teachers' motivational beliefs and their teaching self-efficacy.</p> <p>The low internal consistency of the Avoidance and Recognition subscales was not surprising given that they have been among the least reliable subscales in several studies on the student MRQs ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]). However, we believe that understanding teachers' beliefs about students' avoidance behaviors has potentially important implications for classroom practice; therefore, we have decided to reexamine the Avoidance construct in future versions of the TBSMRQ. As Baker and Wigfield suggested, it is possible that the Avoidance construct manifests itself within multiple aspects of motivation, which might explain the difficulty in measuring it as a unified construct. For example, it may be that students avoid reading due to low self-efficacy, lack of interest, and/or fear of competition.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-23">Teachers' Beliefs About Student Motivation to Read</hd> <p>Our inquiry affirmed the existence of a clear belief among the teachers in our sample that the development of intrinsic motives for reading warrants far greater attention than extrinsic ones. Research conducted by Sweet and her [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>] led them to argue that teachers hold implicit theories and beliefs about motivation for reading that align with a self-determination perspective ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]) of motivation and reading achievement. Teachers in their study believed that students tend to experience more literacy growth when they become agents of their own literacy development. In our investigation, the belief that intrinsic motivation can propel reading and ought to be developed in students found confirmation in the self-reports of the teachers we surveyed. This belief was manifested in their relatively higher rating of TBSMRQ subscales that contributed to the questionnaire's intrinsic composite; namely, Efficacy, Challenge, Curiosity, Involvement, and Autonomy. Meanwhile, scores for subscales comprising aspects of extrinsic motivation were among the lowest ratings on the TBSMRQ: Competition, Grades, and Compliance. The implications of this motivational orientation for instructional practices in classrooms of students who may not be motivated to read for intrinsic reasons could be far-reaching.</p> <p>In studies using the MRQ with elementary and middle schools ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref62">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref63">35</reflink>]), students frequently reported that they view themselves moved to read far more by extrinsic factors, such as grades, than by intrinsic ones, such as curiosity and challenge. If teachers' beliefs about intrinsic motivation override attention to extrinsic motivators in their instructional programs or lead to the derision of extrinsic motives for reading, that could have implications for student engagement in reading. Undoubtedly, the gradual internalization of intrinsic motives for reading while providing extrinsic rewards and support would seem to be a productive developmental path to follow and one encouraged in studies of self-determination theory ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref64">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>As we have discovered, our knowledge of the relationship between teachers' beliefs about motivation to read and the actions they take in classrooms based on those beliefs is quite limited. However, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref66">15</reflink>] has designed questionnaires to identify adolescent students' motivation for reading and to clarify middle and high school teachers' own efforts to motivate their students by providing meaningful reading instruction, choice, social support, growth in self-efficacy, and connections between personal interests and reading. Teachers in secondary schools can use these instruments to measure their students' levels of engagement and to clarify their own beliefs and practices regarding reading motivation. Further development, testing, and implementation of instruments like these could enable teachers at all grade levels to deepen their understanding of the role that motivation for reading plays in the lives of their students and how that motivation might be increased.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-24">Relationship Between Teachers' Beliefs and Their Teaching Self-Efficacy</hd> <p>The results of our study revealed a clear relationship between teachers' beliefs about student motivation to read and their teaching self-efficacy. Specifically, our results indicated that teachers whose ratings favored intrinsic approaches to fostering student motivation felt more confident in their abilities to instruct and engage students in their classroom. This finding is consistent with previous research that has indicated that teachers with higher levels of efficacy use teaching techniques and strategies that are more challenging and enhance student mastery of cognitive and affective goals ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref67">24</reflink>]). Our results also indicated that there was no relationship between teachers' ratings on the extrinsic motivational factors and their teaching self-efficacy. This finding is consistent with previous research that has indicated that teachers with a low sense of teaching efficacy have an orientation toward control, taking a pessimistic view of students' motivation and relying on strict classroom regulations, extrinsic rewards, and punishments to make students engage in school work ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref68">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref69">38</reflink>]). The fact that our results align with the results of previous research on teachers' sense of self-efficacy and their classroom practices was an important source of initial criterion validity evidence for our newly developed measure.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-25">Implications for Future Research</hd> <p>The development of a reliable measure of teachers' beliefs regarding student motivation to read is an important first step in conducting additional research examining how these beliefs might influence important student outcomes in the area of reading. In particular, additional research is needed to examine how the structure of teachers' beliefs about student motivation to read is similar to or different from the structure of student's motivation to read. Though we began the process of addressing this issue in the current investigation, we acknowledge that studies with larger samples of teachers are needed so that factor analysis can be used to examine this issue more deeply. In addition, the relatively small sample of teachers in this study limited our ability to examine potential differences in teachers' beliefs about student motivation for reading across potentially meaningful subgroups of teachers. Accordingly, additional research utilizing classroom observations is necessary to explore the relationship between teachers' self-reported beliefs of student motivation and their actual classroom practices. This type of research would provide crucial information needed to better understand the accuracy of teachers' self-reported beliefs and their connection to instructional practices and student outcomes. Finally, we hope that continued research in these areas will inform the development of teacher preservice and in-service programs aimed at increasing teachers' awareness of and ability to activate student motivation through their instruction and thus deepen reading engagement.</p> <p>Our review of the literature related to teachers' beliefs about students' motivation for reading and how those beliefs are enacted in the classroom confirmed our belief that little has been done to investigate this important and rich domain. We suspect that further investigation into teacher's beliefs about motivation for reading holds significant promise, especially in an era in which emphasis on direct or "scripted" reading instruction has limited teachers' autonomy and their support of their students' autonomy in literacy development. This study initiated our efforts to deepen our knowledge of teachers' beliefs about reading motivation and how they act on those beliefs in classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0049151970-26">Appendix A</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0049151970-27">Items From the TBSMRQ (41-Item Revised Scale)</hd> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> Items were randomized on the instrument that was administered to teachers.</p> <p></p> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-28"> • Self-Efficacy </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe it is important for students to feel that they can improve as readers while they are in my class.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe it is important for students to feel that they can learn from reading in class.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I believe it is important that students see themselves as a good reader.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. I believe it is important for students to feel that they can succeed in reading in the classroom.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-29"> • Challenge </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe it is important for students to have access to readings that challenge them at their level.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe it is important to give students questions about their reading that make them think.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I believe students will read more difficult material when it is interesting to them.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. I believe it is important to give students opportunities to learn difficult things through reading.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-30"> • Curiosity </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe it is important for students to read new information about topics that interest them.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe it is important to verbally encourage students to find out what interests them.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I believe it is important for students to read about new things that interest them.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. I believe it is important for students to be so interested in what they are reading that they lose track of time.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. I believe it is important for students to read about a wide variety of topics.</item> <p></p> <item> 6. When I don't know students' interests, I believe it is important to choose readings on topics that will arouse their interests.</item> <p></p> <item> 7. When I see that a student has an interest in a topic, I believe it is important to give that student readings that are centrally related to that topic.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-31"> • Involvement </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe it is important to select readings that are likely to draw students into a story's narrative.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe it is important to encourage students to enter the world that the author has created.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I believe it is important to encourage students to make pictures in their minds when they read.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-32"> • Grades </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe it is important that students read to improve their grades compared to other reasons for reading.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe it is important that students look forward to finding out their reading grades.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I believe it is important that students think that grades are a good way of finding out how they are doing in reading.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. I believe it is important that students' parents ask about their reading grades.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. I believe grading is an important way to foster reading development for students.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-33"> • Competition </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe that it is important for students to enjoy being the only one who knows an answer in something they read.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe that it is important for students to strive to get more answers right than their friends.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I believe that it is important for students to like finishing their reading before other students in the class.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. I believe that it is important that students are driven to work hard in order to get better at reading than their friends.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. I believe that it is important to use competitive activities to promote reading growth.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-34"> • Social </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe it is important that students read to their brother(s) or sister(s).</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe it is important that students tell their family about what they are reading.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I believe it is important that students visit the library often with their family.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-35"> • Compliance </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe it is important that students try to finish their reading on time.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe it is important that students value finishing every reading assignment.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-36"> • Importance </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe it is necessary for students to think it is important to be good readers.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe it is necessary for students to view reading as one of the most important activity that they do.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0049151970-37"> • Autonomy Support </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I believe it is important to ask students what they want to read.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I believe it is important to acknowledge students' perspectives even though they may differ from the teacher's perspective.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I believe it is important to provide time for students to read independently.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. I believe it is important to explain to students why a strategy being taught to them will be useful.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. I believe it is important to explain to students why they are reading a particular book.</item> <p></p> <item> 6. I believe it is important to encourage students to generate questions rather than answer the teacher's questions.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0049151970-38">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This research was conducted by the Motivation, Instruction, Cognition, Literacy and Learning (MICLL) research group, which is a multi-institution research team.</p> <ref id="AN0049151970-39"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref33" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ashton, P.T. and Webb, R.B.1986. Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement, New York: Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, L. and Wigfield, A.1999. Dimensions of children's motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34: 452–477.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref47" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A.1994. "Self-efficacy". In Encyclopedia of human behavior, Edited by: Ramachaudran, V.S.Vol. 4, 71–81. New York: Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref30" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bartholomew, B.2007. Why we can't always get what we want. Phi Delta Kappan, 88: 593–598.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref29" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chant, R.H.2002. The impact of personal theorizing on beginning teaching: Experiences of social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30: 516–540.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Clark, C.M. and Peterson, P.L.1986. "Teachers' thought processes". In Handbook of research on teaching , 3rd ed., Edited by: Whitrock, M.C.255–296. New York: Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref34" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Deci, E.L., Eghrari, H. and Patrick, B.C.1994. Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1): 119–142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref64" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M.1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior, New York: Plenum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dembo, M. and Gibson, S.1985. Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor of school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86: 173–184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egyed, C.J. and Short, R.J.2006. Teacher self-efficacy, burnout, experience, and decision to refer a disruptive student. School Psychology International, 27: 462–474.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia, D.2004. Teacher efficacy and family involvement. Urban Education, 39: 291–315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottfried, A.E.1985. Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77: 631–645.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottfried, A.E.1990. Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82: 525–538.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J.T.2008. Engaging adolescents in reading, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J.T., McGough, K. and Wigfield, A.1994. Measuring reading activity: An inventory (Instructional Resource No. 4), Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgia and Maryland College Park.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J.T., Hoa, A.L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S.M., Humenick, N.M. and Littles, E.2007. Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Education Psychology, 32: 282–313.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J.L. and Cox, K.E.1999. Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3: 199–205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lepper, M.R. and Henderlong, J.2000. "Turning "play" into "work" and "work" into "play": 25 years of research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation". In Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance, Edited by: Sansone, C. and Harackiewicz, J.M.257–307. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nolen, S.B. and Nicholls, J.G.1994. A place to begin (again) in research on student motivation: Teachers' beliefs. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10: 57–69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares, F.1992. Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62: 307–332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares, F. and Bengston, J.K.1995. The psychologizing of teacher education: Formalist thinking and preservice teachers' beliefs. Peabody Journal of Education, 70: 79–94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich, P.R. and Schunk, D.H.2002. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications , 2nd ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puchner, L.D. and Taylor, A.R.2006. Lesson study, collaboration, and teacher efficacy: Stories from two school based math lesson study groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22: 922–934.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve, J. and Jang, H.2006. What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98: 209–218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S. and Barch, J.2004. Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28: 147–169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefanou, C.R., Perenceivich, K.C., DiCintio, M. and Turner, J.C.2004. Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39: 97–110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweet, A.P., Guthrie, J.T. and Ng, M.M.1998. Teacher perceptions and student reading motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90: 210–223.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran, M. and Woolfolk Hoy, A.2001. Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17: 783–805.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unrau, N.J. and Schlackman, J.2006. Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement in an urban middle school. Journal of Educational Research, 100: 81–101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, J.H. and Guthrie, J.2004. Modeling of effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39: 162–186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, S.1994. The 1994 NAEP Teacher Background Questionnaire, (NCES Publication No. NCES-94-666)Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A.1997. Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32: 59–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A. and Guthrie, J.T.1995. Dimensions of children's motivations for reading: An initial study, (Reading Research Report No. 34)Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgia and Maryland College Park.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A. and Guthrie, J.T.1997. Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89: 430–432.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J.T. and McGough, K.1996. A questionnaire measure of children's motivations for reading, (Instructional Resource No. 22)Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgia and Maryland College Park.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woolfolk, A.E. and Hoy, W.K.1990. Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82: 81–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeh, Y.C.2006. The interactive effects of personal traits and guided practices on preservice teachers' changes in personal teaching efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37: 513–526.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B.J.1995. "Self-efficacy and educational development". In Self-efficacy in changing societies, Edited by: Bandura, A.202–231. New York: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Matthew Quirk; Norman Unrau; Gisele Ragusa; Robert Rueda; Hyo Lim; Alejandra Velasco; Kayoko Fujii; Erica Bowers; Ann Nemerouf and Gustavo Loera</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref66"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ881055
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teacher Beliefs about Reading Motivation and Their Enactment in Classrooms: The Development of a Survey Questionnaire
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Quirk%2C+Matthew%22">Quirk, Matthew</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Unrau%2C+Norman%22">Unrau, Norman</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ragusa%2C+Gisele%22">Ragusa, Gisele</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rueda%2C+Robert%22">Rueda, Robert</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lim%2C+Hyo%22">Lim, Hyo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Velasco%2C+Alejandra%22">Velasco, Alejandra</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fujii%2C+Kayoko%22">Fujii, Kayoko</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bowers%2C+Erica%22">Bowers, Erica</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nemerouf%2C+Ann%22">Nemerouf, Ann</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Loera%2C+Gustavo%22">Loera, Gustavo</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Psychology%22"><i>Reading Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2010 31(2):93-120.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 28
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2010
– Name: Audience
  Label: Intended Audience
  Group: Audnce
  Data: Teachers
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Validity%22">Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Motivation%22">Reading Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reliability%22">Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surveys%22">Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02702710902754051
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0270-2711
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined teachers' beliefs about motivating students to read through the development of a new survey questionnaire. The current investigation reports on initial tests of the scale's reliability and validity. The items for this measure were developed from an engagement perspective to reflect the motivational constructs represented in an established measure of student motivation for reading. Tests of internal consistency revealed that teachers' beliefs about motivating students to read can be reliably measured. In addition, significant relationships were found between teachers' beliefs about motivating their students to read and their teaching self-efficacy, providing initial evidence of the scale's validity. (Contains 4 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 38
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2010
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ881055
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ881055
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02702710902754051
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 28
        StartPage: 93
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teacher Beliefs about Reading Motivation and Their Enactment in Classrooms: The Development of a Survey Questionnaire
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Quirk, Matthew
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Unrau, Norman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ragusa, Gisele
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rueda, Robert
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lim, Hyo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Velasco, Alejandra
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fujii, Kayoko
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bowers, Erica
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nemerouf, Ann
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Loera, Gustavo
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2010
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0270-2711
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1