Modelling the Reading Process of First-Year VMBO Students: Understanding Students’ Motivation to Read in English

(1)

Modelling the Reading Process of

First-Year VMBO Students

Understanding Students’ Motivation to Read in English

Levi Blokdijk

Student number: 500523458

Study: English Teaching Bachelor, HvA, DOO HvA research supervisor: Keith Groot

Internship institution: SG Nelson Mandela, Purmerend Internship coach: Marielle Admiraal

Research year: 2014-2015 BA English Teaching

(2)

2

Samenvatting (summary)

Dit onderzoek is in het Engels uitgevoerd. De samenvatting is het enige onderdeel van mijn onderzoek wat in het Nederlands geschreven is.

Binnen de SG Nelson Mandela, de school waar dit onderzoek uitgevoerd is, lijkt er een gebrek aan leesmotivatie te zijn binnen de lessen. De leerlingen tonen geen interesse in de leesstof die wordt behandeld tijdens de lessen. Daarentegen lezen de leerlingen wel Engelse tijdschriften, boeken en websites, wat er op zou wijzen dat de leerlingen wel geïnteresseerd zijn in het lezen. De andere collega’s van de Engels ondervinden dezelfde uitingen van demotivatie onder hun leerlingen. Deze tegenstrijdige waarnemingen vormden de aanleiding voor dit onderzoek.

Om de data te verzamelen is er gebruik gemaakt van een enquête. De enquête is uitgedeeld aan drie verschillende eerste jaar VMBO basis klassen. Van de 93 ingevulde enquêtes bleken er 90 bruikbaar te zijn. Deze 90 leerlingen hebben antwoord gegeven op 41 beweringen, verdeeld onder drie verschillende segmenten. De enquête is onderverdeeld in drie segmenten om zo data te verzamelen voor de drie verschillende deelvragen.

Opvallend is dat er een meerderheid, met 65%, van de leerlingen gemotiveerd wordt vanuit de schoolomgeving. Dit geeft aan dat de schoolomgeving een belangrijke rol speelt in het motiveren van leerlingen, en om ze aan het lezen te krijgen. Nog geen 30% van de leerlingen zijn van zichzelf gemotiveerd om te lezen. Van de ondervraagde leerlingen waren er bijna geen die niet enige vorm van leesmotivatie bezitten. Dit is misschien wel de belangrijkste bevinding van dit onderzoek, omdat het aangeeft dat er voor elk leerling een aanpak bestaat om ze aan het lezen te krijgen. Naast onderzoek naar de leesmotivatie van de leerlingen is er getoetst of de karakter eigenschappen van de leerlingen invloed hadden op hun

leesmotivatie tegenover het lezen in het Engels. De data bleek echter niet voldoende te zijn om betrouwbare conclusies te trekken. Verder onderzoek naar de karakter eigenschappen en de invloed hiervan op Engelse leesmotivatie zal nodig zijn om te achterhalen of er een verband is.

De resultaten van dit onderzoek lenen zich om verder onderzoek te doen naar hoe de leesmotivatie bevorderd kan worden. Nu er een duidelijk beeld geschetst is van de

subcategorieën van leesmotivatie die de leerlingen bezitten kan er nagedacht worden over leesstof die goed aansluit op de individuele benodigdheden van de leerlingen. Verder

onderzoek naar de oorsprong van de leesmotivatie van de leerlingen zou ook gunstig zijn om te achterhalen hoe de leesmotivatie kan worden gestimuleerd.

(3)

3

1. Problem statement

1.1. School context

The school where this study has been performed is the SG Nelson Mandela, which is a high-school focused on practical education in Purmerend, The Netherlands. The high-school counts over 450 students, separated over four different years of high school. Students who study at the SG Nelson Mandela can choose to finish their four years at the same school, focusing on the theoretical based form of VMBO, or they can choose to finish the last two years of their high-school education at one of the two neighboring high-schools; the SG Antoni Gaudi, which also focuses on a more theoretical path of VMBO, or the SG Gerrit Rietveld, focusing on the practical form of VMBO. All of the three schools are part of the ‘PSG’ – Purmerend School Group (translation of the Dutch Purmerendse Scholen Gemeenschap). The campus was formed to house the majority of VMBO students in Purmerend. Since the majority of VMBO students attend one of the three schools connected to this campus, the student group is a good representation of the lower level high-school students from the region. The classes are taught according to the guidelines of Dalton education, providing the students with the power to partially determine which subjects they learn. Most of the time there are standard class based lessons which last 75 minutes, in which students do not have the choice of subject. Each day there is one specific lesson in which the students are allowed to determine which subject they will study. Furthermore, students are prompted to work towards personal goals, and study independently, albeit with the help from their set out class modules. The main focus of this type of education is to promote student independency and decision making.

The school population consists of approximately 65% native students (students with two Dutch parents/caregivers) and 35% foreign students (students with at least one foreign parent/caregiver). Multiculturalism is apparent, and a minority of students is either bilingual or trilingual. Although English is taught as a second language, along with the optional choices of German or French as third language, many students also practice a separate language at home.

1.2. Problem

Many students at the SG Nelson Mandela will complain during reading assignments of tests. The students will find the work either too difficult, too boring, or that it takes too much time to read. Not only did I find this in my own classes, co-workers from the English faculty would also complain about the lack of interest in doing the work, or reading in English. Surprisingly, I found that many of my students were busy reading things online on English forums, playing English games with English written text, secretly reading magazines, or even books, in

English during my classes. The signals were contradictory, and the desire to understand my students’ actual motivation towards reading in English was the reason to choose this subject. Not a lot of research has been performed in an attempt to understand L21_reading

motivation, however motivation has been viewed to play a relatively minor role in L2

(5)

5 reading, as compared to motivation playing a stronger role in L1 reading (Huang, 2006). Research with L1 readers indicate that there is a strong correlation between motivation and reading habits, such as an increased amount of in- and out of school reading, reading comprehension, and reading skill (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2007; Lau & Chan, 2003; Medford & McGeown, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Recent research supports the multidimensional nature of L2 reading motivation, and confirms the importance of intrinsic motivation in explaining L2 reading motivation (Komiyama, 2013). Although Komiyama’s research targeted audience was L2 adult readers, it displays that motivation does in fact play a role in L2 reading. The theoretical framework for this study incorporates different aspects of motivation; intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation, and personality traits, in an attempt to understand my students’ motivation towards reading in English.

The goal of this study is to model my students’ motivation towards reading in English. The study can be placed in the diagnosis section of the intervention cycle constructed by Verschuren (2009), since there is little known over my students’ actual motivation towards reading in English. This study is a diagnosis of that problem. Although this study strictly diagnoses the motivation of my students, the results may assist in gaining a better

understanding of what motivates my students to read in English and help me as a teacher to create school material that they will take an interest in. This will help in increasing student participation and involvement during reading assignments. By being aware of their

motivation towards reading I may be able to play upon this knowledge, and possibly improve aspects of their motivation towards reading in English, ultimately showing them not only the importance of reading in English, but also the enjoyment that can be obtained from reading in- and out of school.

(6)

6

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Motivation

In gaining an understanding of how students decide to read, or not, we must first look at their motivation, and how motivational choices influence how often a student reads, what the student is reading and when he or she is reading.

To be motivated means to be moved to do something. A person who is unwilling towards doing something is characterized as being unmotivated, whereas a person who works at something with passion is considered motivated. Motivation or lack of such plays an important part in almost everybody’s life. Almost everyone who works or plays with others are concerned with motivation. People judge others whether or not they are as motivated towards the same task, and treat each other differently according to their own judgements. Most theories of motivation see it as a unitary phenomenon, either identifying somebody having low or high motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

However, brief reflection shows that there is much more to motivation. There are not only different amounts of motivation, but also different kinds of motivation. That is, it can vary in the level of motivation (i.e., how much motivation), but also in the orientation of that

motivation (i.e., what type of motivation). For example, one student may be motivated towards a subject in class due to self-interest and curiosity, and another student is

motivated towards the same subject because of a desire to acquire a good grade to impress his/her parents. In both cases the students are motivated, and the level of motivation does not really vary. The orientation of their motivation lies the difference. The first student’s motivation is derived from an internal desire for knowledge, whereas the second student mentioned is driven by the promise of reward.

There are many possible ways to distinguish between the different types of motivation. The most basic and wide-used distinction is made between intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or joyful, and extrinsic motivation, which refers to doing something because it leads to a separable outcome (Medford & McGeown, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000). It is both of these types of motivation amongst students that I am interested in. It is important to know what has a positive effect on a student’s motivation, and which possible drawbacks it can have. In this way I can see which aspects of my student’s motivation is high, and use this information to my advantage when constructing new reading assignments or tests.

2.2. Intrinsic reading motivation

Reading as a pastime activity for high school students is often considered as dull and a slow undertaking. The students who are inclined to start reading and explore the available texts for their own pleasure most often are intrinsically motivated to do so (Hidi, 2000). These students are found to get involved with reading and invest larger amounts of time doing so for their own pleasure. They continue to read, persist in coping with difficulties and want to master the required skills (Deci, 1992). These cognitive and emotional satisfactions

(7)

7 subsequently lead readers to invest greater amounts of time in reading. It is this group of students that eventually become self-determined in reading tasks.

Not only does intrinsic reading motivation lead to reading as a hobby, spark a students’ interest in reading, and help to develop a students’ reading comprehension in the long run (Wang, & Guthrie, 2004). Intrinsic reading motivation can also have a positive short-term effect on a students’ reading comprehension. In a recent study they showed that intrinsic motivation played an important role amongst students with a low level of reading

comprehension to still perform during reading comprehension assessment tests, although an improved intrinsic reading motivation amongst the students with a high level of reading comprehension did not make a difference on their results (Logan, Medford & Hughes, 2011). This shows that although intrinsic reading motivation can improve a readers’ skill, it may likely come from the self-determined desire of a student to read more, and thus improve one’s reading skills. However, intrinsic motivation itself can make a difference for the lower level reader when completing reading comprehension tasks, due to the fact they are

interested in the text and go to work with certain seriousness and a desire to perform. Although intrinsic reading motivation has an effect on a students’ reading habits and reading comprehension, it is also important to understand where a student’s intrinsic motivation comes from. It’s not as simple as saying that student A is just more inclined to enjoy reading that student B. There are factors that come in to play that contribute to a student’s intrinsic motivation towards reading, such as reading self-concept and the personal traits of a student.

Reading self-concept, an individual’s own belief or estimates in how competent they are at reading, is considered to be one of the main components in a children’s motivation to read (Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996; Morgan & Fuchs, 2007). Children’s self-perception of reading is considered to positively influence their intrinsic reading motivation (Bouffard, Marcoux, Vezeau, & Bordeleau, 2003) as children with a higher reading concept will be more likely to engage in reading tasks than children with a low reading self-concept. The idea is that when a child perceives him-/herself to be good at reading, or any other task, they will likely be more interested in investing more time in such a skill, and enjoy it more as well.

The reading self-concept of students is thought to not only play an important role in students’ motivation to read, but also their competence in completing challenging reading tasks (Seifert, 2004). In theory, students who have a high reading self-concept will enjoy the challenge of completing a reading task, creating a larger chance of success since the students are doing their best to complete the task. Whereas a student with a low reading self-concept will go to work with the feeling they could never possibly complete the task, effectively lowering their chance of successfully completing the reading task.

The reading self-concept of students is thought to be influenced by results achieved in the past (Aunola, et al., 2002). A student who consequently experiences failure with reading tasks is prone to become discouraged towards reading and consequently their reading motivation and self-concept will decline. Alternatively, a student who has a high rate of

(8)

8 success with reading tasks is likely to enjoy the experience, associate pleasure with reading, improve their motivation towards reading and increase their reading self-concept (Medford, & McGeown, 2012; Logan & Johnston, 2009; Retelsdorf, Köller, & Möller, 2011). It is here for important to be aware of students’ past experiences with reading, and actively assess their attitudes towards assignments in order to create a positive reading self-concept amongst students.

We can see that the reading self-concept plays an important role in the students’ intrinsic reading motivation, however it is not a sole factor. In theory, the personality traits of individual students also play a role in a students’ intrinsic motivation to read (Medford, & McGeown, 2012). More information on personality traits and their influence on student reading motivation can be read further down the theoretical framework.

2.3. Extrinsic reading motivation

Studies show that intrinsic motivation in regard to reading can have a positive effect on their reading comprehension skill, performance with reading tasks, and further academic success (Logan, Medford & Hughes, 2011; Hidi, 2000), however on the other hand, we have extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation has been proved to provide a negative effect on a students’ overall motivation and reading comprehension skill (Wang, & Guthrie, 2004).

In the study performed by Wang, & Guthrie (2004) they examined the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading amongst U.S. and Chinese students. It was concluded that extrinsic motivation had a direct negative association with the students’ reading comprehension after other factors such as; past reading achievement, intrinsic motivational factors, the amount of in school reading, and amount of reading for enjoyment, were all accounted for. Furthermore, the study showed that extrinsic motivation had a direct negative affect on the students’ enjoyment reading amount, when intrinsic motivation and school reading amounts had been accounted for. A negative correlation between extrinsic motivation and reading comprehension and reading enjoyment was recorded by both nationalities. In the same study it showed that extrinsic motivation had a neutral effect on school reading amount amongst U.S. children, and a negative effect on school reading amongst Chinese students. This was also the only main difference between the two nationalities. It was proven that extrinsic motivation had no noticeable positive effects on the children’s reading habits. The extrinsic motivation tested had almost only negative effects on the student’s overall reading motivation, and the amount of reading they performed in- and outside of school.

Extrinsic motivation is also thought to have a negative long-term effect on student intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001). Expected tangible rewards, such as golden stars, candy, or the promise of a class trip tend to have a negative effect on students’ intrinsic motivation. Although the promise of a reward can have a short term positive effect on student motivation, the long term effects on their intrinsic motivation are profoundly negative. The students would see the tangible rewards as an end and the reading exercises as a means to reach it. Because they associated the reading tasks themselves as work, they were discouraged from regarding reading as a positive thing to do. However, it was shown than verbal rewards did have a beneficial effect on students’ intrinsic motivation. Since the

(9)

9 verbal rewards were an encouragement, they boosted the student’s confidence and thus the students would associate the verbal rewards as a compliment to their intellect, further improving their reading self-concept. Additionally, unexpected tangible rewards also had a positive effect on the students’ intrinsic motivation. Because the students were not

promised anything beforehand the unexpected tangible rewards had the same effect as verbal compliments; they improved the students reading self-concept.

Although according to Deci, Koestner, & Ryan (2001) extrinsic motivation in the form of rewards has a negative effect on students’ intrinsic motivation, besides teachers giving their students verbal praise or unexpected tangible rewards, there are researchers that disagree. According to Cameron (2001), who providing a comment on the research presented by Deci et al. (1999a; 1999b), extrinsic rewards do not necessarily have a negative effect on

students’ intrinsic motivation. Cameron (2001) found that, in accordance with Deci et al.’s (1999a; 1999b) findings, verbal rewards and unexpected tangible rewards had no negative effect on the students’ intrinsic motivation, however results differed on other aspects of the implication of extrinsic motivation. In the aforementioned example is proved that tangible rewards do not necessarily have a negative effect on students’ intrinsic motivation. Cameron (2001) found that the circumstances surrounding the expected rewards played an important role on the effect the rewards had on the students. After examining 145 different studies and applying meta-analysis, she divided tangible rewards into different categories and noted the results. Cameron (2001) found that undermining motivation by providing rewards

depends on the instructions and the statement of contingency.

Students, who were provided a tangible reward for completing a task, or performing well at a task, were not completing the task of their own free will, and thus the tasks and rewards created a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. When rewarded for simply completing the task there was a negative effect on students’ self-reported task interest, thus a decrease in motivation to perform the task in hand, and a decline in intrinsic motivation towards reading in general. Furthermore, it was found that tangible rewards for completing a task could be further detrimental for student when there was a time limit for the task. The time pressure combined with the promise of reward created a negative association with the assignment amongst students, and lack of success could enforce a self-image of failure. However, when students were provided a reward for performing well with a reading task, there was no negative effect on motivation, according to the student self-report measure. Since students were required to complete the assignments, regardless of there being a reward or not, the reward was seen as something extra, and not a given. Additionally, by providing students with a reward for performing well there was an increase in task interest, and no significant effect on free choice.

Deci et al. (2001) showed an overall negative effect for performance-contingent rewards. The performance-contingent category included some studies of rewards offered for each unit solved, rewards offered for doing well, rewards offered for surpassing a score, and rewards offered for exceeding others. By combining these different categories of reward Deci et al. (2001) found an overall negative effect on student motivation. However, when the different subcategories were analysed by Cameron (2001) it showed that not all contingents

(10)

10 provided a negative effect on student intrinsic motivation and that many had either no effect, or a positive effect on student intrinsic motivation.

The difference in results between Deci et al. (1999a; 1999b; 2000) and Cameron (2001) studies can be explained due to the large amount of information collected and the different methods in analysis. Although extrinsic motivation is closely associated with a negative effect on intrinsic motivation, it does not necessarily have to be so in all cases. It depends on the circumstances surrounding the rewards provided.

2.4. Intrinsic & extrinsic reading motivation constructs

Within the terms of intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation there are several sub-facets, or constructs, that were originally created by devised by Wigfield and Guthrie (2004) as an 11 construct framework. Wang and Guthrie (2004) later adapted this framework and

brought the number of constructs back to eight. The remaining eight constructs were strictly limited to intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation. These eight constructs have been widely adopted or adapted in research settings (e.g.; Guthrie et al., 2006; Lau, 2004; Komiyama, 2013). The eight constructs and a short description are listed below. Intrinsic reading motivation constructs:

 Curiosity: The tendency to be curious in reading material, purely for enjoyment of reading.

 Involvement: Being able to be involved with the reading material one is reading. Being able to create mental images of what one is reading or reliving the story in one’s mind.

 Challenge: Reading for the challenge of reading. Seeing reading as a hobby to get better in, and enjoying it for that reason.

Extrinsic reading motivation constructs:

 Recognition: Reading to stand out of a group or receive appraisal from others.  Grades: Reading to better one’s grades; as a mean for further achievement.  Social: To read because of peer pressure from family or friends.

 Competition: Reading to get ahead of others. Seeing reading tasks or tests as a way of proving one’s worth.

 Compliance: Reading because one has to. Usually in the form of school assignment that have to be completed.

Wang and Guthrie (2004) These constructs provide a structured framework that forms a basis for the questionnaire, and general focus of this research, as described later in this study.

(11)

11 2.5. Personality traits

Apart from the students’ experience with reading that determines their intrinsic motivation, there is also the possibility that a student’s underlying personality traits are influencing their motivation towards reading. There are several conceptualisms of personality, however one of the most widely accepted frameworks is the five-dimensional ‘Big 5’ framework, originally constructed by Digman, J.M. (Digman, 1990) and extended to the highest level of

organization by Goldberg, L. (Goldberg, 1990). This framework is referred to throughout the study done by Medford, & McGeown (2012) on the influence of personality traits on intrinsic reading motivation amongst students. Studies done on the influence of personality traits influencing students’ intrinsic reading motivation are limited, however it is an important factor to take into consideration when trying to understand student reading motivation. The Big 5 framework was created to explain the influence of personality traits on academic work. It identifies five main personality factors that explain differences in personality based choices among individuals. The five factors that were constructed are agreeableness, extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experiences, and conscientiousness. The five different factors can be summarized as followed;

 Agreeableness: A tendency to be cooperative and compassionate towards others. Generally friendly and kind, and in compliance with what is asked of them.

 Extraversion: Sociable, energetic, talkative, outgoing, expressive and generally open to conversation. A tendency to seek stimulation from others.

 Neuroticism: The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions, such as anger, depression, anxiety, easily. Generally nervous and/or sensitive towards social interaction and certain situations. Neuroticism also refers to the amount of emotional stability and impulse control a person has.

 Openness to experiences: Appreciation of emotion, art, abstract concepts, curiosity, and variety of experience. Openness reflects the capability of a person to be

intellectually curious, creative and open to novelty. It depicts a preference for a variety of activities, opposed to following a strict routine.

 Conscientiousness: Organized and dependable. A conscientious person is also

organized and dependable. They appreciate achievement and prefer planned, rather than spontaneous behavior.

(Digman, 1990) When looking at these traits there are several that can relate to the sub-facets of reading motivation as described in Clark & Schroth (2010). In the study performed by Medford & McGeown (2012), it was concluded that not all of the personality factors played a noticeable role in a student’s intrinsic motivation. They examined several of the personality factors to see the influence they had on a student’s reading motivation, after accounting for reading skill and self-concept. The conscientiousness, openness to experiences, and agreeableness factors were all linked to having a positive effect on intrinsic motivation among students. Conscientiousness was examined because conscientious children are presumed to be more achievement-oriented and self-disciplined, and therefore more naturally motivated to engage in reading tasks thanks to their desire to better themselves. Children tested with a

(12)

12 high level of openness to experience proved also to be more intrinsic motivated towards reading tasks, since they are more intellectually curious, and therefore might be motivated to read more for gain of knowledge. And lastly, children who are agreeable are more likely to read more during school, in appliance with what many teachers expect of them. All three of the abovementioned personality factors were confirmed by Medford, & McGeown (2012) to be linked to improve intrinsic motivation among the students tested. Although the first two personality traits, conscientiousness and openness to experience, influence intrinsic

motivation, the last one mentioned; children who are agreeable, is more complicated. Although the agreeableness of a person makes them more naturally attracted to completing tasks, since completing said tasks are expected of them, it can be said that they are

intrinsically motivated because the desire to perform these tasks comes from within, and is not decided by external factors. However, it can be said that the agreeable personality trait makes the students easily influenced by external factors, which would mean it also

influences the students’ acceptability towards extrinsic motivation. In a study performed by Karau, Komarraju, & Schmeck (2009) on the academic success of college graduates, although not directly linked to high school students, reports on the correlation between

agreeableness and extrinsic motivation. From their research it was proven that the

personality factor agreeableness was linked to an extrinsic motivation in such a way that it had negative effects on overall motivation.

Furthermore, it was found that there was not a correlation between the children’s personality traits and their reading skill; their underlying personality factors were not decisive whether or not they scored better on tests, however there was a significant and positive correlation between the conscientiousness, openness to experience, and

agreeableness personality traits and their total intrinsic motivation, as mentioned

previously. Of the personality factors, openness to experiences was most closely related to motivation. Conscientiousness and openness to experiences correlated with children’s reading self-concept, however agreeableness did not. Also, openness to experiences and agreeableness also made significant contributions to children’s reading curiosity, whereas only openness to experiences contributed to children’s reading involvement and preference for challenge. Thus, not only do the three personality factors have a direct influence on intrinsic motivation, their influence on a student’s reading self-concept, reading curiosity, reading involvement and preference for challenge are also present. These different aspects of personality traits all tie in closely to an improved intrinsic reading motivation (Medford & McGeown, 2012), but also have implications for extrinsic reading motivation.

The findings in the research performed by Medford & McGeown (2012) and Clark & Schroth (2010) show the importance of underlying personality traits in students for their intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation. Mapping and understanding a student’s personality traits can be essential to understand a student’s overall motivation towards reading.

(13)

13

3. Research Questions

The problem presented in this study is the lack of information regarding student English reading motivation. The main question proposed in this is study, that is a derivation of the problem, is as followed:

 Are my students motivated towards reading in English, in- and outside of school? In essence, the answer to the main question is a summarization of different factors that contribute towards a total of student English reading motivation. Understanding intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation, as described in the theoretical framework, will assist in displaying the current motivation of my students towards reading in English. The possible influence of student personality traits will assist in explaining why students are intrinsically- or extrinsically motivated. Addressing these sub-facets of student reading motivation is essential in order to answer the main question. For each factor contributing to the total student English reading motivation a sub-question has been formulated. The first of these factors tested for in this study is intrinsic reading motivation, and the corresponding sub-question is as followed:

 To what degree are my students intrinsically motivated towards reading in English? The second factor of student reading motivation tested for is extrinsic reading motivation, with the corresponding sub-question:

 To what degree are my students extrinsically motivated towards reading in English? The third and final sub-question of this study is:

 Do certain student personality traits influence their intrinsic- and extrinsic motivation, and if so, how can we make use of this knowledge?

The last sub-question differs from the other two; in that the answer does not report on the level of motivation. The personality traits have been shown to influence intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation (e.g.; Clark & Schroth, 2010; Medford & McGeown, 2012). For this reason this sub-question has been included in this study. The information gained by answering this last sub-question could possibly help in understanding trends in student intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation, and why a certain student is more prone to being either intrinsically- or extrinsically motivated towards reading in English.

(14)

14

4. Method and Instrument

4.1. Type of research

In order gather information on my students’ motivation towards reading in English I have chosen to use a survey based quantitative research method, as described in Harinck (2008). This empirical method helps to gain insight in my students’ total motivation towards reading in English. The same method of research has previously been used by various researchers (e.g.; Komiyama, 2013, Lau, 2004; Lin et al., 2012) and has proven to be a reliable method on gaining information on student reading motivation.

4.2. Research group

The information presented in this research has been collected at the SG Nelson Mandela, which is a VMBO high-school focused on practical education in Purmerend, The Netherlands, in June of the academic year of 2013-2014. It took one week, in which three lessons were used to have the students of three different classes complete the questionnaire.

Permission to conduct my research, and have the target group complete the survey was provided by Mrs. R. de Vries, the team leader of the junior years of high school at the Nelson Mandela. Further permission was not required. The survey was conducted among three different first year VMBO classes, with a total population of 93 students. Three of the filled in surveys were concluded to be void, due to the lack of cohesiveness throughout these three students’ answers. A total of 90 surveys were correctly filled in, and data analysis could be applied. The group of students consisted of both male and female students, between the age of 11 and 13. Approximately 65% of the students are native, with 35% having either one or two foreign parents/caregivers. Most students have English as their second language, however the students with foreign parents/caregivers do generally speak English as a third language. The questionnaires were filled in anonymously by the group of students

4.3. Instrument and validity

To measure L2 reading motivation a questionnaire was created using constructs that originate in Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) and Wang and Guthrie (2004). The questionnaire originally made was named the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ). The MRQ is considered to be the most comprehensive motivation measure currently available for L1 readers (Lau, 2004; Lin et al., 2012). The MRQ has been adapted, and certain questions have been omitted, or added. Statements have also been modified to fit the different subject group. Since the MRQ was devised for L1 readers, adaptions were necessary to make the questionnaire compatible with L2 readers. The MRQ consists of eight constructs that relate to reading motivation, with 53 items corresponding to the eight constructs.

The questionnaire constructed for my own students is derived from the original MRQ questionnaire, however certain statements have been scrapped, and extra statements have been added at the end of the questionnaire to collect data on the three different personality trait factors; conscientiousness, openness to experiences, and agreeableness, from the Big 5 Framework (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). Since the goal is to collect information on student motivation, and the underlying importance of personality traits on overall

(15)

15 current study.

The statements in the questionnaire regarding three of the five personality trait factors used in the ‘Big 5 Framework’ (Goldberg, 1990) are derivatives from a questionnaire, the ‘Five‐ Factor Personality Inventory — Children (FFPI-C)’ created by McGhee, Ehrler, & Buckhalt, (2007). The questionnaire only covers three of the five personality trait factors

(conscientiousness, openness to experiences, and agreeableness) because these three factors are the most closely linked with student academic success (Laidra et al., 2007). The amount of statements dealing with the personality traits is limited to create a broad picture of their underlying implication, since the emphasis of the questionnaire should be on student reading motivation. The addition of the statements pertaining to the three

personality traits listed does remain relevant to this research, due to the possibility of them explaining other answers provided for the intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation

segments of the questionnaire.

The total amount of statements has been brought back to simplify the questionnaire, without losing its integrity, and to make it more suitable for my students. The questionnaire created for this research includes 41 statements, of which 32 pertain to student reading motivation, and 9 to the three personality traits listed above.

The following eleven constructs were tested for among the students. The first eight constructs resemble the different sub-facets of intrinsic- and extrinsic motivation. These constructs were originally proposed by Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) and later reformed to an eight construct framework proposed Wang and Guthrie (2004), limiting the constructs to only intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation. This eight construct framework devised by Wang and Guthrie (2004) is more suitable for this research due to its specification in only intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation. Each of the eight reading motivation constructs has four statements. Multiple statements per construct are required to be able to extract reliable results for each construct.

The following three constructs are related to intrinsic reading motivation:  Curiosity

 Involvement  Challenge

The following five constructs are related to extrinsic reading motivation:  Recognition

 Grades  Social  Competition  Compliance

To test for the underlying effect of personality traits on total reading motivation among the students there are the following three constructs, each with three statements:

(16)

16  Conscientiousness

 Openness to experience  Agreeableness

Prior to conducting the survey, instructions were given and the statements in the questionnaire were translated and written on the whiteboard.

4.4. Methodology

I am specifically researching what my students’ current L2 reading motivation is at a given time, without a control group. It was unnecessary to utilize a control group since the data collected represents the problem of a current group. Making use of a separate control group would not add anything to the validation of the research. However, the data collected in this research is compared to previous results (e.g., Karau, et al., 2009; Lau, 2004; Lin et al., 2012; Medford, & McGeown, 2012). This has been done to verify whether or not aspects of the current group’s reading motivation was extraordinarily high or low, or in general average. The data collected is presented in tables, showing the summarization of the answers provided by the students. Correlations between the answers are then set out, and

conclusions are drawn based on the empirical evidence collected through the questionnaire and how the evidence of this study compares to that of previous studies.

After constructing the instrument, it was handed out to the study group and filled in over the course of one lesson per group. Upon completion, the student answers were turfed, and the totals were set out in a table. The table of all the data was divided into sub-categories, each for the different segments they pertained to. This way the data was structured and could more easily be analyzed. Data analysis could then been applied, and conclusions drawn from the connections in the different tables. The data presented in the tables are all percentages of certain answers provided on the questionnaires. These percentages could be further categorized under the constructs they belonged to. Connections between the

different constructs are defined and discussed not only in the data analysis, but also in the conclusions and discussion segments of this study.

(17)

17

5. Data Analysis

The data collected has been split up in to three different categories; the intrinsic motivation constructs, the extrinsic motivation constructs and the personality trait constructs. This has been done to provide a clear overview of the data collected, and also because the three different segments are later linked to conclusions that answer the three different sub questions proposed in this research.

5.1. Intrinsic reading motivation

Table 1. Intrinsic reading motivation totals per statement

Questionnaire item Construct 1. Very

different from me 2. A little different from me 3. A little like me 4. A lot like me

1. I like to read about new things. Curiosity 31 39 20 10 2. I read to learn new information about

topics that interest me.

Curiosity 22 34 30 14

3. I read about my hobbies to learn more about them.

4. If the teacher talks about something interesting, maybe I will read more about it.

5. I make pictures in my mind when I read.

Involvement 29 33 19 19

6. I can lose myself in the world I read about.

7. I enjoy long and involving stories. Involvement 45 29 11 15 8. I read stories about fantasy and make

believe.

9. I like hard and challenging books. Challenge 48 34 9 9 10. I usually learn different things from

reading.

Challenge 20 41 30 9

11. I like it when stories make me think. Challenge 20 27 39 14 12. If a story is interesting I don’t care

how hard it is to read.

Challenge 42 37 9 12

Overall percentage per answer given 28,3 36,2 22,3 13,2

Frequency of answers given in percent (N=90)

Table 1 shows the frequency of answers given to the different questionnaire items related to intrinsic motivation. With 64,5% of the questionnaire items being answered with a negative response, there is a clear image of students generally having low intrinsic motivation

towards L2 reading. It must also be noted that students who provided a positive response (either choosing answer 3 or 4) to the statements generally only chose positive answers to the remaining intrinsic motivation items. The same cannot be said for the students who chose negative responses to the different statements. These students would choose a

(18)

18 variety of answers between 1 and 3, however they avoided using answer 4.

Table 2. Intrinsic reading motivation totals per construct

Construct 1. Very different from me 2. A little different from me 3. A little like me 4. A lot like me Curiosity 23,3 38,5 25,7 12,5 Involvement 29,3 35,2 19,5 16,0 Challenge 32,5 34,7 21,8 11,0

Frequency of answers given per construct in percent (N=90)

Table 2 shows the average percentage of answers given across the four statements of each construct. When taking a closer look at the answers provided by students categorized by construct one can see that the averages are very similar, however there are slight variances. Student reading curiosity shows the highest percentage of positive responses with the students choosing answer 3 or 4 for a total of 38,2% of the total answers chosen. Also, only 23,3% of the total answers provided for student reading curiosity is the lowest of the three intrinsic reading motivation constructs. Although the highest number of times students chose answer 4 is related to student reading involvement, the other percentage of answers 1, 2 and 3 chosen are all very similar to student reading challenge. Overall the percentage of answers given across the three different intrinsic motivation constructs is very similar. 5.2. Extrinsic reading motivation

Table 3. Extrinsic reading motivation totals per statement

13. I like to get compliments for my reading.

Recognition 15 29 48 8

14. My friends sometimes tell me I’m a good reader.

15. I like it when my teacher says I read well.

16. My parents often say that I am a good reader.

17. Grades are a good way to tell me how good I am at reading.

Grades 10 14 52 24

18. I read to improve my grades. Grades 10 30 39 21

19. I look forward to knowing my reading grades.

Grades 12 28 39 21

20. My parents often ask me about my reading grades.

Grades 20 33 19 28

21. I like to tell my family about what I am reading.

(19)

19 22. My friends and I like to trade things

to read.

Social 29 36 19 16

23. My parents sometimes read to me, or I read to them.

Social 36 29 23 12

24. I like to help my friends with their reading homework.

Social 29 36 23 12

25. I like being the best at reading. Competition 14 34 30 22 26. I am willing to work hard to be a

better reader than other students.

Competition 13 30 33 24

27. I like to get more answers right than my friends.

28. I like to finish my reading before other students.

29. I read because I have to. Compliance 17 32 23 28

30. Finishing every reading assignment is important to me.

Compliance 12 24 44 20

31. I always do my reading work exactly as the teacher wants it.

32. I always try to finish my reading assignments on time.

Overall percentage per answer given 17,0 28,4 34,6 20,0

Table 3 shows the frequency of answers provided to the questionnaire items related to extrinsic motivation. With 54,6% of the answers provided being either answer 3 or 4, there is a slightly higher positive response to extrinsic reading motivation, than there is a negative response. When compared to the 35,5% of the answers being positive in regards to intrinsic reading motivation, there is a significant difference in the students intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation. Also, the percentage of times students chose answer 1 on the extrinsic reading motivation segment of the questionnaire was only 17%, which is far lower than the 28,3% reported for the intrinsic reading motivation segment of the questionnaire.

In the empirical evidence for intrinsic reading motivation there was a clear trend of a small group of students choosing positive answers, however with extrinsic reading motivation students had a wider variety in the answers they provided. There was no clear trend of a majority only choosing negative or positive answers for the statements proposed in the questionnaire. Of course, there were certain students who were either strictly positive or negative towards the statements; however the number is so low that it is hardly significant. There were however larger variations in the answers chosen across the different extrinsic reading motivation constructs, more so than within the intrinsic reading motivation constructs.

Table 4. Extrinsic reading motivation totals per construct

Construct 1. Very different from me 2. A little different from me 3. A little like me 4. A lot like me Recognition 16,0 28,0 38,7 17,3 Grades 13,0 26,3 37,2 23,5

(20)

20

Social 33,7 31,7 21,8 12,8

Competition 12,3 31,7 33,3 22,7

Compliance 9,7 24,3 42,5 23,5

Frequency of answers given per construct in percent (N=90)

In Table 4 the percentages of answers provided by the students across the different extrinsic reading motivation are displayed. Students had by far the most negative association with the items related to the social construct of extrinsic reading motivation; with a total of 65,4% of the students choosing either answer 1 or 2, and only 12,8% choosing answer 4. The grades and compliance extrinsic reading motivation constructs had the highest amount of positive answers, with 60,7% and 66%, respectively. Also, almost a quarter of the answers provided for the questionnaire items within these two constructs were answer 4. The questionnaire items related to the constructs recognition and competition were also more often rated positive than negative, with 56% of the answers being either 3 or 4.

5.3. Personality traits

Table 5. Personality trait totals per statement

33. I like to work efficiently. Conscientious -ness

10 36 32 22

34. I make plans and follow through with them.

Conscientious -ness

20 29 30 21

35. I am not easily distracted from my work.

Conscientious -ness

16 23 46 15

36. I am curious about many different things.

Openness to experience

21 23 33 23

37. I can come up with new ideas easily. Openness to experience

22 40 22 16

38. I am very interested in art, music and literature.

Openness to experience

28 33 17 22

39. I am considerate and kind to others. Agreeablenes s

3 14 65 18

40. I like to cooperate with others. Agreeablenes s

7 24 41 28

41. I easily forgive others for their mistakes.

Agreeablenes s

7 10 47 36

Overall average per answer given 14,9 25,8 37,0 22,3

Data analysis for the personality traits is more complicated than looking at the raw data composed in Table 5. Although the answers provided for the different questionnaire items shows a general indication of the students inclination towards the three separate personality traits, without comparing the data to the other answers the same students chose for the intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation segment of the questionnaire. We can see that on

(21)

21 almost all questionnaire items, with exemption of questionnaire items 37 and 38, which both belong to the openness to experience personality trait, the students responded with more positive answers than negative. This only means that most students lean more towards possessing, in different degrees, all three personality traits. However, since all three

personality traits tested for in the questionnaire are linked to increased intrinsic reading motivation (Medford, & McGeown, 2012), this would mean that there should be a

correlation between the high amount of positive answers provided for the conscientiousness and agreeableness constructs and the students’ answers provided for the intrinsic reading motivation segment. However there is no direct correlation to be found, since there were more negative than positive answers provided by the students for the intrinsic reading motivation segment, despite there being a general positive response to the

conscientiousness and agreeableness personality trait constructs.

However, agreeableness was linked to increased extrinsic reading motivation (Karau, Komarraju, & Schmeck, 2009), and there is a correlation between the high amount of positive answers provided for the agreeableness construct and the majority of positive answers provided for the extrinsic reading motivation segment. There seems to only be a correlation between the agreeableness construct and the larger amount of positive answers provided for the extrinsic reading motivation segment, however there is no clear correlation between the answers for the personality traits segment and the students intrinsic reading motivation.

(22)

22

6. Conclusion

6.1. Sub questions

To what degree are my students intrinsically motivated towards reading in English?

According to the data analysed in this research more than two thirds of the students provided negative answers to the questionnaire items related to intrinsic reading

motivation. In comparison with results from other studies (Lau, 2004; Lin et al., 2012) my students scored lower for intrinsic reading motivation. Additionally in accordance with standards for intrinsic reading motivation set out by Deci et al. (2001) my students scored below average. This illustrates that the intrinsic reading motivation of the majority of

students is low. However, there was a small group of students, less than a third, who did rate themselves as highly intrinsically motivated towards reading. Also, this group of students’ results compared favourably to the results in the studies mentioned above. This shows that although the majority of students possess low intrinsic reading motivation and are not likely to engage in reading in English on their own accord, there still remains a small group of students who will be inclined towards reading in English independently.

To what degree are my students extrinsically motivated towards reading in English?

The data collected for extrinsic reading motivation shows that a small majority of students chose more positive answers for the questionnaire items related to extrinsic reading motivation than negative. Of the five different extrinsic reading motivation constructs, students showed a highly negative association with reading because of social stimulus. For the other four constructs; recognition, grades, competition, and compliance students showed a positive response. When comparing the data from this research to that of others (Lau, 2004; Lin et al., 2012) my students scored either on par, or higher for extrinsic reading motivation. This shows that most students are responsive to stimulus from the school system to motivate them to engage in reading in English, in and out of school. An outcome like this is valuable for me as a teacher, but also for co-workers at the same school, and possibly in other schools. The results for this segment of reading motivation is what I was hoping to find; a decisive motivational factor that can be utilized as tool to further improve the quality of reading in school.

Do certain student personality traits influence their intrinsic- and extrinsic motivation, and if so, how can we make use of this knowledge?

The three personality traits tested for in this research; conscientiousness, openness to experience, and agreeableness are believed to be associated with increased intrinsic reading motivation (Medford, & McGeown, 2012), whereas agreeableness is believed to lead to an increase in extrinsic reading motivation (Karau, Komarraju, & Schmeck, 2009). The data presented no clear correlation between the personality traits conscientiousness and

agreeableness, and increased intrinsic reading motivation, however openness to experience did correlate with a higher level of intrinsic reading motivation. There was also a correlation found between the agreeableness personality trait and increased extrinsic reading

motivation. The results of the questionnaire only partially correlate with previous research (Karau, et al., 2009; Medford, & McGeown, 2012), making it difficult to report for certain

(23)

23 whether or not the personality traits have an influence on the students reading motivation. For this reason it will not be possible to use the information to assess student reading motivation as a result of their individual personality traits.

6.2. Main question

Are my students motivated towards reading in English, in- and outside of school?

Motivation has several facets, and every student has a different degree of motivation towards reading in English. The data illustrates the complexity of motivational factors that attribute to a students’ overall motivation towards reading in English. Most of the students possess some form of motivation towards reading in English, whether it is due to the desire to do well in school, to learn more about their interests, or for enjoyment. Approximately 65% of the students are extrinsically motivated to read in English, not due to social factors, such as parents who read to them or friends who read, but because they have a desire to complete their school work or achieve better grades. Only a minority of students,

approximately 20 of them in total, read because they are intrinsically motivated; these students read as appreciation of fiction, or to learn new things about a hobby. Additionally, the students who are intrinsically motivated towards reading all possessed the openness to experience personality trait, displaying a possible link between an individual’s personality traits and their will to read. Although other data collected on personality traits proved to be unreliable, it cannot be said for certain that there is a correlation between this group of students’ personality traits and their motivation towards reading in English.

The relatively high amount of students who are extrinsically motivated to read in English displays the importance of the school institute, and also student peers, in motivating

students to read in English. Furthermore, perhaps the most important result is that there are almost zero students who did not possess any form of motivation, be it intrinsic- or extrinsic in nature.

(24)

24

7. Discussion

The results presented in this research were not completely coherent with previous research. The intrinsic reading motivation segment and the corresponding constructs of the

questionnaire yielded contradictory results with previous research in to student reading motivation (Komiyama, 2013, Lau, 2004; Lin et al., 2012). The questionnaire used in this research was derived from the MRQ originally constructed by Wigfield (1997) and further adapted by Wang and Guthrie (2004), and many of the items were left the same, however my students responded far more negatively to the questionnaire items. The group of

students in this study did differ in age from the groups questioned by Komiyama (2013), Lau (2004), and Lin et al. (2012). This could explain the difference in response to the

questionnaire. The original MRQ was devised to test for reading motivation among different age groups, so it could not have been a lack of understanding of the MRQ by the students questioned in this study, as the entire questionnaire was translated and expansively discussed. The age of the group of students (11 to 13 years) questioned could provide an explanation for the lack of intrinsic reading motivation. They may have just been interested in other things, such as more interactive means of entertainment (McKool, 2007). Another explanation could be that the intrinsic reading motivation of the majority of the students in this study could have been undermined in previous years of primary school, or they could have had a poor reading environment at home (Ryan & Deci, 2000). There is no definite answer as to why the students in this research group scored below average for the intrinsic reading motivation segment of the questionnaire. To understand the reasoning behind their low intrinsic reading motivation further research would be necessary to determine the factors contributing to the students’ low intrinsic reading motivation. Unfortunately you can only know this sort of thing after performing the research.

The data analyses of the extrinsic reading motivation segment and the corresponding constructs showed similar results to previous studies (Komiyama, 2013, Lau, 2004; Lin et al., 2012). The reason behind the data being similar could be because a school system would always provide a form of pressure for students to complete school assignments or try to achieve better grades (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In essence, this would be the same for the

different schooling institutes across the world. The majority of students did provide negative answers for the questionnaire items corresponding with the social construct of extrinsic reading motivation, meaning that the students were not motivated by fellow students lending out books, family gifted them books as presents, or friends sharing reading material with them. The negative results for the social construct of extrinsic reading motivation could be linked to the already low intrinsic reading motivation of the students. Since they were not highly motivated to read in English by themselves, they wouldn’t be highly acceptable of reading because their friends or parents asked them to. It seems to be that pressure to perform well in school was the only reason many of the students chose to read in- and out of school. This assumption is based on the studies performed by McKool (2007), and (Ryan & Deci, 200), and also on my personal conclusions deducted from the data analysis presented in this study.

(25)

25 Although the intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation segments of the questionnaire showed clear results, and the first two sub-questions in this study could be answered with relative clarity, the third sub-question posed in this research was more difficult to answer. When working on the theoretical framework for this research, I found that there were various studies (Clark & Schroth, 2010; Karau, et al., 2009; Medford & McGeown, 2012) that suggested that personality trait factors influenced reading motivation, with specific

personality trait factors influencing the sub facets of reading motivation. Since I set out to map and describe the factors that played a role in determining my students’ reading motivation in English, it seemed important to understand personality traits and their influence on reading motivation in English. When choosing to test for the three personality traits; conscientiousness, openness to experience, and agreeableness, and including them in the questionnaire I thought it would be possible to draw clear conclusions from the data collected. After collecting the data and analysing it, it proved to be very difficult to draw any real conclusions at all, with the exception of finding a link between the openness to

experience personality trait and intrinsic motivation. A possible reason for the lack of correlation between the data collected on personality traits and reading motivation is that there were not enough questionnaire items for the personality trait segment, and that no clear conclusions could be deducted from only a few questionnaire items. I thought that it would be possible to find an indication of a student possessing a specific personality trait by asking them a few specific questions, and in the case of openness in experience I believe it worked, however for the remaining two personality traits it was unclear whether or not students actually possessed the personality trait. Additionally, the fact that the data analysed for the personality traits conscientiousness and agreeableness yielded hardly any usable results undermines the strength of any conclusions drawn from the data collected on openness to experience. This study would require more information gathered on the

personality traits of students in order to accurately determine whether or not they actually possessed the different personality traits, and if there is a connection between the

personality traits and the students’ intrinsic- and extrinsic reading motivation. Although to gain accurate measurements of the students’ personality traits and accurately link them to reading motivation, a separate study altogether would most likely be favourable.

(26)

26

8. Recommendations

The research presented in this study is a diagnostic approach to a problem. According to the intervention cycle, after a diagnosis has been made a researcher can look for an approach, implication, and finally gaining results. A logical next step would be to use the data collected on student reading motivation and create a new approach in catering to the individual L2 reading motivational needs of the student. Additionally, by understanding which factors motivate the majority of students, the in school reading material and approach to teaching English reading skills can be adapted to fit this group’s interests, and at the same time creating alternative material for groups of students who are motivated by other means. Further research could be performed to gain a deeper understanding of the group’s motivation towards reading in English. Using the results of this research, one could investigate why the students have below average intrinsic reading motivation, or why the students have an above average extrinsic reading motivation. Unveiling the factors that influence the development of a students’ L2 reading motivation could help to facilitate an improvement further along their academic career. The information would also be helpful in structuring the recording and promotion of student reading motivation along the different years of high school, not only in the school that this research was performed in, but also other VMBO schools, and even other levels of high school.

As previously stated in the discussion of the results, additional research would be necessary to determine whether or not the personality traits have a significant effect on L2 reading motivation. The data in this research was inconclusive regarding this matter, and a more in depth approach would be required to find any significant results. This could be achieved by using a diagnostic approach, and solely testing for the correlation between personality traits and reading motivation, instead of focusing on other aspects of the students’ reading

motivation. This approach could work well with the same study group, since the data collected in this study has already determined the level and quality of motivation of the students towards reading in English. However, since the questionnaires were filled in

anonymously it would be impossible to link individual students’ answers to answers found in a new study, although comparing the groups as a whole could be a possibility.

Repeating the current study, with minor adaptions to the questionnaire and possibly excluding the personality trait segment, in different schools would provide the opportunity to compare results in different school settings. For example; performing the same research in different VMBO schools to compare and contrast the motivation of different ethnicities or cultures could possibly give an insight in underlying factors influencing student L2 reading motivation.

There are many possible applications of this study, and further modelling student reading motivation in English could help pave the road towards more efficient English reading assignments and testing in school, new insights in demographic variances in reading motivation, and a way to further increase student L2 reading motivation in- and out of school.

(27)

27

9. Literature List

Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Onatsu-Anilommi, T., & Nurmi, J. (2002). Three methods for studying developmental change: A case of reading skills and self-concept. British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 72, 343–364.

Bouffard, T., Marcoux, M., Vezeau, C., & Bordeleau, L. (2003). Changes in

self-perceptions of competence and intrinsic motivation among elementary school children.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 171–186.

Cameron, J. (2001). Negative Effects of Reward on Intrinsic Motivation-A Limited Phenomenon: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001). Review of Educational

Research, 71(1), 29-42.

Clark, M. H., & Schroth, C. A. (2010). Examining relationships between academic

motivation and personality among college students. Learning and Individual Differences,

20, 19–24.

Deci, E.L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A

self-determination theory perspective. In K.A. Renniger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role

of interest in learning and development, 43-70.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M., (1999a). A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examing the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin,

125, 627-668.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M., (1999b). The Undermining Effect is a Reality After All-Extrinsic rewards, Task Interest, and Self-Determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras (1999). Psychological

Bulletin, 125, 692-700.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M., (2001). Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Education: Reconsidered Once Again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual

Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49, 518–533.

Goldberg, L. K. (1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Perencevich, K. C. (2006). From spark to fire: Can situational reading interest lead to long-term reading motivation?

Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 91-117.

Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282-313.

Modelling the Reading Process of First-Year VMBO Students: Understanding Students’ Motivation to Read in English