Joan Gipe Abstract Teachers struggle to address motivation and its impact on reading achievement and the continued desire to read, even with first-grade students. A quasi-experimental design was used to examine the impact of 3 motivation conditions intrinsic, extrinsic, or a combination of both on the reading achievement and oral reading fluency of 66 first-grade students. The students in 3 intact classrooms were assigned as 3 different treatment groups, each representing a separate motivation condition.
Learning to read is a natural process. It has long been argued that learning to read, like learning to understand spoken language, is a natural phenomenon.
It has often been suggested that children will learn to read if they are simply immersed in a literacy-rich environment and allowed to develop literacy skills in their own way.
This pernicious belief that learning to read is a natural process resulting from rich text experiences is surprisingly prevalent in education—despite the fact that learning to read is not only unnatural, it is one of the most unnatural things humans do.
There is a difference between learning to read text and learning to understand a spoken language.
Learning to understand speech is indeed a natural process; starting before birth, children tune in to spoken language in their environment, and as soon as they are able, they begin to incorporate a language. If the linguistic environment is not sufficiently rich or if it is confusing, the innate drive to find a language is so strong that, if necessary, children will create a language of their own examples of this include twin languages and pidgin languages.
Given the opportunity, children will naturally develop all of the essential comprehension skills for the language to which they are exposed with little structured or formal guidance.
By contrast, reading acquisition is not natural. While the ability to understand speech evolved over many, many thousands of years, reading and writing are human inventions that have been around for merely a few thousand years.
It has been only within the past few generations that some cultures have made any serious attempt to make literacy universal among their citizens. If reading were natural, everybody would be doing it, and we would not have to worry about dealing with a 'literacy gap.
These staggering numbers provide evidence that reading is a skill that is quite unnatural and difficult to learn. Children will eventually learn to read if given enough time. This is arguably the second most pernicious myth, and it is closely related to the first.
Many who claim that reading is natural also claim that children should be given time to develop reading skills at their own pace.
This is a double-edged sword because, while it is true that children should be taught to read in developmentally appropriate ways, we should not simply wait for children to develop reading skills in their own time. When a child is not developing reading skills along with his or her peers, that situation should be of great concern.
Over time, the gap between children who have well-developed literacy skills and those who do not gets wider and wider. In the early grades, the literacy gap is relatively easy to cross, and with diagnostic, focused instruction, effective teachers can help children who have poor literacy skills become children with rich literacy skills.
However, if literacy instruction needs are not met early, then the gap widens—the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer—until it gets so wide that bridging it requires extensive, intensive, expensive, and frustrating remedial instruction.
The gap reaches this nearly insurmountable point very early. Research has shown that if a child is not reading grade-appropriate materials by the time he or she is in the fourth grade, the odds of that child ever developing good reading skills are slim.
It is still possible, but it is much more difficult, and the child's own motivation becomes the biggest obstacle to success.
Reading programs are "successful.
Typically, these programs are designed to address a single part of the overall reading curriculum for example, phonics programs or phoneme awareness programs or reading motivation programsbut often a school purchases a program with the hope that it will be a cure for the school's low reading achievement.
There are a few programs that, if properly implemented, could help a school move in the right direction, but nothing could ever take the place of a knowledgeable and talented teacher. Although such reading programs can be a useful part of a larger reading curriculum, no reading program by itself has ever been shown to be truly "successful"—not with all children and all teachers.
And no reading program by itself has been shown to accelerate all children to advanced levels of performance. Some of these programs, when properly implemented, have been shown to improve overall reading scores significantly especially in low-performing schoolsbut that improvement is often a long way from what anyone should describe as "success.
Typically these programs do not provide substantial professional development for teachers beyond the basic training teachers need to implement the program in their classrooms. Research has repeatedly indicated that the single most important variable in any reading program is the knowledge and skill of the teacher implementing the program, so why do we persist in trying to develop "teacher-proof" programs?
Some would argue that it is our overdependence on such programs that prevents us from cultivating more knowledgeable and effective teachers.
To achieve success for all children, teachers must become extremely sophisticated and diagnostic in their approach to reading instruction, and substantial resources must be devoted toward professional development for teachers.
Every child is different: A program cannot be sensitive to the varied and rapidly evolving learning needs of individual children, but a knowledgeable teacher certainly can. We used to do a better job of teaching children to read.Intrinsic factor (IF), also known as gastric intrinsic factor (GIF), is a glycoprotein produced by the parietal cells of the stomach.
Further reading External links. Intrinsic+factor at the US National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) MedlinePlus Encyclopedia. Management and Motivation on aspects of work, such as “achievement, recognition for achieve- Intrinsic Factor Theories of Motivation Theories that are based on intrinsic or endogenous factors focus on inter-nal thought processes and perceptions about motivation.
Several of these. 1-Page Summary of Grit. Grit is the combination of passion and perseverance. Passion is the consistency of goals held over long periods of time. It is NOT intensity or . One of the thorniest issues in research on the relationship between academic self-beliefs and academic achievement deals with the chicken-and-egg question of causality.
Transcript of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors For Reading Achievement.
If you read for intrinsic reasons you do it simply because you enjoy reading or desire for knowledge. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors For Reading Achievement. Full transcript.
The dependent variables were reading achievement and oral reading fluency. Data were pretest and posttest scores on reading achievement and oral reading fluency measures.
Students in 2 of the 3 groups graphed their oral reading fluency (words read correctly per minute), which supported the intrinsic motivation condition of goal setting.