This study examined the effect of reading at an instructional level (reading 93%–97% of the words accurately) and situational interest on time on task with 122 sixth grade students. Students were assigned to one of three conditions to silently read a passage that contained 0% scrambled words (independent level), 5% scrambled words (instructional level), or 15% scrambled words (frustration level). Each student also rated their situational interest in reading the passage by examining the title and two pictures about the passage before reading it. The task difficulty condition, situational interest, and interaction of both all significantly predicted time on task while reading the passage. Time on task was highest for the instructional level condition of 5% scrambled words, but the rating of situational interest accounted for the most variance.
AngeloT. A.CrossK. P. (2012). Classroom assessment techniques. Jossey Bass Wiley.
2.
BanduraA. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44.
3.
BeattieS.FakehyM.WoodmanT. (2014). Examining the moderating effects of time on task and task complexity on the within person self-efficacy and performance relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(6), 605–610.
4.
BeaverJ. M.CarterM. A. (2006). The developmental reading assessment–second edition (DRA2). Pearson.
5.
BernackiM. L.WalkingtonC. (2018). The role of situational interest in personalized learning. Journal of Education & Psychology, 110(6), 864–881.
6.
BettsE. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction. American Book Company.
7.
BramlettR.CatesG. L.SavinaE.LauingerB. (2010). Assessing effectiveness and efficiency of academic interventions in school psychology journals: 1995–2005. Psychology in the Schools, 47(2), 114–125.
8.
BunchM. B. (2017). Test review of the basic reading inventory. In CarlsonJ. F.GeisingerK. F.JonsonJ. L. (Eds.), The twentieth mental measurements yearbook (11th ed., pp. 112–113). Buros Center for Testing.
9.
BurnsM. K. (2004). Using curriculum-based assessment in consultation: A review of three levels of research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15(1), 63–78.
10.
BurnsM. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(3), 297–313.
11.
BurnsM. K.KwokaH.LimB.CroneM.HaegeleK.ParkerD. C.PetersenS.ScholinS. E. (2011). Minimum reading fluency necessary for comprehension among second-grade students. Psychology in the Schools, 48(2), 124–132.
12.
BurnsM. K.ParkerD. C. (2014). Curriculum-based assessment for instructional design: Using data to individualize instruction. Guilford Publications.
13.
BurnsM. K.PullesS. M.MakiK. E.KaniveR.HodgsonJ.HelmanL. A.McComasJ. J.PreastJ. L. (2015). Accuracy of student performance while reading leveled books rated at their instructional level by a reading inventory. Journal of School Psychology, 53(6), 437–445.
14.
BurnsM. K.TuckerJ. A.FrameJ.FoleyS.HauserA. (2000). Interscorer, alternate- form, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of Gickling's model of curriculum-based assessment for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18(4), 353–360.
15.
DentonC. A.BarthA. E.FletcherJ. M.WexlerJ.VaughnS.CirinoP. T.RomainM.FrancisD. J. (2011). The relations among oral and silent reading fluency and comprehension in middle school: Implications for identification and instruction of students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(2), 109–135.
16.
DeweyJ. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Forgotten Books.
17.
DorfnerT.FörtschC.NeuhausB. J. (2018). Effects of three basic dimensions of instructional quality on students’ situational interest in sixth-grade biology instruction. Learning and Instruction, 56, 42–53.
18.
EdWeek Research Center. (2020). Early reading instruction: Results of a national survey. Editorial Projects in Education.
19.
FountasI. C.PinnellG. S. (2007). Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment system 2. Heinemann.
20.
FountasI. C.PinnellG. S. (2006). Leveled books (k-8): Matching texts to readers for effective teaching. Heinemann Educational Books.
21.
FraserB. J.WalbergH. J.WelchW. W.HattieJ. A. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 147–252.
22.
FulmerS. M.FrijtersJ. C. (2011). Motivation during an excessively challenging reading task: The buffering role of relative topic interest. Journal of Experiential Education, 79(2), 185–208.
23.
GandyS. E. (2013). Informal reading inventories and ELL students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 29(3), 271–287.
24.
GicklingE. E.ArmstrongD. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(9), 559–566.
25.
GodwinK. E.AlmedaM. V.SeltmanH.KaiS.SkerbetzM. D.BakerR. S.FisherA. V. (2016). Off-task behavior in elementary school children. Learning and Instruction, 44, 128–143.
26.
GromadaA.ShewbridgeC C. (2016). Student learning time: A literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 127, OECD Publishing, Paris.
27.
GuoY. M.KleinB. D.RoY. K. (2020). On the effects of student interest, self-efficacy, and perceptions of the instructor on flow, satisfaction, and learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 45(7), 1413–1430. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1593348
28.
HarackiewiczJ. M.SmithJ. L.PriniskiS. J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220–227.
29.
HermanK. C.ReinkeW. M.DongN.BradshawC. P. (2022). Can effective classroom behavior management increase student achievement in middle school? Findings from a group randomized trial. Journal of Education & Psychology, 114(1), 144–160.
30.
HintzeJ. M.VolpeR. J.ShapiroE. S. (2002). Best practices in the systematic direct observation of student behavior. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 993–1006). National Association of School Psychologists.
31.
HoffmanJ. V. (2017). What if “just right” is just wrong? The unintended consequences of leveling readers. Reading Teacher, 71(3), 265–273.
KimY. S.WagnerR. K.LopezD. (2012). Developmental relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from Grade 1 to Grade 2. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(1), 93–111.
34.
KrappA.HidiS.RenningerK. A. (2014). Interest, learning and development. In RenningerK. A.HidiS.KrappA.RenningerA. (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25). Psychology Press.
35.
KupiainenS.VainikainenM.-P.MarjanenJ.HautamäkiJ. (2014). The role of time on task in computer-based low-stakes assessment of cross-curricular skills. Journal of Education & Psychology, 106(3), 627–638.
36.
LeeY. S.Jonson-ReidM. (2016). The role of self-efficacy in reading achievement of young children in urban schools. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33, 79–89.
37.
LeiH.CuiY.ZhouW. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 46(3), 517–528.
38.
Linnenbrink-GarciaL.PatallE. A.MessersmithE. E. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of situational interest. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 591–614.
39.
MatherN.HammillD. D.AllenE. A.RobertsR. (2004). Test of Silent Word Reading fluency. Pro-Ed.
40.
McKennaM.StahlS. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. Guilford Press.
MorrisD.MeyerC.TrathenW.McGeeJ.VinesN.StewartT.GillT.SchlagalR. (2017). The simple view, instructional level, and the plight of struggling fifth-sixth-grade readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 278–289.
43.
NilssonN. L. (2013). The reliability of informal reading inventories: What has changed?Reading and Writing Quarterly, 29(3), 208–230.
44.
NuutilaK.TapolaA.TuominenH.KupiainenS.PásztorA.NiemivirtaM. (2020). Reciprocal predictions between interest, self-efficacy, and performance during a task. Frontiers in Education, 5, 36.
45.
ParkerD. C.BurnsM. K. (2014). Using the instructional level as a criterion to target reading interventions. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 30(1), 79–94.
46.
PolirstokS. (2017). Strategies to improve academic achievement in secondary school students: Perspectives on grit and mindset. Sage Open, 7(4), 2158244017745111.
47.
PowerJ.LynchR.McGarrO. (2020). Difficulty and self-efficacy: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 281–296.
48.
RaynerK.WhiteS. J.JohnsonR. L.LiversedgeS. P. (2006). Raeding wrods with jubmled lettres: There is a cost. Psychological Science, 17(3), 192–193.
49.
RobertsM. (2001). Off-task behavior in the classroom: Applying FBA and CBM. Communiqué, 30, 1–3.
50.
RotgansJ. I.SchmidtH. G. (2017a). The role of interest in learning: Knowledge acquisition at the intersection of situational and individual interest. In O’KeefeP. A.HarackiewiczJ. M. (Eds.), The science of interest (pp. 69–93). Springer.
51.
RotgansJ. I.SchmidtH. G. (2017b). Interest development: Arousing situational interest affects the growth trajectory of individual interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 175–184.
52.
SchererR.GreiffS.HautamäkiJ. (2015). Exploring the relation between time on task and ability in complex problem solving. Intelligence, 48, 37–50.
53.
SchmidtH. G.RotgansJ. I. (2021). Epistemic curiosity and situational interest: Distant cousins or identical twins?Educational Psychology Review, 33, 325–352.
SeokS.DaCostaB. (2014). Oral reading fluency as a predictor of silent reading fluency at secondary and postsecondary levels. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 157–166.
ShapiroE. S. (2010). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. Guilford Press.
58.
SitzmannT.YeoG. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the within-person self-efficacy domain: Is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance?. Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 531–568.
59.
TapolaA.JaakkolaT.NiemivirtaM. (2014). The influence of achievement goal orientations and task concreteness on situational interest. Journal of Experiential Education, 82(4), 455–479.
60.
ThissenB. A. K.SchlotzW.AbelC.ScharingerM.FrielerK.MerrillJ.HaiderT.MenninghausW. (2021). At the heart of optimal reading experiences: Cardiovascular activity and flow experiences in fiction reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(3), 831–845.
61.
TreptowM. A.BurnsM. K.McComasJ. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students’ reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 159–166.
62.
TulisM.FulmerS. M. (2013). Students’ motivational and emotional experiences and their relationship to persistence during academic challenge in mathematics and reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 35–46.
63.
WigfieldA.CambriaJ. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30(1), 1–35.
64.
WilliamsN. A.NelsonK. L.RasmussenC. L.AlexanderM.RicksA. H. (2017). Decreasing the off-task behavior of reluctant adolescent readers during sustained silent reading through book interest and ability matching. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 17(1), 40–50.
