This study was an investigation of the impact of motivation to read on reading gains of struggling readers with and without specific learning disabilities (LD) who were exposed to a structured, research-based daily reading program over an 18-week period. Participants included 13 students with LD and 25 students without disabilities from two middle schools and one high school in a U.S. Midwestern state. In this study, motivation to read was assessed by the Adolescent Motivation to Read Survey, and reading achievement was measured by the Scholastic Reading Inventory. The impact of motivation to read on reading gains was evaluated by conducting analyses with the bootstrap method of resampling. The results yielded significant reading gains for all students with and without LD but indicated a significant relationship only between pretest reading scores and improvements in motivation of students without disabilities. In addition, results showed a significant improvement in reading motivation only for students without disabilities.
BhatP.GriffinC. C.SindelarT. (2003). Phonological awareness instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 73–87.
2.
BiancarosaC.SnowC. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
3.
ChapmanJ. W.TunmerW. E.ProchnowJ. E. (2000). Early reading-related skills and performance, reading self-concept, and the development of academic self-concept: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 703–708.
4.
DentonC. A.VaughnS. (2008). Reading and writing intervention for older students with disabilities: Possibilities and challenges. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 61–62.
5.
DeshlerD. D.PalincsarA. S.BiancarosaG.NairM. (2007). Informed choices for struggling readers: A research-based guide to instructional programs and practices. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
6.
EfronB.TibshiraniR. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
7.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.KazdanS. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on high school students with serious reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 309–318.
8.
GambrellL. B.PalmerB. M.CodlingR. M.MazzoniS. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. Reading Teacher, 49, 518–533.
9.
GriggW.DonahueP.DionG. (2007). The nation’s report card: 12th-grade reading and mathematics 2005 (NCES 2007–468). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007468
10.
GuthrieJ. T. (2008). Reading motivation and engagement in middle and high school. In GuthrieJ. T. (Ed.), Engaging adolescents in reading (pp. 1–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
GuthrieJ. T.HumenickN. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In McCardleP.ChhabraV. (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329–354). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
12.
HarwellJ. M.JacksonR. W. (2008). The complete learning disabilities handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
IveyG. (1998). Discovering readers in the middle level school: A few helpful clues. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 48–56.
15.
KnutsonK. A. (2008). Using the SRI to predict reading performance levels in California. New York, NY: Scholastic.
16.
LairdJ.CataldiE. F.KewalRamaniA.ChapmanC. (2008). Dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2006 (NCES 2008-053). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008053.pdf
17.
LaneG. G. (2000, January). The beginner’s guide to the bootstrap method of resampling. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED458265)
18.
LeeJ.GriggW.DonahueP. (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007–496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007496
LenzB. K.DeshlerD. D. (2004). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Revisiting the educator’s enigma. In WongB. Y. L. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 535–564). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
21.
McKennaM. C.KearD. J.EllsworthR. A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934–956.
22.
MercerC. D.CampbellK. U.MillerM. D.MercerK. D.LaneH. B. (2000). Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 179–189.
23.
MojeE. B.YoungJ. P.ReadenceJ. E.MooreD. W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 400–410.
24.
MorganP. L.SideridisG. D. (2006). Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: A multilevel random coefficient modeling meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 191–210.
25.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2008). Adolescent literacy and older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 211–218.
26.
NelsonJ. M.Manset-WilliamsonG. (2006). The impact of explicit, self-regulatory reading comprehension strategy instruction on the reading-specific self-efficacy attributions, and affect of students with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 213–230.
27.
NewmanL. (2006, July). Facts from NLTS2: General education participation and academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2006_07.pdf
28.
PitcherS. M.AlbrightL. K.DeLaneyC. J.WalkerN. T.SeunarinesinghK.MoggeS.. . . DunstonP. J. (2007). Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 378–396.
29.
Scholastic Office of Educational Assistance. (2003a, October). Scholastic Reading Inventory aligns to enhancing education through technology criteria. New York, NY: Author.
30.
Scholastic Office of Educational Assistance. (2003b, December). Scholastic Reading Inventory interactive version aligns to reading first criteria. New York, NY: Author.
31.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
32.
SideridisG. D.MouzakiA.SimosP.ProtopapasA. (2006). Classification of students with reading comprehension difficulties: The roles of motivation, affect, and psychopathology. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 159–180.
StrommenL. T.MatesB. F. (2004). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older children and teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 188–200.
35.
TaylorR. T. (2006). Before reading next: READ 180—An alignment of READ 180 and reading next. New York, NY: Scholastic.
36.
TherrienW. J.GormleyS.KubinaR. M. (2006). Boosting fluency and comprehension to improve reading achievement. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 22–26.
37.
TorgesenJ. K.HoustonD. D.RissmanL. M.DeckerS. M.RobertsG.VaughnS.. . . LesauxN. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
38.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Twenty-eighth annual (2006) report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Author.
39.
ValleleyR. J.ShriverM. D. (2003). An examination of the effects of repeated readings with secondary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 55–76.
40.
WagnerM.MarderC.BlackorbyJ.CametoR.NewmanL.LevineP.. . . Davies-MercerE. (2003). The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondary school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2003_11/nlts2_report_2003_11_complete.pdf
41.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.GarzaN.LevineP. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_complete.pdf
