5 motivation-with-cover-page-v2

Accelerat ing t he world's research.
jurnal american phychology
asosiation tentang motivasi
st. khusnul chotimah
Related papers
Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 
Relat ionships among Fourt h Graders' Reading Anxiet y, Reading Fluency, Reading Mot ivat ion, a…
Zuhal Çelikt ürk Sezgin
Makale Hakkında
Zuhal Çelikt ürk Sezgin
Ort aokul Öğrencilerinin Okumaya İlişkin Kaygı ve Tut umlarının Okuma Alışkanlığı Üzerindeki Et kisi: Bir Y…
Yasemin Baki
Journal of Educational Psychology
2010, Vol. 102, No. 4, 773–785
© 2010 American Psychological Association
0022-0663/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0020084
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading Motivation as Predictors of Reading Literacy:
A Longitudinal Study
Michael Becker
Nele McElvany
Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin
Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, and
Technical University, Dortmund
Marthe Kortenbruck
Free University, Berlin
The purpose in this study was to examine the longitudinal relationships of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation with reading literacy development. In particular, the authors (a) investigated reading amount
as mediator between motivation and reading literacy and (b) probed for bidirectional relationships
between reading motivation and reading literacy, controlling for previous reading literacy. A total of 740
students participated in a longitudinal assessment starting in Grade 3, with further points of measurement
in Grades 4 and 6. Structural equation models with latent variables showed that the relationship between
intrinsic reading motivation and later reading literacy was mediated by reading amount but not when
previous reading literacy was included in the model. A bidirectional relationship was found between
extrinsic reading motivation and reading literacy: Grade 3 reading literacy negatively predicted extrinsic
reading motivation in Grade 4, which in turn negatively predicted reading literacy in Grade 6. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Keywords: reading literacy, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, reading frequency, elementary
school
In 2000, the International Reading Association published a
position statement that listed “the development and maintenance of
a motivation to read” as one of the key prerequisites for deriving
meaning from print (International Reading Association, 2000).
This statement illustrates the growing acknowledgment of the
importance of reading motivation in research and practice in the
last two decades. However, more than half of the Grade 4 students
assessed in a recent U.S. national survey stated that reading was
not their favorite activity and that they did not read frequently for
enjoyment (Donahue, Daane, & Yin, 2005). The 2006 Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study reported generally positive
attitudes toward reading among Grade 4 students, but 37% of
participating students stated that they read only once or twice a
month or less (Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007).
These results are particularly alarming in light of the recent
research identifying reading motivation and reading amount as
important predictors of reading literacy (Baker & Wigfield, 1999;
Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie,
2009). One of the fundamental distinctions in motivational research is between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan,
1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, &
Davis-Kean, 2006). To date, however, reading research has focused primarily on the role of intrinsic reading motivation. Empirical findings show that mediating variables, such as reading
amount, help to shape the influence of intrinsic motivation, but it
remains unclear whether the same holds for extrinsic motivation
(e.g., Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999). There is thus a
need for longitudinal investigations covering both intrinsic and
extrinsic reading motivation to examine mediator variables that
might help to explain the relations observed between motivation
and achievement. This study is meant to advance scientific understanding of these issues by examining the complex relationships
among intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, reading amount,
and reading literacy from a longitudinal perspective.
This article was published Online First October 11, 2010.
Michael Becker, Center for Educational Research, Max Planck Institute
for Human Development, Berlin, Germany; Nele McElvany, Center for
Educational Research, Max Planck Institute for Human Development,
Berlin, Germany, and Institute for School Development Research, Department of Education and Sociology, Technical University, Dortmund, Germany; Marthe Kortenbruck, Department of Education and Psychology,
Free University, Berlin, Germany.
We are grateful to Jürgen Baumert for providing the opportunity to
realize the Berlin Longitudinal Reading Study and Cordula Artelt for
advice for implementing this project. We also thank Susannah Goss for
editorial assistance.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael
Becker, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Educational Research, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany. E-mail:
[email protected]
Reading Literacy
It is widely acknowledged that the success of a modern society
is dependent on the level of literacy of its population. In its
Programme for International Student Assessment, the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development defined reading
literacy as the ability “to understand, use and reflect on written
773
BECKER, MCELVANY, AND KORTENBRUCK
774
texts in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge
and potential, and to participate effectively in society” (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2001, p. 21).
However, learning to read is a lengthy and complex process
requiring psycholinguistic, perceptual, cognitive, and social skills
(Gee, 2001; Snow, 2002). Beyond the basic acquisition of the
alphabetic system (i.e., letter–sound correspondences and spelling
patterns), reading expertise implies decoding, vocabulary knowledge, and text comprehension.
Decoding skills are an essential part of reading fluency, defined
as the ability to read a text accurately, quickly, and with proper
expression (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001) and are
crucial for proficient reading (National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development [NICHD], 2000; Verhoeven & Van
Leeuwe, 2008). Vocabulary has also been shown to be a critical
predictor of reading comprehension; indeed, vocabulary acquisition and development of reading literacy are interlinked (Aarnoutse & van Leeuwe, 1998; Baker, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1995;
Nagy, 1988; NICHD, 2000). Text comprehension is often conceived of as the “essence of reading” (Durkin, 1993). According to
Kintsch (1998), text comprehension can be seen as a combination
of text-based processes that integrate previous knowledge to a
mental representation of the text. It is thus a form of cognitive
construction in which the individual takes an active role. Text
comprehension entails deep-level problem-solving processes that
enable readers to construct meaning from text and derives from the
(intentional) interaction between reader and text (Duke & Pearson,
2002; Durkin, 1993).
When children begin learning to read systematically in school,
the emphasis is initially on the acquisition of word-recognition
skills. Relative to languages with deep orthographies, German has
a regular orthography, and most readers in the German-speaking
countries progress from the alphabetic to the orthographic stage of
reading in their third year of schooling (Klicpera & GasteigerKlicpera, 1993; Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003). In the subsequent years, the focus shifts to more complex aspects of the
reading and comprehension processes— especially fluency, vocabulary knowledge, and text comprehension (Snow, Scarborough, &
Burns, 1999).
Besides social and institutional variables, strong influences on these
processes include individual cognitive, motivational, and volitional
factors. As outlined above, reading motivation has been identified as
a key predictor of reading literacy in theoretical models and empirical
research (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; McElvany, Kortenbruck, &
Becker, 2008; NICHD, 2000).
Reading Motivation
Reading motivation can be defined as “the individual’s personal
goals, values, and beliefs with regard to the topics, processes, and
outcomes of reading” (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000, p. 405). The
distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is fundamental in motivation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000;
Wigfield et al., 2006). Sources of intrinsic reading motivation
include positive experience of the activity of reading itself, books
valued as a source of enjoyment, the personal importance of
reading, and interest in the topic covered by the reading material.
Therefore, Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) defined intrinsic reading
motivation as the disposition to read purely for the enjoyment,
interest, and excitement of reading. In this sense, reading is performed for no sake but its own reward, and the activity is accompanied by positive emotions and perceived as highly satisfying
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Taboada et al.,
2009). Extrinsically motivated reading, in contrast, is directed
toward obtaining external recognition, rewards, or incentives (e.g.,
attention from parents or teachers, good grades; Deci & Ryan,
1985; Wang & Guthrie, 2004), toward living up to external expectations, or toward avoiding punishment (Hidi, 2000). External
sources of influence on extrinsic reading motivation may vary
depending on the age group—younger children are influenced
primarily by their parents, whereas older children are also influenced by school and peers—and the role of instrumental motives
may differ also.
Reading Literacy and Reading Motivation
Theoretical models and empirical research underline the importance of motivational variables for reading literacy. The goodinformation-processing model of Pressley, Borkowski, and
Schneider (1989) integrates cognitive capacity, general strategies,
metacognition, previous knowledge, and motivation. Deci and
Ryan (1985) postulated a stronger need for competence and selfdetermination in intrinsically motivated activities, leading to
higher performance in those activities (in this case, reading). At the
same time, it has been argued that higher reading skills affect
motivational beliefs (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007).
Several empirical studies have examined the relationship between intrinsic reading motivation and reading literacy and usually
have found a moderate positive association (Baker & Wigfield,
1999; Guthrie et al., 1999; Taboada et al., 2009; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; for Germany, see McElvany et al., 2008; Schaffner &
Schiefele, 2007). Guthrie et al. (1999) found that reading motivation still explained a significant amount of the variance in text
comprehension among Grade 10 students when controlling for
covariates such as past achievement, amount of reading, reading
efficacy, and socioeconomic status. In a study with elementary
school children, Taboada et al. (2009) found that internal motivation and cognitive processes (e.g., background knowledge, selfgenerated questions) made significant independent contributions to
variance in reading comprehension and in fact explained the equivalent of 3 months’ growth in reading comprehension. In evaluations of their intervention program CORI (Concept Oriented Reading Instruction; Guthrie et al., 2004), which was designed to
enhance reading comprehension, intrinsic reading motivation, and
strategic knowledge, the researchers led by Guthrie and Wigfield
found the promotion of intrinsic reading motivation to be associated with an increase in reading comprehension.
Fewer longitudinal studies have referred specifically to intrinsic
reading motivation. However, Gottfried, Fleming, and Gottfried
(2001) reported a significant positive relationship between intrinsic reading motivation at a young age (7 years) and later reading
achievement (8 and 9 years). (For a review of studies investigating
the relationship between children’s reading and children’s competency beliefs and goal orientations, see Morgan & Fuchs, 2007.)
There has been scarce empirical coverage of the relationship
between extrinsic reading motivation and reading processes. Additionally, as mentioned above, the sources of extrinsic motivation
differ with age. Parents are typically still the most important social
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC READING MOTIVATION
influence for elementary school students, whereas peers have
increasing influence at secondary level. The available results tend
to indicate a negative relationship, with high extrinsic motivation
being related to poorer reading skills (Schaffner & Schiefele, 2007;
Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). In their
review of seven reading programs, Gear, Wizniak, and Cameron
(2004) examined whether incentive systems for students facilitate
or hinder learning and motivation. Their findings suggest that
rewards can have positive effects on intrinsic motivation and
performance under certain conditions (e.g., when the reward involves spontaneous and sincere positive feedback and when students are rewarded frequently and immediately after successful
performances). The precise nature of the relationship between
extrinsic motivation and reading literacy thus remains unclear;
further research in this domain is clearly warranted.
Research on mediating variables that may influence the relationship between motivational and cognitive processes in the reading context has taken two main approaches. First, the effects of
reading motivation on strategy use and deeper level comprehension processes have been examined; the results of this research
approach are inconsistent (e.g., Naceur & Schiefele, 2005). A
second, possibly more promising approach has investigated reading behavior, in terms of reading amount, as a mediator of the
correlation between reading motivation and text comprehension.
775
(1999) found that both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation correlated significantly with total reading amount, explaining
10.7% and 12.4% of the variance, respectively.
These results led Wang and Guthrie (2004) to formulate a
theoretical model that proposes a functional chain, in which reading motivation increases reading amount, which in turn increases
reading literacy. As expected, their empirical findings showed a
negative association between extrinsic reading motivation and
reading achievement and a positive association between intrinsic
reading motivation and reading achievement. However, inconsistent with previous findings, reading amount did not mediate the
relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation with reading
achievement. This pattern of results may be attributable to the
cross-sectional design of the study. Previous studies have also
postulated reciprocal relationships among reading motivation,
reading behavior, and reading literacy (Cunningham & Stanovich,
1997; McElvany et al., 2008; Morgan & Fuchs, 2007). However,
cross-sectional designs cannot disentangle the reciprocal patterns
of influence between different constructs. There is a clear need for
longitudinal research to further elucidate the relationships between
the reading-related constructs from a developmental perspective,
their potential mediators, and the role of prior achievement.
Purpose in the Present Study
Reading Amount
Guthrie et al. (1999) discussed several mechanisms theoretically
proposed to underlie the potential mediating role of reading
amount. First, more frequent reading might enhance reading efficiency, as reading processes become better automatized. Increased
decoding and strategy use might free up more cognitive resources
for higher order information processing, leading to better comprehension. A second plausible explanation is that frequent reading
leads to an increase in students’ prior knowledge. This facilitates
comprehension on the text-based level and hence the construction
of the situational model (Kintsch, 1998). A third explanation is that
frequent reading supports reading self-concept and self-efficacy
beliefs, leading to the selection of more difficult texts. Fourth, it is
conceivable that the attunement of cognitive and motivational
goals leads to automatized and habitualized processes.
Several studies have reported links between reading behavior
and reading achievement. Cipielewski and Stanovich (1992)
showed that, even when controlling for cognitive abilities, children
who read in their leisure time outperformed their peers on a
reading achievement test. Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988)
found the time children spend reading outside school to be the best
predictor of growth in school reading achievement between Grades
2 and 5 (see also Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Taylor, Frye, &
Maruyama, 1990, for an experimental study design). The more
recent 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress report
found that children who read more understand texts better than
those who read less (Donahue et al., 2005).
In studies investigating the relationship between reading motivation and reading amount, highly motivated children have been
found to read more frequently than less motivated children. For
example, Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) found reading amount to be
predicted by reading motivation in Grade 4 and 5 students. In a
second study with elementary school children, Guthrie et al.
This study makes three key contributions to the emerging literature on reading motivation. It examines, from a longitudinal
perspective, how reading amount and reading literacy are associated, first, with intrinsic reading motivation and, second, with
extrinsic reading motivation. Third, it probes for bidirectional
relationships between reading motivation and reading literacy,
taking the effects of previous reading achievement into account.
Our first research aim concerns the relationship between intrinsic reading motivation and reading literacy. As outlined above,
previous research indicates a positive relationship between intrinsic reading motivation and reading literacy. Going one step further,
we hypothesized that Grade 4 intrinsic motivation would positively predict Grade 6 reading literacy (Research Aim 1.1) and that
this association would be mediated by Grade 4 reading amount
(Research Aim 1.2).
By analogy, the second research aim concerns the relationship
between extrinsic motivation and reading literacy. Previous findings on this relationship are inconsistent (see above). We therefore
explored the nature of the relationship between Grade 4 extrinsic
reading motivation and Grade 6 reading literacy (Research Aim
2.1). Furthermore, we analyzed whether a mediating effect of
reading amount can indeed be detected for extrinsic motivation. It
is conceivable that extrinsically motivated children also read more
frequently, with corresponding effects on their reading literacy
(Research Aim 2.2).
Our third research aim was to integrate previous reading literacy
within an extended theoretical model and to probe for bidirectional
relationships of reading literacy with intrinsic/extrinsic motivation
(see Morgan & Fuchs, 2007). We hypothesized that Grade 4
reading motivation would be influenced by Grade 3 reading literacy (Research Aim 3.1). Finally, we investigated whether the
effects of intrinsic/extrinsic reading motivation and Grade 4 reading amount on Grade 6 reading literacy would persist when Grade
BECKER, MCELVANY, AND KORTENBRUCK
776
3 reading literacy was included as predictor of all constructs in the
model (Research Aim 3.2).
Method
Participants and Design
A total of 740 students from 54 classes in 22 Berlin elementary
schools participated in the longitudinal study. The average age at
the end of Grade 3 was just over 9 years (M ⫽ 9.1 years, SD ⫽
0.5). Boys were slightly in the majority (53%). Data on students’
family background showed that 71% lived in two-parent homes;
63% spoke only German at home, whereas 37% either used German and another language or spoke only another language within
the family. One of the criteria for the selection of the participating
schools was their location in various districts of Berlin, which
ensured a mix of social backgrounds.
Data were collected within the framework of the Berlin Longitudinal Reading Study LESEN 3– 6, which was conducted by the
Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
The main purpose in the study was to track children’s reading
development from Grade 3 to Grade 6 and to identify individual,
social, and institutional factors influencing this development. A
subsample of 104 students participated in a family-based reading
intervention program between Grades 3 and 4 (McElvany, 2008;
McElvany & Artelt, 2009).1
The data analyzed in the following were collected in three
waves: at the end of Grade 3 in June 2003 (T1), in the middle of
Grade 4 in January 2004 (T2), and at the end of Grade 6 in May
2006 (T3). In all three waves, students were assessed in classrooms
during regular school hours by trained experimenters. Most students in Berlin transfer to secondary schooling after 6 years of
elementary education. However, some students of the students in
our sample (N ⫽ 55) transferred to secondary school after Grade
4. These students, and students who were absent for the in-school
assessment, were tested at the Max Planck Institute. Another
subset of the sample (N ⫽ 45) was assessed at the institute under
the same conditions on all measurement occasions.
Measures
Reading literacy. Reading literacy, as all other variables used
in the following analyses, was operationalized as a latent variable
(see below for technical procedures). Three indicators of processes
of different complexity were used to specify the factor of reading
literacy, namely, text comprehension, vocabulary, and decoding.
Grade 3 text comprehension was assessed with a sample of texts
with multiple-choice questions from the Hamburger Lesetest
(HAMLET 3– 4; Lehmann, Peek, & Poerschke, 1997). In Grade 6,
texts from the Diagnostischer Test Deutsch (Nauck & Otte, 1980)
were applied. Texts and tasks with different item difficulties were
selected to cover a broad spectrum of ability. Tasks ranged in
complexity from simple comprehension questions to more complex questions requiring inferential comprehension.
A set of 15 items from the CFT vocabulary test (German
version; Weiss, 1987) assessed students’ Grade 3 vocabulary. This
test covers basic and colloquial vocabulary from key areas of life
and does not require any special knowledge. Grade 6 vocabulary
was assessed with the vocabulary subtest of the Kognitiver Fä-
higkeitstest (Heller & Perleth, 2000), which is analogous in structure to the CFT.
Rasch analysis was used to create two ability scales, one for text
comprehension and one for vocabulary. The items were linked
through external calibration samples and fitted a one-dimensional
Rasch model. Item parameters were estimated based on these
samples. Given the good fit of the Rasch model, measurement
equivalence can be assumed (Kolen & Brennan, 2004). The reliabilities of the tests across the two waves of assessment range from
good to satisfactory (text comprehension, Cronbach’s ␣t1 ⫽ .78,
␣t2 ⫽ .69; vocabulary, Cronbach’s ␣t1 ⫽ .69, ␣t2 ⫽ .78).
Decoding was evaluated with a speeded 70-item multiple-choice
test (Würzburger Leise Leseprobe [Würzburg Silent Reading
Test]; Küspert & Schneider, 1998) that required one of four
pictures to be matched to a given word (e.g., foot or thermometer).
Correct answers were coded as 1; incorrect answers or unchecked
answers were coded as 0. A sum score with a maximum of 70
points was then computed. Different item sets were administered at
pre- and posttest. For test security reasons, two versions of each
test, differing only in the order of the items, were used at each
point of measurement.
Intrinsic reading motivation. The measures of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation administered were based on our previous work
but were expanded for this study (McElvany, 2008; McElvany,
Becker, & Lüdtke, 2009; McElvany et al., 2008). Intrinsic reading
motivation at Grade 4 was measured with three factors, each with one
to four indicators. Four items, three of which were positively phrased
(“I like reading,” “Reading is fun,” “I read because I like reading
stories”) and one of which was negatively phrased (“I think reading is
boring”), assessed the intrinsic value attached to the activity of reading. Students rated their agreement with the items on a 4-point
Likert scale (1 ⫽ disagree completely to 4 ⫽ agree completely).
The scale had a high reliability (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .89). Two
additional items tapped the intrinsic value attached to books (“I am
pleased when I get a new book to read,” “When my parents give
me a book as present, I am interested in it”). Cronbach’s ␣ was
acceptable at .63. Last, importance of reading was measured with
a single-item indicator (“I prefer watching television to reading”).
Extrinsic reading motivation. Extrinsic motivation to read
was also measured with three factors: Extrinsic motivation provided by parents was assessed with three unipolar items (“I read
because my parents find it important that I read a lot,” “I read
because my parents want me to,” “I read because I want my
parents to be proud of me”). Responses were given on a 4-point
Likert scale (1 ⫽ disagree completely to 4 ⫽ agree completely).
The reliability of the scale was good (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .78).
Extrinsic motivation provided by school was measured with a
single indicator: “I read because I have to read for school.” Finally,
extrinsic motivation resulting from instrumental goals was measured with three items (“I read because it is important in life to be
1
Participation in the reading program (RP) and early transfer to secondary school (Gy) were also controlled for in statistical analyses: The variables were included in the models as predictors for the constructs in Grades
4 (RP) and 6 (RP, Gy). The pattern of results was consistent with that
presented here. For reasons of clarity, the models are therefore presented
without the control variables in the present article.
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC READING MOTIVATION
a good reader,” “I read because I can learn a lot through reading,”
“I read because it is important to me to know a lot”). The scale
displayed good reliability (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .77).
Reading amount. Reading amount was assessed through student self-reports and parent questionnaires and measured with
three factors, each with one or two indicators of reading length/
reading frequency: Reading length (student assessment) was measured with the question “How long do you usually read each day?”
Reading length (parent assessment) was assessed with two questions “On average, how many hours does your child read outside
school on a weekday?”/“. . . on a weekend day?” The response
categories for these items were as follows: 1 ⫽ not at all, 2 ⫽ less
than half an hour, 3 ⫽ 30 to 60 minutes, 4 ⫽ 1 to 2 hours, 5 ⫽
more than 2 hours. Reliability was acceptable (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽
.69). Reading frequency was tapped with two items in the student
questionnaire (“How often do you read for pleasure?” and “Do you
read during the school holidays?”). Students rated the frequency of
their reading on a 5-point Likert scale (response options 1 ⫽ never,
2 ⫽ rarely, 3 ⫽ sometimes, 4 ⫽ often, and 5 ⫽ always). Reliability
was adequate (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .82).
Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 15 and Mplus
Version 5.1. We assumed that a single dimension (reading literacy)
underlies the three facets of text comprehension, decoding, and
vocabulary and thus expected these facets to load highly on one
factor. Exploratory factor analysis was used to test the unidimensionality of the latent variable reading literacy. The factor loadings
of reading literacy in Grades 3 and 6 were specified to be equal in
the models to ensure measurement invariance across time.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the underlying factor structure of the items designed to
measure intrinsic reading motivation, extrinsic reading motivation,
and reading amount. The parameters of the factor loadings were
specified to be free.
All of the following models were computed with Mplus 5.1
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2008) using the type ⫽ general option.
We considered using the type ⫽ complex option, but problems
occurred in the computational process.2 As the main findings were
comparable in the two types of model specification, we relied on
the conventional error estimation.
We tested the hypotheses using structural equation modeling.
The fit of the models tested was evaluated on the basis of two
goodness-of-fit indices: the comparative fit index (CFI) and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Acceptable
model fit is indicated by CFI values greater than .95 and RMSEA
values of .05 or less. The chi-square difference test was used to
compare the fit of the nested models (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Bootstrapping was used to test the indirect, mediating effect of
reading amount. Bootstrapping has become the most widespread
method for testing mediation, as it does not require the normality
assumption. If the bootstrap confidence interval does not include
zero, there is a 95% probability that the indirect effect is significant
(Shrout & Bolger, 2002).
Missing Data
Incomplete data often present a challenge in longitudinal research. It is not unusual for participants to be absent at one or more
777
points of measurement or to drop out of a study completely. In
order to avoid reduction of sample size or biased results, and to
capitalize on all of the information available, we chose the full
information maximum likelihood estimation option in Mplus for
the analyses. This option allowed us to include participants with
partially missing values.
All main variables (text comprehension, vocabulary, decoding,
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, reading amount) were
examined for systematic dropout. In general, the marginal differences were not statistically significant. Hence, nonsystematic
dropout can be assumed for these variables (Kortenbruck, 2007).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents intercorrelations between the latent variables.
As expected, there were high intercorrelations among achievement
variables as well as among motivational/behavioral variables and
lower intercorrelations across the construct areas. For example,
Grade 3 reading literacy correlated more closely with Grade 6
reading literacy than it did with the three latent indicators of
intrinsic reading motivation at Grade 4 (see also Table 2).
Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that reading literacy in
Grade 3 and 6 can be represented by two factors, one for each
measurement point. Model fit was still satisfactory when the factor
loadings were set to be invariant, ␹2(8) ⫽ 41.84, p ⬍ .05, CFI ⫽
.97, RMSEA ⫽ .07, with residuals correlated for vocabulary and
decoding.
In terms of construct validity, as expected, separate confirmatory factor analyses for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and
reading amount confirmed that the expected factor structure—with
three first-order factors as indicators of each construct—fit the data
well: intrinsic motivation, ␹2(12) ⫽ 50.74, p ⬍ .05, CFI ⫽ .98,
RMSEA ⫽ .08; extrinsic motivation, ␹2(12) ⫽ 79.45, p ⬍ .05,
CFI ⫽ .95, RMSEA ⫽ .09; reading amount, ␹2(3) ⫽ 10.06, p ⬍
.05, CFI ⫽ .99, RMSEA ⫽ .06. Additionally, an overall confirmatory factor analysis for the second-order factor structure confirmed that a three-factor model, ␹2(143) ⫽ 510.13, p ⬍ .05,
CFI ⫽ .92, RMSEA ⫽ .07, fit the data better than a two-factor
model combining intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to form a
single factor, ␹2(145) ⫽ 707.145, p ⬍ .05, CFI ⫽ .88, RMSEA ⫽
.08. Likewise, other two-factor solutions and the one-factor solution had a statistically significantly poorer fit: reading amount
combined with intrinsic motivation, ␹2(146) ⫽ 542.71, p ⬍ .05,
CFI ⫽ .91, RMSEA ⫽ .07; reading amount combined with extrinsic motivation, ␹2(145) ⫽ 720.49, p ⬍ .05, CFI ⫽ .87,
RMSEA ⫽ .08; one-factor model, ␹2(146) ⫽ 742.23, p ⬍ .05,
2
The type ⫽ complex option would in general be the more desirable
estimation method because it corrects for the standard errors resulting
from the hierarchical data structure: Students are nested within classes
and are therefore not randomly chosen. As there are more degrees of
freedom (157) than clusters (N ⫽ 50) in the models, there is no
guarantee that the estimation of the model parameters is trustworthy (http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/12/164.html?
1191440281). However, the pattern of results emerging when the
type ⫽ complex option was applied was consistent with that emerging
when the type ⫽ general option was applied.
BECKER, MCELVANY, AND KORTENBRUCK
778
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics: Correlations Between the First Order Latent Variables
Correlations
Variable
1
Reading literacy
1. Reading literacy (Grade 3)
2. Reading literacy (Grade 6)
Intrinsic motivation
3. Value of reading 1, activity
(Grade 4)
4. Value of reading 2, books
(Grade 4)
5. Importance of reading
(Grade 4)
Extrinsic motivation
6. Extrinsic motivation
through parents (Grade 4)
7. Extrinsic motivation
through school (Grade 4)
8. Instrumental motivation
(Grade 4)
Reading amount
9. Reading frequency (student
report; Grade 4)
10. Reading length (student
report; Grade 4)
11. Reading length (parent
report; Grade 4)
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
—
.90ⴱⴱⴱ
—
.36ⴱⴱⴱ
.36ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
.24
.23
ⴱⴱⴱ
.78ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.17ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.24ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.50ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.42ⴱⴱⴱ
—
⫺.47ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.57ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.15ⴱⴱ
⫺.01
.13ⴱⴱ
—
⫺.45ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.51ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.21ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.05
.17ⴱⴱⴱ
.56ⴱⴱⴱ
—
⫺.12ⴱ
⫺.26ⴱⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱⴱ
.41ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.18ⴱⴱⴱ
.57ⴱⴱⴱ
.35ⴱⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱⴱ
.47ⴱⴱⴱ
.72ⴱⴱⴱ
.66ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.49ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.18ⴱⴱ
.18ⴱⴱⴱ
.13ⴱ
.48ⴱⴱⴱ
.46ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.28ⴱⴱⴱ
.02
ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
.47
.44
.38
⫺.29
ⴱⴱ
⫺.18
—
⫺.25ⴱⴱⴱ
.26ⴱⴱⴱ
—
⫺.05
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
.56ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
.10
⫺.14
.63
—
.45ⴱⴱⴱ
—
p ⬍ .001.
Intrinsic Reading Motivation and Comprehension
We used structural equation modeling to test the extent to which
Grade 6 reading literacy can be predicted by Grade 4 intrinsic
motivation and whether this relationship is mediated by Grade 4
reading amount. We expected, based on our hypotheses, that
motivation would predict reading amount and that increased reading amount would predict higher reading literacy. Two models
were estimated. The first model specified the association between
Grade 4 intrinsic reading motivation and Grade 6 reading literacy.
The model fit can be considered as good, ␹2(32) ⫽ 81.67, p ⬍ .05,
CFI ⫽ .98, RMSEA ⫽ .05. Consistent with the hypothesis formulated with respect to Research Aim 1.1, Grade 6 reading literacy
was positively predicted by Grade 4 intrinsic motivation (␤ ⫽ .32,
p ⬍ .001).
The second model additionally took into account Grade 4 reading amount (see Figure 1). Model fit can be regarded as good,
␹2(83) ⫽ 188.11, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .04. When
Grade 4 reading amount was controlled for, the association between Grade 4 intrinsic reading motivation and Grade 6 reading
literacy was no longer statistically significant (␤ ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⫽ .73).
However, Grade 4 intrinsic motivation and reading amount were
highly correlated (␤ ⫽ .85, p ⬍ .001), and Grade 6 reading literacy
was statistically significantly predicted by Grade 4 reading amount
(␤ ⫽ .46, p ⬍ .05). The mediating effect of reading amount on the
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics: Correlations Between the Latent First and Second Order Variables (First
Order Factors for Reading Literacy Grade 3 and 6; Second Order Factors for Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Motivation and Reading Amount)
Correlations
Variable
†
11
—
CFI ⫽ .87, RMSEA ⫽ .08. Hence, the following analyses are
based on a three-factor model comprising intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation as well as reading amount.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
10
—
ⴱⴱⴱ
.45
9
Reading literacy (Grade 3)
Reading literacy (Grade 6)
Intrinsic reading motivation (Grade 4)
Extrinsic reading motivation (Grade 4)
Reading amount (Grade 4)
p ⬍ .10.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .001.
1
2
—
.90ⴱⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.52ⴱⴱⴱ
.41ⴱⴱⴱ
—
.38ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.64ⴱⴱⴱ
.43ⴱⴱⴱ
3
—
⫺.09†
.85ⴱⴱⴱ
4
5
—
⫺.14ⴱ
—
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC READING MOTIVATION
ε
dt78
ε
ε
ε
ε
dt79
dt76
dt73
dt29
.92***
-.82*** .66***
.91***
im4val1
ε
.55***
dt81
dt80
.84***
1
im4imp
im4val2
.83***
.91***
779
-.55***
Intrinsic
Motivation 4
-.07
.85***
.46*
Amount 4
.93***
dt42
ε
ε
.56***
Decod 6
ε
Vocab
ε
.67***
.85***
lv4dup
lv4dust
.85***
dt43
Literacy 6
.62***
lv4freq
.82***
Comp 6
.68***
1
dt95
.65***
.82***
deo1
deo2
ε
ε
ε
Figure 1. Associations among intrinsic reading motivation (im), reading amount, and reading literacy (standardized path coefficients ␤). dt ⫽ items from student questionnaire; deo ⫽ items from parents’ questionnaire;
lv ⫽ reading behavior; comp ⫽ comprehension; decod ⫽ decoding; vocab ⫽ vocabulary. ␹2(83) ⫽ 118.11, p ⬍
2
2
.001, CFI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .04, RLiteracy6
⫽ .16, RAmount4
⫽ .73. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⱕ .001.
association between reading literacy and intrinsic motivation was
small but statistically significant (␤ ⫽ .39, BC bootstrap 95% CFI
[.05, .73]). Hence, our findings supported the hypothesized mediating effect of Grade 4 reading amount (Research Aim 1.2).
Extrinsic Reading Motivation and Comprehension
We next estimated two analogous models to investigate how
extrinsic reading motivation and reading literacy are associated
and whether their relationship is also mediated by reading amount.
Again, we expected, based on our hypotheses, that motivation
would predict reading amount and that increased reading amount
would predict higher reading literacy. The first model specified the
relationship between Grade 4 extrinsic reading motivation and
Grade 6 reading literacy. Model fit can be regarded as good,
␹2(32) ⫽ 135.00, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .94, RMSEA ⫽ .07. Grade 6
reading literacy was found to be negatively predicted by Grade 4
extrinsic reading motivation (␤ ⫽ ⫺.59, p ⬍ .001; Research
Aim 2.1).
In the second model, Grade 4 reading amount was included in
the analysis (see Figure 2; Research Aim 2.2). Model fit was good
(see Figure 2 for details). The negative association between Grade
4 extrinsic reading motivation and Grade 6 reading literacy was
still strong and statistically significant (␤ ⫽ ⫺.56, p ⬍ .001).
However, Grade 6 reading literacy was also positively predicted by
Grade 4 reading amount (␤ ⫽ .35, p ⬍ .001), and there was a small
negative association between Grade 4 reading amount and Grade 4
extrinsic motivation (␤ ⫽ ⫺.12, p ⬍ .05). In particular, students
with high extrinsic motivation reported lower amounts of reading
in terms of both reading length and reading frequency. These
students also showed lower reading literacy later on. The mediat-
ing effect of reading amount on the association between reading
literacy and extrinsic motivation was statistically significant (␤ ⫽
⫺.04, BC bootstrap 95% CFI [⫺.08, ⫺.00]) but negligible in size.
The negative direct effect of extrinsic reading motivation on
reading literacy thus remained significant when we controlled for
reading amount. The indirect effect of extrinsic reading motivation
on reading literacy via reading amount was marginally statistically
significant. This finding makes sense in light of the negative
association of extrinsic motivation with both reading amount and
reading literacy, as compared with the positive association between reading amount and reading literacy.
In conclusion, extrinsic motivation was negatively associated
with reading amount as well as with reading literacy, and reading
amount did only weakly mediate the relationship between extrinsic
reading motivation and reading literacy (Research Aim 2.2).
Is There a Bidirectional Relationship of Motivation
and Reading Literacy?
In the final step, previous reading literacy was included in the
models. The goals in these analyses were twofold. First, we expected not only that reading literacy would be influenced by
motivation but also that motivation would be influenced by reading literacy. Second, we expected that the mediator effect of
reading amount would persist even when we controlled for previous reading literacy. As a mediator effect was found for intrinsic
but not for extrinsic motivation, meaning that the potential effects
of reading amount are attributable solely to intrinsic motivation, all
variables were included in a single model (see Figure 3 and the
Appendix).
BECKER, MCELVANY, AND KORTENBRUCK
780
ε
ε
deo1
deo2
dt95
.85***
.64***
1
lv4dup
lv4dust
.63***
.74***
ε
ε
dt42
dt43
.83***
.84***
lv4freq
.68***
.89***
.34***
Amount 4
Literacy 6
.57***
Comp 6
ε
Decod 6
ε
Vocab 6
ε
.83***
-.12*
-.56***
Extrinsic
Motivation 4
.92***
.62***
em4p
.59***
em4sc
em4ins
.69***
.72***
.69*** .79***
1
dt65
dt67
dt70
ε
ε
ε
.79***
dt75
.71***
dt72
dt74
dt63
ε
ε
ε
Figure 2. Associations among extrinsic reading motivation (em), reading amount, and reading literacy
(standardized path coefficients ␤). dt ⫽ items from student questionnaire; deo ⫽ items from parents’ questionnaire; lv ⫽ reading behavior; comp ⫽ comprehension; decod ⫽ decoding; vocab ⫽ vocabulary. ␹2(83) ⫽
2
2
298.80, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .92, RMSEA ⫽ .06, RLiteracy6
⫽ .49, RAmount4
⫽ .02. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⱕ .001.
The model fit can be considered good, ␹2(261) ⫽ 762.79, p ⬍
.001, CFI ⫽ .92, RMSEA ⫽ .05. The model explained a total of
86% of the variance in Grade 6 reading literacy. Consistent with
the hypothesis formulated with respect to Research Aim 3.1,
Grade 3 reading literacy positively predicted intrinsic motivation (␤ ⫽ .37, p ⬍ .001) and negatively predicted extrinsic
motivation (␤ ⫽ ⫺.52, p ⬍ .001). Grade 3 reading literacy was
also marginally statistically significantly associated with reading amount (␤ ⫽ .11, p ⫽ .08) and strongly predicted Grade 6
reading literacy (␤ ⫽ .74, p ⬍ .001). Intrinsic motivation still
Intrinsic
Motivation 4
.74***
.01
.37***
.14*
Literacy 3
-.52***
.81***
.11†
Amount 4
-.01
.09
Literacy 6
-.24***
Extrinsic
Motivation 4
Figure 3. Associations among Grade 3 and Grade 6 reading literacy,
Grade 4 intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, and Grade 4 reading
amount (standardized path coefficients ␤). ␹2(261) ⫽ 762.79, p ⬍ .05,
2
2
CFI ⫽ .92, RMSEA ⫽ .05, RLiteracy6
⫽ .86, RIntrinsic
Motivation4 ⫽ .14,
2
2
†
RExtrinsic Motivation4 ⫽ .27, RAmount4 ⫽ .73. p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⱕ .001.
strongly predicted reading amount (␤ ⫽ .81, p ⬍ .001), but a
statistically significant association between reading amount and
later reading literacy was no longer found (␤ ⫽ .09, p ⫽ .50)
when Grade reading 3 literacy was included in the model
(Research Aim 3.2). When Grade 3 reading literacy was accounted for, the predictive association between Grade 4 extrinsic motivation and Grade 6 reading literacy persisted but was
markedly weaker (␤ ⫽ ⫺.24, p ⬍ .001). Nevertheless, the overall
pattern of results shows that students with lower reading literacy
displayed higher levels of extrinsic motivation (e.g., reading to please
their parents) in Grade 4 and that higher extrinsic motivation predicted
lower reading literacy in Grade 6.
To summarize, when we accounted for prior achievement, the
correlations between intrinsic motivation, reading amount, and
Grade 6 reading literacy were weaker and no longer significant. In
contrast, Grade 3 achievement negatively predicted Grade 4 extrinsic motivation and strongly positively predicted Grade 6 reading literacy. The negative predictive effect of extrinsic motivation
on later reading literacy persisted when prior achievement was
controlled.
Discussion
Summary and Interpretation
The research aims guiding this study were twofold. First, we
examined the relationship between intrinsic/extrinsic reading motivation and reading literacy, as well as the potential mediating
effect of reading amount, from a longitudinal perspective. Second,
we probed for bidirectional relationships of reading motivation and
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC READING MOTIVATION
reading achievement, investigating whether intrinsic/extrinsic
reading motivation and reading amount not only influence reading
literacy but are themselves predicted by previous reading achievement. Additionally, we examined the pattern of relations emerging
among motivation, reading amount, and later achievement when
controlling for prior achievement.
Consistent with our hypotheses, the data confirmed that Grade 4
intrinsic reading motivation was positively related to Grade 6
reading literacy. This relationship was mediated by reading
amount. In other words, children who see reading as a desirable
activity tend to read more frequently and thus develop better
reading skills (see also Guthrie et al., 1999). The initial relationship between Grade 4 intrinsic motivation and Grade 6 reading
achievement was as high as that reported by Unrau and Schlackman (2006) but smaller than that reported by Wang and Guthrie
(2004).
However, a different picture emerged for extrinsic reading motivation, which was negatively correlated with reading literacy and
was not found to be substantially mediated by reading amount. In
other words, children who read for extrinsic reasons (e.g., parental
pressure) have poorer reading skills than do children with lower
extrinsic motivation.
When previous reading literacy was taken into account, the
pattern of relationships changed in some respects. Our findings
indicate high stability of reading achievement from Grade 3 to
Grade 6: Good readers in Grade 3 tend to still be good readers in
Grade 6; poor readers in Grade 3 tend to still be comparatively
poor readers in Grade 6. When past achievement was taken into
account, the effect of intrinsic motivation mediated by reading
amount was overshadowed by the direct effect of Grade 3 reading
literacy on Grade 6 reading literacy (cf. the findings reported by
Wang & Guthrie, 2004, who still found a significant relationship
between motivation and achievement but using grades rather than
test scores as indicators of prior achievement). One possible explanation for prior achievement attenuating the effect of motivation relates to the high stability of reading achievement, which has
been confirmed by several longitudinal studies examining the
development of reading achievement (e.g., Aarnoutse, van
Leeuwe, Voeten, & Oud, 2001; Morgan, Farkas, & Hibel, 2008).
Given this stability, little variance in achievement can be independently explained. Another explanation is that the earlier achievement measure also includes the variance associated with motivational aspects. Therefore, it cannot be strictly concluded from the
present results that intrinsic motivation has no influence on reading
literacy; the results rather speak against additional effects of intrinsic motivation when past achievement, confounded with intrinsic motivation, is taken into account. However, Grade 4 intrinsic
reading motivation was strongly predicted by Grade 3 reading
literacy. This association between past achievement and later motivation seems to indicate that individuals enjoy activities they are
good at and are thus motivated to engage in them in the future.
These findings are not entirely incompatible with the hypothesis of
a bidirectional relationship (cf. Morgan and Fuchs, 2007, who
concluded from their review study that there is a bidirectional
relationship between reading motivation and reading literacy).
Against the background of this discussion, the findings for
extrinsic motivation are all the more remarkable: In contrast to
intrinsic motivation, the negative relationship between Grade 4
extrinsic reading motivation and Grade 6 reading literacy weak-
781
ened, but remained statistically significant, when we controlled for
Grade 3 reading literacy. Our findings confirmed the expected
bidirectional relationship between extrinsic motivation and reading
literacy: Grade 3 reading negatively predicted Grade 4 extrinsic
motivation, which was negatively related to Grade 6 reading
literacy, even when we controlled for Grade 3 reading literacy.
Extrinsically motivated children read because they, for example,
want to please their parents. The bidirectional relationship might
imply that early reading failure leads to higher extrinsic motivation, with children reading only when they have to, which in turn
leads to poorer reading skills. Morgan and Fuchs (2007) argued
that these children avoid reading. However, our complex model
supports this conclusion only to a certain degree: Initially, we
indeed found a negative relationship between extrinsic reading
motivation and reading amount, but this relationship did not remain statistically significant when we controlled for previous
reading literacy in the more complex model. Therefore, it can be
concluded that reading amount is strongly determined by the level
of the individual’s intrinsic motivation (and, to a certain degree, by
prior reading literacy) but that there is no significant additional
effect of extrinsic reading motivation. The negative relationship
between extrinsic reading motivation and reading literacy may also
be explained by an inadequate focus on the text, resulting from
ineffective strategies and inaccurate inferences (Wang & Guthrie,
2004). From this perspective, it is possible that extrinsically motivated readers use surface-level strategies, such as guessing and
memorization, and fail to screen out nonsensical ideas (Elliott &
Dweck, 1988; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992).
A complex picture emerges from our data: The paths from
reading amount to later reading literacy just failed to reach statistical significance when prior reading literacy was included as a
predictor in the model, underlining the importance of early competence for later development. Reading amount was strongly predicted by intrinsic reading motivation, which in turn was determined partly by early reading literacy. Additionally, the direct
predictive value of early reading literacy for later reading amount
corresponds with the long-term findings of Cunningham and
Stanovich on reading development from Grade 1 to Grade 11.
They concluded that rapid acquisition of reading ability might help
children to develop a lifetime habit of reading (Cunningham &
Stanovich, 1997, p. 934).
Overall, the present empirical findings are well embedded in
the framework guiding this research. The distinction between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is well established in motivational research (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000;
Wigfield et al., 2006). It has been suggested that intrinsically
motivated children invest more time and effort to fully understand texts. As a result, they tend to achieve deeper levels of
text comprehension (Baker, Dreher, & Guthrie, 2000; Schiefele,
1999). Our analyses further substantiate the idea that reading
amount (in terms of frequency and length of reading) is related
to reading motivation and mediates the relationship between
intrinsic motivation and achievement when motivation and previous reading literacy are controlled. Still, there appear to be
differences in how the relationship between motivation and
achievement is established and mediated: Distinct relationships
and processes seem to underlie intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the context of reading. The finding that the two types of
motivation have differential implications for behavior is in line
782
BECKER, MCELVANY, AND KORTENBRUCK
with results reported by Wang and Guthrie (2004) on the basis
of a cross-sectional sample. Our finding of a statistically significant negative effect of extrinsic motivation on later achievement with no concurrent positive effect of intrinsic motivation
further informs the discussion about different forms of motivation and the potential corruption of intrinsic by extrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Higgins, Lee, Kwon, &
Trope, 1995). At the same time, the results have important
implications for educators and parents, in terms of the importance of avoiding measures that support students’ extrinsic
rather than intrinsic reading motivation (Gottfried et al., 2001).
Our findings thus confirm that the distinction between intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation is both valid for practice and useful for
reading research.
Strengths, Limitations, and Outlook
The present study has important theoretical, methodological,
and statistical strengths. Both intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation were examined. Reading literacy was not specified solely
in terms of text comprehension but as a multifaceted construct with
vocabulary and decoding as additional indicators of reading
achievement. The latent longitudinal design was a clear statistical
strength. Not only were students examined at three points of
measurement but all variables were estimated on a latent level and
were hence free from measurement error.
Nevertheless, certain limitations should be considered. First, it
was possible to quantify intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and
reading amount only on the basis of aggregated questionnaire data.
Future research should implement more differentiated measurements of each construct, potentially including other measurement
instruments, such as diaries or checklists. Second, we examined a
sample of elementary school children from Grades 3 to 6. Future
studies should determine whether our findings can be generalized
to other age groups. Third, we cannot exclude the possibility that
variance in Grade 3 reading achievement is confounded with
motivation.
Further questions remain unresolved and warrant attention in
future studies. For example, how exactly is the relationship between extrinsic motivation and reading literacy mediated? What
are the processes underlying this relationship? At this stage of
research, the mechanisms remain unclear, and further investigation
is necessary: whether the importance of extrinsic motivation is due
to the corruption of intrinsic by extrinsic motivation, whether the
negative valence of the activity itself is caused by extrinsic motivation associated with some form of pressure, or how else this
aspect of motivation might be relevant for performance development. Future research needs to investigate how parents and educators can mitigate the negative effects of extrinsic motivation on
students’ reading development.
In conclusion, this study advances research knowledge by disentangling the roles of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for reading literacy and reading amount and highlighting the substantial
effect of prior achievement on later motivation. This effect has
important implications for practice. Many teachers and parents go
to great lengths to increase or maintain students’ intrinsic reading
motivation. However, our longitudinal findings underline the importance of enabling early experiences of reading competence:
Reading literacy is highly stable over time, and earlier intrinsic
motivation does not explain future achievement above the level
attained in Grade 3. From a theoretical point of view, the problem
is thus not always that students fail to learn because they lack
motivation; rather, students lack motivation because they do not
experience progress and competence. The present findings indicate
that this holds even for the very young students analyzed here. In
order to motivate students, teachers must therefore offer them the
experience of progress and competence. Additionally, the negative
effects of extrinsic motivation on later reading literacy have clear
implications for teachers and parents. Student reading motivated
by the wish to please parents or teachers does not promote achievement gains over time. In sum, these findings are of high relevance
for practice and research, especially in calling attention to how
educators and parents articulate reading-related expectations and
to the detrimental impact of extrinsic motivation on the development of reading literacy.
References
Aarnoutse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (1998). Relation between reading comprehension, vocabulary, reading pleasure, and reading frequency. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4, 143–166. doi:10.1076/
edre.4.2.143.6960
Aarnoutse, C., van Leeuwe, J., Voeten, M., & Oud, H. (2001). Development of decoding, reading comprehension, vocabulary and spelling
during the elementary school years. Reading and Writing, 14, 61– 89.
doi:10.1023/A:1008128417862
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in
reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading
Research Quarterly, 23, 285–303. doi:10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2
Baker, L., Dreher, M. J., & Guthrie, J. T. (Eds.). (2000). Engaging young
readers: Promoting achievement and motivation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Baker, L., & 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. doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
Baker, S., Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Vocabulary acquisition: Curricular and instructional implications for diverse learners
(Technical Report No. 14). Eugene, OR: National Center to Improve the
Tools of Educators.
Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading
ability from children’s exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 54, 74 – 89. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(92)90018-2
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition
and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934 –945. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627– 668. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Donahue, P. L., Daane, M. C., & Yin, Y. (2005). The nation’s report card:
Reading 2003 (Publication No. NCES 2004 – 453). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing
reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation
and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
5–12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC READING MOTIVATION
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading
fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical,
and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239 –256. doi:
10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
Gear, A., Wizniak, R., & Cameron, J. (2004). Rewards for reading: A
review of seven programs. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50,
200 –203.
Gee, J. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 714 –725. doi:10.1598/
JAAL.44.8.3
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of
academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3–13.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.3
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in
reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.). Reading research handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 403– 422). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A.,
Davis, M. H., . . . Tons, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension
and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96, 403– 423. doi:10.1037/00220663.96.3.403
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading
amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256. doi:10.1207/
s1532799xssr0303_3
Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). KFT 4–12⫹R. Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4 bis 12 Klassen, Revision [Cognitive Abilities Test for Grades
4 to 12, revision]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher’s perspective: The effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal
motivation and performance (pp. 309 –339). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012619070-0/50033-7
Higgins, E. T., Lee, J., Kwon, J., & Trope, Y. (1995). When combining
intrinsic motivation undermines interest: A test of activity engagement
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 749 –767.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.749
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
International Reading Association. (2000). Excellent reading teachers: A
position statement of the International Reading Association. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 193–200.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Klicpera, C., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (1993). Lesen und Schreiben:
Entwicklung und Schwierigkeiten [Reading and writing: Development
and difficulties]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking:
Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Kortenbruck, M. (2007). Entwicklung der Lesekompetenz: Einfluss von
Motivation und Geschlecht [Development of reading literacy: The influence of motivation and gender]. (Unpublished Diplom thesis). Free
University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Küspert, P., & Schneider, W. (1998). Würzburger Leise Leseprobe (WLLP)
[Würzburg Silent Reading Test]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Lehmann, R. H., Peek, R., & Poerschke, J. (1997). HAMLET 3– 4: Hamburger Lesetest für 3 bis 4 Klassen [HAMLET 3– 4: Hamburg Reading
Test for Grades 3 to 4]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
McElvany, N. (2008). Förderung von Lesekompetenz im Kontext der
783
Familie [Promotion of reading competence in the family context]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
McElvany, N., & Artelt, C. (2009). Systematic reading training in the
family: Development, implementation, and evaluation of the Berlin
Parent–Child Reading Program. Learning and Instruction, 19, 79 –95.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.002
McElvany, N., Becker, M., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Die Bedeutung familiärer
Merkmale für Lesekompetenz, Wortschatz, Lesemotivation und
Leseverhalten [The role of family variables in reading literacy, vocabulary, reading motivation, and reading behavior]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 41, 121–131. doi:
10.1026/0049-8637.41.3.121
McElvany, N., Kortenbruck, M., & Becker, M. (2008). Lesekompetenz und
Lesemotivation: Entwicklung und Mediation des Zusammenhangs durch
Leseverhalten [Reading literacy and reading motivation: Their development and the mediation of the relationship by reading behavior].
Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 3/4, 207–219. doi:10.1024/
1010-0652.22.34.207
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Hibel, J. (2008). Matthew effects for whom?
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 187–198.
Morgan, P. L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship
between children’s reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional
Children, 73, 165–183.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A. M., & Foy, P. (2007). IEA’s
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary School in
40 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study
Center, Boston College.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2008). Mplus user’s guide. Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
Naceur, A., & Schiefele, U. (2005). Motivation and learning: The role of
interest in construction of representation of text and long-term retention:
Inter-and intra-individual analyses. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 20, 155–170. doi:10.1007/BF03173505
Nagy, W. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).
Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction: Reports of the subgroups (Report of the National Reading
Panel, NIH Publication No. 00 – 4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nauck, J., & Otte, R. (1980). Diagnostischer Test Deutsch [Diagnostic test
German]. Braunschweig, Germany: Westermann.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001).
Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Paris,
France: Author.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and
their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H.
Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp.
149 –183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and application (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information
processing: What it is and how education can promote it. International
Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857– 867. doi:10.1016/08830355(89)90069-4
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:
Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54 – 67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2007). Auswirkungen habitueller Lesemotivation auf die situative Textrepräsentation [Effects of habitual reading
motivation on the situative representation of text]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54, 268 –286.
784
BECKER, MCELVANY, AND KORTENBRUCK
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 3, 257–279. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4
Seymour, P. H., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy
acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology,
94, 143–174. doi:10.1348/000712603321661859
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422– 445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and
development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.
Snow, C. E., Scarborough, H. S., & Burns, M. S. (1999). What speechlanguage pathologists need to know about early reading. Topics in
Language Disorders, 20, 48 –58.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. (2009). Effects of
motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22, 85–106. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y
Taylor, B. M., Frye, B., & Maruyama, J. (1990). Time spent reading and
reading growth. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 351–362.
Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relation to reading
achievement in an urban middle school. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 81–101. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.2.81-101
Verhoeven, L., & Van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of
reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407– 423. doi:10.1002/acp.1414
Wang, J. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the 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. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2
Weiss, R. (1987). Wortschatz (WS) und Zahlenfolgen (ZF): Ergänzungstests zum Grundintelligenztest CFT-20 [Basic Intelligence Test, Scale 2,
CFT 20]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P.
(2006). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon & N.
Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 933–1002).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Motivation for reading: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 32, 57–58.
(Appendix follows)
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC READING MOTIVATION
785
Appendix
Full Model of Figure 3
ε
ε
dt78
dt79
.91***
ε
ε
ε
ε
dt76
dt73
dt29
dt81
.92*** -.82***
.66***
im4val1
dt80
1
.55*** .84***
im4imp
im4val2
.74***
.83***
.91***
-.55***
Intrinsic
Motivation 4
ε
ε
Comp. 3
.75***
.63***
Decod 3
.01
.37***
.11+
Literacy 3
.79***
ε
.09
Amount 4
.67***
.61***
.93***
.14*
Vocab 3
-.01
-.52***
.65***
deo1
.82***
lv4dust
.85***
em4p
.71***
.69***
.80***
dt65
dt67
dt70
ε
ε
ε
.64***
em4sc
1
dt75
dt42
dt43
ε
ε
deo2
1
.82***
.90***
Literacy 6
lv4dup
lv4freq
Extrinsic
Motivation 4
Comp 6
ε
.62***
Decod 6
ε
Vocab 6
ε
.74***
.81***
ε
.78***
ε
-.24***
dt95
.59***
em4ins
.79***
.69***
.71***
dt72
dt74
dt63
ε
ε
ε
Note. Residual variances of the indicators of literacy in Grades 3 and 6 were constrained to be equal over
time; indicators of literacy in Grades 3 and 6 were allowed to correlate specifically for each domain (e.g.,
decoding 3 with decoding 6). For decoding (r ⫽ .51, SE ⫽ .05) as well as for vocabulary (r ⫽ .17, SE ⫽ .08),
the correlation was statistically significant (not depicted here). im ⫽ intrinsic motivation; em ⫽ extrinsic
motivation; dt ⫽ items from student questionnaire; deo ⫽ items from parents’ questionnaire; lv ⫽ reading
behavior; comp ⫽ comprehension; decod ⫽ decoding; vocab ⫽ vocabulary. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⱕ .001.
Received June 15, 2009
Revision received April 12, 2010
Accepted May 6, 2010 䡲