Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Child Study
Paper 1
TE 301
into the task. Whereas, if a student attributes his/her success to external factors, then
he/she is less likely to put effort into the task (Seifert, 2004). Volition arrives at the tail
end of motivation, it is defined as will, persistence, tenacity, continued self-efficacy
(Peltier, 2014). So while motivation determines whether or not a student will take on a
task, volition affects whether the will see the task through (Corno, 1989).
Students can form a few different types of motivation. A student can be
intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. Students who are intrinsically motivated, are
motivated by curiosity, a desire to learn, personal interest, etc. Students who are
extrinsically motivated, are motivated by rewards such as grades, or gold stars (Peltier,
2014). A student can also be learning oriented or performance oriented. A student who is
learning oriented is focused on the process of learning, while a student who is
performance oriented is focused solely on the outcome of the activity (Dweck, 1989).
There are a variety of reasons why motivation is important to literacy. High
motivation means higher levels of engagement and higher levels of engagement are
related to higher reading and writing competences. Motivation and engagement can make
up for other risk factors such as a low income or a poor education (Guthrie & Wigfield,
2000). Students with high motivation will likely have high volition, which will help them
avoid giving up thereby improving their sense of self-efficacy. Students who struggle
with reading and writing are less motivated to read (Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox,
1999), so teachers can work to improve students reading and writing simply by helping
improve the students motivation to read.
The development of motivation is very fragile. The amount of motivation depends
on the situation, for example, a student may be more likely to want to read on a rainy day
when he/she cant play outside. As people grow older, they become less motivated to
read and this decline is even steeper for people who are poor readers (Peltier, 2014). A
students motivation development is greatly affected by the teaching methods, parental
expectations, and peer support and exposure to reading (Peltier, 2014).
As teachers, ideally students will have high self-efficacy, internal attributions,
high volitions, intrinsic motivation and will be learning oriented.
reading topic aloud to him to ensure the validity of the assessment. My student ranked
sports and UFOs at the very top (A+). He gave horses and other countries a B,
drawing/painting a C. Spiders, love, and cooking received an F. The rest of the topics
received an A from John. Johns strength determined from this assessment is that he likes
to read about a variety of topics, which is key because according to the previous interest
inventory, as long as John finds a book topic interesting then he is open to reading the
book. His weaknesses are in the book topics that were rated lower than an A: horses,
other countries, drawing/painting, spiders, love, and cooking.
The last motivational assessment I administered to my student was the
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna, & Stall, 2009, pp. 217-222), informally
known as the Garfield Assessment. I began this assessment by explaining its purpose, and
providing instructions for the survey. I again allowed John to circle his own answers
while I read off the question to ensure the validity of the assessment. For recreational
reading, John scored a 37, putting him in the 86th percentile, which means that he is more
motivated to read recreationally than 85% of other first graders. For academic reading, he
received a 31, putting him in the 53rd percentile. His overall reading motivational score
was a 68, which put him in the 72nd percentile, meaning that he his more motivated to
read in general than 71% of other first graders. Johns strengths determined from this
assessment are that John really enjoys reading for fun, particularly when he doesnt have
anything better to do (i.e. when its raining outside) and he likes to read in school most of
the time. His weaknesses determined from this assessment are that he doesnt enjoy
reading when hes not interested in the topic or when he could be playing instead and he
does not enjoy reading class or reading tests.
reading the page and when he would draw. For the second drawing, he was uncertain
what to draw and said he wanted to leave his drawing the same as his first drawing. I
prompted him by rereading a specific line from the page and he added wings to his
drawing. As we read the book, he started drawing quicker after hearing the page,
requested less help, and would even occasionally begin drawing before I had even
finished reading the page. Near the end, after seeing the illustration in the book, he would
adjust his drawing.
Reflecting
Overall the lesson went well. The main adjustment that I made was a result of
there being fewer adjectives for the dragon as I thought originally, so I adjusted the
lesson to allow John to draw more general images from the book. This worked well
because it also opened up the activity and allowed John to have more freedom in his
drawings. If I were to do this lesson again, I would pick a book with more adjectives in it,
or is more descriptive. This lesson was completed after an assessment that also required
reading a book, which helped me to learn that John doesnt like the idea of reading two
books in a row. That perhaps it would go more smoothly if I were to read one long book
than two short books. He enjoyed being able to draw while I was reading the book to
him, he likes activities that allow him to be hands on, whether writing or drawing.
References
Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman &
D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. New
York, USA: Springer-Verlag.
Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.). Foundations for a
Psychology of Education. 137-149. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feather, N. (ed). (1982) Expectations and Actions, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L.
Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of reading
research: Volume III (pp.405). New York: Erlbaum.
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(3). 231-257.
McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, K. A. D. (2009). Assessment for reading instruction (2nd ed.)
second edition. New York: Guildford.
Peltier, M. (2014, January 28). Motivation, TE 301: Learners and Learning in Context.
Michigan State University.
Seifert, T. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46, 137-149.
Turner, J., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence childrens motivation for
literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48(8), 662-673.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.