The role of teacher behavior in adolescents' intrinsic ...

Read Writ DOI 10.1007/s11145-014-9506-3

The role of teacher behavior in adolescents’ intrinsic reading motivation Jessie De Naeghel • Martin Valcke • Inge De Meyer Nele Warlop • Johan van Braak • Hilde Van Keer

•

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Given the weak intrinsic reading motivation of many adolescents on the one hand and the importance of this type of motivation for reading competence on the other hand, the aim of the present study is to identify the related role of teacher behavior. To pursue this aim, a secondary analysis was carried out on PISA 2009 data. More particularly, data of a subsample of 4,269 Flemish 15-year olds were examined by means of multilevel modeling. In line with self-determination theory, the results provide evidence for the significance of perceived autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior. Teacher involvement was most strongly associated with adolescents’ intrinsic reading motivation. Further, students’ perception of teachers’ autonomy support was particularly related to girls’ intrinsic reading motivation. Keywords Intrinsic reading motivation Reading literacy Teacher behavior Self-determination theory

Introduction Proficiency in reading literacy is not only critical for academic achievement of middle- and high school students (Holloway, 1999), but is also indispensable to participate in increasingly complex societies (OECD, 2009). According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009’s reading framework, reading literacy is defined as ‘‘understanding, using, reflecting on and engaging with written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society’’ (OECD, 2009, p. 23). Within this definition, ‘‘engagement in reading’’ is given a prominent position. It is considered an integral part of reading literacy, as it is strongly related to reading J. De Naeghel (&) M. Valcke I. De Meyer N. Warlop J. van Braak H. Van Keer Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium e-mail: [email protected]

123

J. De Naeghel et al.

proficiency and can play an important role in reducing gaps in reading performance between subgroups of students (e.g., girls versus boys, socio-economic advantaged versus disadvantaged students; OECD, 2002; Wigfield et al., 2008). Reading engagement, more particularly, refers to ‘‘the motivational attributes and behavioral characteristics of students’ reading’’ (OECD, 2009, p. 70). Engaged readers read texts for their own enjoyment and out of interest in different topics or text genres (e.g., novels, comics, informative books, journals); they self-initiate reading activities; they extend their competencies interactively and pursue social reading goals; and they frequently participate in reading activities with diverse content in various printed and digital media (OECD, 2009). The present study particularly focuses on students’ reading enjoyment and interest in reading since on average over one-third of 15-year olds across OECD countries indicates that they do not read for enjoyment or interest (OECD, 2010a). Why enjoyment of and interest in reading matters The last two decades, research has increasingly emphasized that reading motivation is a key factor in successful reading (OECD, 2010a; Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009; Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Students who read because it is inherently enjoyable or interesting are referred to in the literature as intrinsically motivated readers (De Naeghel et al., 2012c; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Research into reading motivation particularly indicates that students’ intrinsic reading motivation positively contributes to reading frequency (e.g., Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) and reading performance (e.g., OECD, 2010a; Taboada et al., 2009; Van Elsa¨cker, 2002; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). Consequently, the fact that boys enjoy reading less than girls explains part of the gender gap in reading performance (Logan & Johnston, 2009; OECD, 2010a; van Schooten & de Glopper, 2002). The same applies to the lower reading performance level of learners with a lower socioeconomic background, as socioeconomically disadvantaged students enjoy reading less and generally perform less well in reading than their more socioeconomically advantaged peers (OECD, 2010a, b). Beyond dispute, the limited reading enjoyment and interest in reading in a considerable number of 15-year olds is a reason for concern. The motivating role of the teacher Reading motivation research indicates that teachers can play a critical role in persistently stimulating their students’ intrinsic reading motivation (e.g., Gambrell, 1996; Guthrie, 2008; Guthrie, McRae, & Klauda, 2007; Santa et al., 2000). In this respect, teachers’ efforts to promote students’ intrinsic reading motivation are a crucial part of high-quality education (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2007) providing students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds with literacy competencies to be successful in today’s society (OECD, 2004). Given the important role of teachers in motivating their students (e.g., Gambrell, 1996; Guthrie, 2008; Guthrie et al., 2007; Santa et al., 2000), the present study centers on the relationship between students’ perceptions of teacher behavior and their reading motivation.

123

Teacher behavior and intrinsic reading motivation

According to the self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000), students’ intrinsic motivation can be facilitated by the teachers’ motivating style. In particular, teachers who support students’ inherent psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are more likely to create an optimally motivating classroom climate (see Fig. 1). The need for autonomy refers to the experience of a sense of volition and psychological freedom when participating in an activity, indicating that students feel that they are the initiators of their own behavior. Autonomy-supportive teachers dedicate time to listening to their students’ preferences and interests, allocate time for students to work in their own way, give students’ age-appropriate choices, and provide rationales (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010; Reeve & Jang, 2006). Competence involves the experience of being confident and effective in action. Students’ need for competence is facilitated when they experience their classrooms as well-structured (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Teachers offer structure in their classroom by clearly communicating guidelines and expectations about learning activities, by responding consistently and predictably, by providing step-by-step directions, by giving positive feedback, instrumental help, and support, and by providing optimal challenges (Jang et al., 2010; Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Sideridis, 2008; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Soenens, & Lens, 2007). The need for relatedness refers to the experience of feeling related to and accepted by others (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Teachers investing personal resources, expressing affection, and enjoying time with students are interpersonally involved and thus support students’ need for relatedness with teachers and peers (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). The literature explicitly indicates the importance of autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior, as it is positively related to students’ intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Reeve & Deci, 1996; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994; Vallerand & Reid, 1984). Although the body of work investigating reading motivation from an SDT-perspective is still in its infancy, some evidence for the positive impact of autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior during reading activities on students’ reading for enjoyment and out of perceived personal significance has been found (De Naeghel et al., 2012a, b). It should be noted, however, that until now these studies solely focused on elementary school students. Consequently, studying the association between autonomysupportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior and the level of intrinsic reading motivation in the age group of adolescents is innovative. This is of particular importance because intrinsic reading motivation further declines as students make the transition from elementary to secondary school (Guthrie & Davis, 2003; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Moreover, at secondary school level, specialized language teachers and tracked school systems enter the picture. In tracked school systems students of different ability levels are faced with different classmates, teachers, and teaching methods. In this respect, research indicates that tracking has in particular beneficial outcomes (e.g., positive attitudes, high academic achievement) for students in the higher tracks, whereas it has a negative effect on the achievement and attitudes of students in the lower tracks (Kao & Thompson, 2003; Oakes, 2005).

123


Relatedness

= the experience of feeling connected to and accepted by others Involvement

Competence

= the experience of being confident and effective in action Structure

Autonomy

Autonomy support

= the experience of being self-determined

Psychological need satisfaction

Intrinsic motivation

Fig. 1 Teaching dimensions supporting students’ basic psychological needs and hence encouraging intrinsic motivation (SDT; based on Reeve, 2009)

Aim of the present study Given the limited reading enjoyment and interest in reading in a large number of 15-year olds (OECD, 2010a) and its significance for successful reading (OECD,

123

Teacher behavior and intrinsic reading motivation Table 1 Percentage of boys and girls in each educational track

Girls (%)

Boys (%)

General track

53.80

46.20

Technical track

44.32

55.68

Vocational track

49.29

50.71

Total

49.57

50.43

2010a; Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), the aim of the present study is to identify perceived teacher behavior which is positively associated with adolescents’ intrinsic reading motivation. In line with SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000), it is hypothesized that students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior are positively related to their intrinsic reading motivation. In addition, the present study examines whether this relationship is different regarding students’ gender, socio-economic status, and study track. The latter is an innovative element in the motivation research and literature.

Methods Participants and procedures The present study builds on a secondary analysis of data collected in Flanders (Belgium), in the context of PISA 2009 (http://pisa2009.acer.edu.au/). More particularly, a subsample of 4,269 Flemish 15-year olds attending the general track (n = 1,934), technical track (n = 1,424), or vocational track (n = 911), was extracted from the overall demographically representative sample of Flemish students. Following the PISA guidelines, students within the overall sample were selected following a two-stage stratified sampling design. The first-stage sampling units consisted of individual schools. The second-stage units were students within sampled schools. Participants of the present study consisted of 49.57 % girls and 50.43 % boys. An overview of the gender distribution in the different educational tracks is presented in Table 1. In accordance to the PISA guidelines, weighted percentages are reported instead of raw, unweighted numbers. The majority of the students were native Dutch speakers (95.45 %), which is the language of instruction in Flanders. Measures To pursue the aim of the present study, first data about student characteristics were extracted from the database: gender (0 = girl, 1 = boy) and educational track (0 = general track, 1 = technical track, and 2 = vocational track). Next, the data resulting from a series of PISA 2009 scales were used to carry out the analysis: index of economic, social, and cultural status, intrinsic reading motivation, teacher autonomy support, teachers’ implementation of structure, and teacher involvement.

123


Index of economic, social, and cultural status The PISA index of economic, social, and cultural status consists of three subcomponents: (1) higher parental occupation, (2) higher parental education expressed as years of schooling, and (3) the index of home possessions, including all items on family wealth, home educational resources, cultural possessions, as well as books at home. Intrinsic reading motivation Students’ enjoyment of reading and interest in reading or intrinsic reading motivation was measured with eleven items (e.g., ‘Reading is one of my favorite hobbies’ and ‘I read only if I have to’). This scale corresponds to the scale ‘Enjoyment of reading’ in the PISA 2009 framework. Items were scored on a 4-point-Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Negatively phrased items were reverse coded. Reliability analysis indicates a high internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.92). Teacher autonomy support Students indicated to what extent their native language teacher stimulated their reading engagement and reading skills on a seven-item scale (e.g., ‘The teacher encourages students to express their opinion about a text’ and ‘The teacher helps students relate the stories they read to their lives’). This scale was labeled ‘Stimulation of reading engagement’ in the PISA 2009 framework and corresponds to the construct of autonomy support (Deci & Ryan, 2000; OECD, 2009), as discussed in the literature review. Items were answered on a 4-point Likert scale, varying from never or hardly ever to in all lessons. The seven-item scale reflects a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.75). Teachers’ implementation of structure Students reported to what extent their native language teacher implemented structuring and scaffolding strategies in language lessons on a nine-item scale (e.g., ‘The teacher explains beforehand what is expected from the students’ and ‘The teacher discusses students’ work after they have finished the reading assignment’). The content of this scale corresponds to the construct of structure or the facilitation of students’ need for competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Items were answered on a 4-point Likert scale, varying from never or hardly ever to in all lessons. Reliability analysis points at a high internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.80). Teacher involvement Students’ perception of their relationship with their teachers was reported on a fiveitem scale (e.g., ‘Most of my teachers are interested in my well-being’ and ‘Most of my teachers really listen to what I have to say’). This scale was labeled ‘teacher student

123


relationship’ in the PISA 2009 framework and corresponds to the construct of involvement or the facilitation of students’ need for relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Items were answered on a 4-point Likert scale, varying from disagree to strongly agree. The four-item scale reflects a high internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.81). Data-analysis The relationship of student perceptions of teachers’ autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved behavior with students’ intrinsic reading motivation was analyzed by means of multilevel modeling. Multilevel analysis (MLwiN 2.22) was used because the problem under investigation has a clear hierarchical structure: 4,269 students were nested within a smaller number of 142 schools. In such a sample the individual observations are generally not fully independent because of selection processes and owing to the common history and experiences individuals share by being part of the same group (Hox, 1994). The model was built up stepwise and parsimonious models were opted for, in line with previous reading research (Van Keer, 2004; De Naeghel and Van Keer, 2013).

Results Conceptual null model The first step was to evaluate the results of the fully unconditional two-level null model with intrinsic reading motivation as the response variable (Model 0, students at level 1 and schools at level 2). The random part of the null model indicated that the variance at school (v2 = 48.27, df = 1, p \ 0.001) and student level (v2 = 2006.68, df = 1, p \ 0.001) was significantly different from zero, justifying the application of multilevel modeling and pointing to the importance of both levels. In particular, 14.07 % of the overall variability in students’ intrinsic reading motivation was linked to differences between schools and 85.93 % could be attributed to differences between individual students. A summary of the standardized model estimates— which can be interpreted as effect sizes—is presented in Table 2. Background characteristics In the second step, background characteristics potentially explaining students’ intrinsic reading motivation were included in the model. First, students’ gender was added. Model 1, including gender, fitted the data better than the null model (v2 = 281.00, df = 1, p \ 0.001). The negative fixed slope (v2 = 292.80, df = 1, p \ 0.001) indicated that boys reported a significantly lower intrinsic reading motivation than girls. Including students’ socioeconomic status (Model 2) further improved the model (compared with Model 1: v2 = 116.97, df = 1, p \ 0.001), implying that students with a higher socioeconomic status reported more enjoyment of and interest in reading (v2 = 78.85, df = 1, p \ 0.001). Third, students’ educational track (i.e., general, technical, or vocational secondary education) was

123

123 0.02

0.03

0.04

SE

0.10***

-0.55***

0.28***

Model 3 Enjoyment of reading

0.86***

Reference model

142

4,155

Units: students

11,520.50

Units: schools

DIC

-2*loglikelihood

Cons/cons

Level: students

Cons/cons

Level: schools

Random part

(Autonomy support-gm)

0.02

0.804***

Model 0

4,155

142

11,239.51

0.02

0.80***

Model 1

4,135

142

11,122.54

0.02

Model 2

4,135

142

10,920.12

0.79***

0.01*

0.03

0.01

Model 3

4,135

142

10,905.53

0.78**

0.01*

-0.14*

-0.69***

-0.47***

0.17***

-0.55***

0.25***


(ESCS-gm).VSE

0.05

0.04

0.02

0.03

0.03

SE

-0.13*

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.03

SE

(ESCS-gm).TSE

0.07***

0.15***

-0.56***

-0.05


-0.68***

0.107***

-0.53***

-0.07


VSE

0.02

0.04

SE

-0.48***

0.14***

-0.33***


TSE

(ESCS-gm)

Male

Cons

Fixed part

Response

Table 2 Summary of the model estimates for the two-level analysis of enjoyment of reading

0.03

0.01

0.05

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.03

SE

Model 4

4,088

142

10,719.21

0.77**

0.01*

0.13***

-0.13*

-0.13*

-0.65***

-0.46***

0.17***

-0.56***

0.24***


0.03

0.00

0.02

0.05

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.03

SE


-0.12**

0.04

-0.12***

DIC

-2*loglikelihood

Cons/cons

Level: students

Cons/cons

Level: schools

Random part

0.77***

10,676.18

0.03

0.749*** 10,483.78

0.03

10,479.54

0.75***

0.01*

-0.07*

0.20***

0.05*

0.10**

-0.13**

0.03

0.00

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.03

SE

-0.06*

0.27***

0.05*

0.09***

-0.12**

-0.12***

-0.65***

-0.45***

0.16***

-0.54***

0.23**


10,471.45

0.75***

0.01*

-0.08

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.05

-0.66***

-0.44***

0.16***

-0.55***

0.23***


-0.11*

0.01*

0.20***

0.05*

0.06**

-0.13**

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.03

SE

VSE.(involvement-gm)

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.05

-0.66***

-0.45***

0.16***

-0.55***

0.23***


TSE.(involvement-gm)

Male.(autonomy support-gm)

0.01*

0.09***

(Structure-gm)

(Involvement-gm)

0.08***

(Autonomy support-gm)

0.04

-0.13**

-0.14**

(ESCS-gm).TSE

(ESCS-gm).VSE

0.05

-0.65***

VSE

0.03 0.04

0.17***

-0.47***

TSE

0.03

0.03

SE

(ESCS-gm)

0.24***

-0.56***

Male


Cons

Fixed part

Response

Table 2 continued

0.02

0.00

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.03

SE


123

123 SE

Model 6

4,048

142


SE

Model 7

4,048

142


ESCS economic, social, and cultural status, TSE technical secondary education, VSE vocational secondary education * p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001

This table reports explanatory variables that revealed significant parameters

Model 5

4,077

Reference model

142

Units: students


Units: schools

Response

Table 2 continued SE

Model 8

4,048

142


SE


Teacher behavior and intrinsic reading motivation Fig. 2 Intrinsic reading motivation for girls in the different educational tracks according to socioeconomic status. Example for ESCS = - 1, ESCS = 0, and ESCS = 1. ESCS economic, social, and cultural status, GSE general secondary education, TSE technical secondary education, VSE vocational secondary education

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1

0

-1

-0.1

ESCS

-0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8

Educational track GSE

Educational track VSE

Educational track TSE

Fig. 3 Intrinsic reading motivation for boys in the different educational tracks according to socioeconomic status. Example for ESCS = - 1, ESCS = 0, and ESCS = 1. ESCS economic, social, and cultural status, GSE general secondary education, TSE technical secondary education, VSE vocational secondary education

0 1 -0.2

0

-1

ESCS

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2

-1.4 Educational track GSE

Educational track VSE

Educational track TSE

added (Model 3). This model fitted the data better than Model 2 (v2 = 202.42, df = 1, p \ 0.001). The negative fixed slopes indicated that students in technical (v2 = 145.16, df = 1, p \ 0.001) and vocational secondary education (v2 = 225.93, df = 1, p \ 0.001) enjoy reading significantly less than their peers in general secondary education, with students in vocational secondary education reporting the lowest scores. Fourth, possible interaction effects between background characteristics were explored. Only the inclusion of an interaction between students’ socioeconomic status and educational track (Model 4) further improved the model

123


(compared with Model 3: v2 = 14.60, df = 2, p \ 0.001). The interaction effect revealed that the association between socioeconomic status and intrinsic reading motivation is most strongly pronounced in the general secondary education track. More particularly, students in general secondary education with a higher socioeconomic status indicated higher intrinsic reading motivation. In this respect, it should be noted that students in general secondary education have on average a significant higher socioeconomic status than students in technical secondary education and that students in vocational secondary education have on average the lowest socioeconomic status (Mgeneral = 0.63, SDgeneral = 0.84; Mtechnical = 0.12, SDtechnical = 0.78; Mvocational = –0.30, SDvocational = 0.78). Figures 2 and 3 give a visual representation of the association between socioeconomic status and intrinsic reading motivation in the different educational tracks. Teacher behavior In the third step, students’ perceived teacher behavior was included in the model in order to verify the hypothesized positive association of perceived autonomysupportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior with enjoyment of reading. First, students’ perceptions of teachers’ autonomy support was added. Model 5, including teachers’ autonomy support, fitted the data better than Model 4 (v2 = 186.31, df = 1, p \ 0.001). The positive fixed slope (v2 = 32.14, df = 1, p \ 0.001) indicated that students who perceived their teachers as more autonomysupportive reported higher scores on intrinsic reading motivation and vice versa. Adding teachers’ structure (Model 6) further improved the model (compared to Model 5: v2 = 43.03, df = 1, p \ 0.001). More particularly, students’ perceived structure in the classroom is positively associated with students’ enjoyment of reading (v2 = 20.03, df = 1, p \ 0.001). Third, students’ perception of teacher involvement was included (Model 7). This model fitted the data better than Model 6 (v2 = 192.40, df = 1, p \ 0.001). The positive fixed slope (v2 = 109.55, df = 1, p \ 0.001) pointed out that students who perceived their teachers as more involved also indicated higher scores on intrinsic reading motivation and vice versa. In conclusion, the results confirm the hypothesized positive relation of perceived autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior with students’ intrinsic reading motivation. The fourth step in the analysis evaluated possible interaction effects between background characteristics and students’ perceptions of teacher behavior. Adding an interaction effect between gender and perceived autonomy-supportive teacher behavior (Model 8) fitted the data better than Model 7 (v2 = 8.09, df = 1, p = 0.004). Findings indicated that boys in comparison to girls reported a significantly lower positive association between perceived autonomy support and intrinsic reading motivation (v2 = 4.25, df = 1, p = 0.039). More particularly, the association between teachers’ autonomy support and intrinsic reading motivation was not significant for boys (v2 = 1.27, df = 1, p = 0.260). Including an interaction effect between educational track and perceived teacher involvement (Model 9) further improved the model as well (compared to Model 8: v2 = 8.09, df = 2, p = 0.018), indicating that students in a vocational track reported equally

123

Teacher behavior and intrinsic reading motivation Table 3 Descriptive statistics for perceived autonomy support, structure, and involvement in the different educational tracks Autonomy support

Structure

M

M

SD

Involvement SD

M

SD

General track

-0.14

0.76

0.05

0.76

-0.05

0.74

Technical track

-0.26

0.84

-0.02

0.86

-0.16

0.81

Vocational track

-0.52

0.96

-0.15

1.03

-0.10

0.93

positive associations between perceived teacher involvement and intrinsic reading motivation than students in the general track (v2 = 3.80, df = 1, p = 0.051), whereas students in a technical track reported significantly less positive associations as compared to students in the general education track (v2 = 7.528, df = 1, p = 0.006). More particularly, it should be noted that the association between students’ perceptions of teacher involvement and intrinsic reading motivation— although somewhat less positive—remained significant for students in the technical track (v2 = 27.807, df = 1, p \ 0.001). The inclusion of interaction effects between gender and students’ perceptions of teachers’ structure or involvement, between socioeconomic status and perceived autonomy-supportive, structured, or involved teacher behavior, and between educational track and students’ perceptions of teachers’ autonomy support or structure did not further improve the model. In addition, Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for teachers’ autonomysupportive, structured, and involved instructional behavior as perceived by the students in the different educational tracks. More in-depth analyses indicated that students in general secondary education perceived their teachers as significantly more autonomy-supportive than students in technical secondary education and that students in vocational secondary education perceived their teachers on average as the least autonomy supportive. With respect to structure, students in the general and technical track did not report a significant different perception on their teachers’ structure. Students in vocational education, however, did perceive their teachers as implementing significantly less structure as compared to students in the other tracks. Regarding teacher involvement, no differences between teachers in the general and vocational track were reported. However, students in the technical track perceived their teachers as significantly less involved than students in general education.

Discussion Stimulating adolescents’ reading enjoyment and interest in reading (OECD, 2010a), and thus enhancing their reading proficiency (OECD, 2010a; Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), remains a challenge for teachers to guarantee equal opportunities for all students. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to identify teacher behavior positively associated with adolescents’ intrinsic reading motivation. According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000), it was expected that students’

123


perceptions of autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior would be positively related to students’ intrinsic reading motivation. Autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior The results of the present study provide further evidence for the positive relationship of autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior during reading activities with students’ reading enjoyment and interest in reading as established in earlier research (De Naeghel et al., 2012a, b; Deci & Ryan, 2000). This suggests that teachers should be encouraged to support their adolescent students’ inherent psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness during reading activities in order to create an optimally motivating classroom climate (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In this respect, prior research (De Naeghel et al., 2012a, b) illustrates that autonomy-supportive teachers, for instance, offer choices between different reading topics potentially of interest to their students, provide time for independent reading, and apply reading activities in a meaningful context. Structuring teachers, for instance, provide guidance and feedback to students when they encounter difficulties in performing a literacy task and offer optimal challenging reading tasks. Moreover, involved teachers invest in the interpersonal relationship with their students. These findings are in line with earlier research about the teacher-student relationship (e.g., Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005). Instructional behavior to support students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness involve important clues to take into account in teachers’ pre-service and in-service professional development as well as in curriculum reform and so entail implications for educational policy and practice. Further, the results particularly indicated that perceived teacher involvement (ESautonomy = 0.06, ESstructure = 0.05, ESinvolvement = 0.20) is the most strongly associated factor of teacher behavior with students’ intrinsic reading motivation. Perhaps teachers spontaneously put most effort in an interpersonal involvement with their students, as was indicated in prior research with late elementary school teachers (De Naeghel et al., 2012a). This corroborates the significance of teachers’ investing personal resources, expressing affection, and enjoying time with students (i.e., involvement; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Reeve et al., 2004; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005) and points at the importance of autonomy support and structure as promising strategies. It should be noted, however, that students’ perceived teacher involvement was based on their perception of the behavior of most of their current school teachers, whereas teacher autonomy support and structure was measured in a specific relation to their native language teachers. Therefore, students’ perceived teacher involvement could not be attributed to the observed instructional behavior of their native language teachers only. What is remarkable is that 14.07 % of the overall variability in students’ intrinsic reading motivation was linked to differences between schools. This points to the significance of addressing the promotion of adolescents’ intrinsic reading motivation in the approach and policy of the school. In this respect, previous research (De Naeghel and Van Keer, 2013; Steckel, 2009) indicates the important role of literacy

123


coaches who guide teachers, support the school literacy program, as well as organize reading promotion activities for students. Gender, socioeconomic status, and educational track The results further indicated an association between students’ background characteristics (i.e., gender, socioeconomic status, and educational track) and their intrinsic reading motivation. Consistent with previous findings (Logan & Johnston, 2009; OECD, 2010a; van Schooten & de Glopper, 2002), boys reported significantly lower levels of intrinsic reading motivation than girls. Furthermore, in line with the international PISA results (OECD, 2010a), socioeconomically advantaged students enjoyed reading more than their socioeconomically more disadvantaged peers. In particular, the positive association between students’ advantaged socioeconomic status and intrinsic reading motivation was more pronounced with respect to students attending the general secondary education track. In addition, students in a technical and vocational track reported lower levels of intrinsic reading motivation as compared to their peers in the general track, with students in the vocational track reporting the lowest scores. Given that students in the vocational track are on average more socioeconomically disadvantaged as well as lower on their intrinsic reading motivation, further research on motivational interventions for these students will certainly be worthwhile. As students in the vocational track perceived their native language teachers to be the least autonomy-supportive and least structured, these motivational interventions could focus on providing the necessary knowledge and skills to enhance their language teachers’ autonomy-supportive and structuring behavior in vocational secondary education. Given the significant relationship of gender, socio-economic status, and educational track with intrinsic reading motivation, the present study also evaluated whether the relation of autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior with students’ intrinsic reading motivation differs according to these background characteristics. The results pointed out that the positive association between teachers’ autonomy support and students’ intrinsic reading motivation is particularly true for girls. Furthermore, students in a technical secondary education track reported less positive though still significant associations between perceived teacher involvement and intrinsic reading motivation (ES = 0.16) than students in the general track (ES = 0.27). Limitations and further research Four limitations related to the present study should be acknowledged. First, the present study focuses on students’ reading enjoyment and interest in reading (i.e., intrinsic reading motivation) in line with the conceptualization of reading motivation in the PISA 2009 reading framework. Although previous research clearly emphasizes the importance of students’ intrinsic reading motivation (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Reeve & Deci, 1996), it should be noted that teachers cannot always build on students’ intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Indeed, for many students, not all school-related tasks are inherently interesting or enjoyable.

123


Moreover, in six of the eleven items of the adopted PISA-scale for intrinsic reading motivation there is an explicit reference to books (OECD, 2009). As stated in the introduction, the reading activities of adolescents involve various text genres (e.g., novels, comics, informative books, journals) and topics, which are represented in different printed and digital media. The explicit reference to books in the related items may have caused that students reflected on their motivation to read books in particular. Further research could address a broader conceptualization of adolescents’ reading motivation, also taking into account extrinsic types of reading motivation (De Naeghel et al., 2012c; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and considering reading in a broader sense (i.e., varied text genres and media; OECD, 2009). Second, not all Flemish educational tracks were investigated in the present study. This study focuses on the general, technical, and vocational education track in particular. Other educational tracks (e.g., artistic secondary education track and special secondary education track) could not be included due to the small number of students sampled in the Flemish PISA 2009 dataset. Future research could take these tracks into account by oversampling. Third, we should be cautious when discussing the directions of effects in our models, since cross-sectional data were used. To explore and uncover causal relationships, future research should adopt a longitudinal design that could start from observations in primary school and continue with a focus on the secondary school context where a large number of educational variables change, next to changes in learners themselves. Moreover, next to gender, socioeconomic background, and educational track other variables such as peer involvement in reading activities or prior reading achievement could be taken into account. Fourth, in the present study, measures about teachers’ autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved behavior built on student perceptions. Actual behavior should be studied by means of observations, in combination with teacher interviews. These additional measures should—given the results of the present study—focus on differences between native language teachers in different educational tracks. Nevertheless, building on students’ perceived teacher behavior, is also relevant since it can be more strongly associated with students’ intrinsic reading motivation.

Conclusions Reading motivation and particularly students’ intrinsic reading motivation is a key factor in successful reading (OECD, 2010a; Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). In an attempt to inform educational policy on strategies to enhance the limited intrinsic reading motivation in a considerable amount of adolescents (OECD, 2010a), the present study examined the role of teacher behavior in encouraging students’ reading enjoyment and interest in reading. The results of the present study reconfirm the significance of autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Interestingly, the positive association of teachers’ interpersonal involvement with their students’ intrinsic reading motivation stands out. In addition, it should be noted that teachers’ autonomy support was particularly related to the intrinsic reading motivation of girls. Moreover, it could be important to invest in the promotion of autonomy-

123


supportive and structured teaching behavior in vocational secondary education in particular, as students in the vocational education track were on average more socioeconomically disadvantaged as well as lower on intrinsic reading motivation and perceived their native language teachers to provide the lowest levels of autonomy support and structure.

References Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes in development: Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 167–216). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_ 01. De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., & Vanderlinde, R. (2012a). Strategies for promoting autonomous reading motivation: A multiple case study research in elementary education. Manuscript submitted for publication. De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., & Aelterman, N. (2012b). Promoting elementary school students’ autonomous reading motivation: Effects of teacher professional development focused on an autonomy-supportive and structuring teaching style. Manuscript submitted for publication. De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012c). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1006–1021. doi:10.1037/a0027800. De Naeghel, J., & Van Keer, H. (2013). The relation of student and class-level characteristics to primary school students’ autonomous reading motivation: A multilevel approach. Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 351–370. doi:10.1111/jrir.12000. Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 50, 14–25. Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Engaging adolescents in reading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85. doi:10.1080/ 10573560308203. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42, 237–250. doi:10.1080/00461520701621087. 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. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Holloway, J. H. (1999). Improving the reading skills of adolescents. Educational Leadership, 57, 80–82. Hox, J. J. (1994). Applied multilevel analysis. Amsterdam: TT-publikaties. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588–600. doi:10.1037/A0019682. Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417–442. Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 199–214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008. 01389.x. Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: Evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 240–268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x.

123

J. De Naeghel et al. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Organisation for Economic Cooperation, Development [OECD]. (2002). Reading for change. Performance and engagement across countries. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264099289-en. Organisation for Economic Cooperation, Development [OECD]. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics, and science. Paris: OECD Publishing. Organisation for Economic Cooperation, Development [OECD]. (2010a). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn: Student engagement, strategies and practices (Volume III). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10. 1787/9789264083943-en. Organisation for Economic Cooperation, Development [OECD]. (2010b). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming social background. Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Volume II). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264091504-en. Organisation for Economic Co-operation, Development [OECD]. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264006416-en. Reeve, J. (2009). Understanding motivation and emotion (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 24–33. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169. doi:10.1023/B: MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f. 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. Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249. doi:10.1177/027243169401400207. Santa, C. M., Williams, C. K., Ogle, D., Farstrup, A. E., Au, K. H., Baker, B. M., et al. (2000). Excellent reading teachers: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 193–199. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacherbehavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571. Steckel, B. (2009). Fulfilling the promise of literacy coaches in urban schools: What does it take to make an impact? The Reading Teacher, 63, 14–23. doi:10.1598/RT.63.1.2. Taboada, A., Tonks, S., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 85–106. doi:10. 1007/s11145-008-9133-y. Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 94–102. Van Elsa¨cker, W. (2002). Begrijpend lezen: Een onderzoek naar de invloed van strategiegebruik, leesmotivatie, vrijetijdslezen en andere factoren op het begrijpend lezen van eerste en tweede taalleerders in de middenbouw van het basisonderwijs [Reading comprehension: Studying the impact of strategy use, reading motivation, leisure time reading and other aspects on the reading comprehension of first and second language learners in the middle years of elementary education]. Amsterdam: Stichting Lezen. Van Keer, H. (2004). Fostering reading comprehension in fifth grade by explicit instruction in reading strategies and peer tutoring. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 37–70. doi:10.1348/ 000709904322848815. van Schooten, E., & de Glopper, K. (2002). The relation between attitude toward reading adolescent literature and literary reading behavior. Poetics, 30, 169–194. doi:10.1016/S0304-422X(02)00010-4. Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2007). Willen, moeten en structuur in de klas: Over het stimuleren van een optimaal leerproces [Willingness, need and structure in the classroom: About the stimulation of an optimal learning process]. Begeleid Zelfstandig Leren, 16, 37–58. Wang, J. H. Y., & 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.

123

Teacher behavior and intrinsic reading motivation Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432. doi:10.1037/0022-0663. 89.3.420. Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., et al. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 432–445. doi:10.1002/Pits.2030. Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher student-relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 34, 6–24. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.003.

123