Affirming and undermining motivations for reading and associations with reading comprehension, age and gender. (19th July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: van Steensel, Roel; Oostdam, Ron; van Gelderen, Amos
• Is Part Of: Journal of research in reading. Volume 42:Number 3/4(2019)
• Page Start: 504
• Page End: 522
• Publication Date: 2019-07-19
• Subjects: reading motivation -- low achievers -- adolescents -- reading comprehension; Reading -- Research -- Periodicals; Reading -- Periodicals; 418.4
• DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12281
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0141-0423

Abstract

Abstract : Background: There has been an increasing interest in negative or 'undermining' motivations for reading. In this study, we aimed to strengthen knowledge on the validity of the distinction between affirming and undermining motivations. First, we examined whether the structure of a questionnaire based on this distinction could be confirmed. Second, we examined the predictive value of undermining motivations for reading comprehension. Third, we studied moderator effects of gender and age. Methods: We administered a reading motivation questionnaire and a reading comprehension test to 324 low‐achieving adolescents. The questionnaire included items on affirming and undermining motivations for school and leisure time reading: intrinsic motivation and avoidance, self‐efficacy and perceived difficulty. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses supported the assumed structure of the questionnaire. Undermining motivations, particularly perceived difficulty, explained unique variance in reading achievement. Gender and age did not moderate effects of motivational variables. Conclusions: Educators need to be aware of the role of undermining motivations. Future research should examine if interventions can lead to the reduction of such motivations. Highlights: What is already known about this topic: Undermining motivations for reading appear to be distinct from affirming motivations. Undermining motivations are related to differences in primary and secondary schoolers' reading comprehension. What this paper adds: Advanced analyses provided a more solid basis for the distinction between undermining motivations and affirming motivations. Undermining motivations explain unique variance in reading comprehension of low‐achieving adolescents. Undermining motivations occurred more often among older students and boys. Implications for theory, policy or practice: Researchers should take into account undermining motivations in studies on reading motivation. Educators need to be aware of the role of undermining motivations for low achievers. Future research should examine if interventions can lead to the reduction of undermining motivations.