Barbara A. Marinak

Reading Motivation: Exploring the Elementary Gender Gap.

In an attempt to more clearly understand the erosion of motivation in some readers, a number of researchers (Mohr, 2006; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002) and organizations (The Education Alliance, 2007) have called for the investigation of gender differences in all readers, including young children. Consequently, this study focused on younger, average achieving readers. Specifically, 288 third-grade average readers were studied. Two constructs consistent with expectancy-value theory (Eccles, 1983), self-concept as a reader and value of reading, were examined. The results suggest that third-grade boys and girls who are average readers are equally self-confident about their reading ability; however, boys value reading less than girls. This finding sheds new light on the complexities of motivation and gender differences.

Differentiated Instruction: Making Informed Teacher Decisions.

This article addresses approaches to differentiating instruction to meet the needs of students whose literacy needs, interests, and strengths vary widely. This article was designed to support classroom teachers who understand the importance of differentiating instruction, but are unsure of how best to design and implement differentiation within the parameters of the classroom. The article begins by defining differentiated instruction and discussing its importance, including the role of differentiation with respect to diversity and with respect to Response to Intervention (RTI). The remainder of the article describes in detail two examples of differentiated instruction in classroom contexts. Each example is followed by a discussion of the research and decision-making underlying the teachers approach to differentiation. The article concludes with common characteristics of effective differentiation.

Measuring the Reader Self-Perceptions of Adolescents: Introducing the RSPS2

This paper introduces a new affective instrument for assessing the reader self-perceptions of students in grades seven through ten. The Reader Self-Perception Scale 2 (RSPS2) builds upon its predecessor, the RSPS, a tool that measures the reading efficacy beliefs of children in grades four through six. New items were created for the RSPS2 to reflect differences in the expectations for adolescent reading. The instrument was piloted on 488 students, revised, and then validates with an additional 2,542 students in the target grades. Factor analytic procedures revealed four factors emerging on the RSPS2. Items for Progress, Observational Comparison, Social Feedback, and Physiological States clustered as expected into scales with reliabilities ranging from .87 to .95. The article includes a description of the instrument, an explanation of its possible uses in assessment, instruction, and research, as well as directions for administration, scoring, and interpretation.

Specialized Literacy Professionals as Literacy Leaders: Results of a National Survey

This large-scale national survey of specialized literacy professionals was designed to answer questions about responsibilities, including leadership, and preparation for these roles. Questionnaires, completed by over 2,500 respondents, indicated that respondents had multiple responsibilities that included both instruction of struggling readers and support for teachers. Four distinct role-groups were identified: instructional/literacy coaches, reading/literacy specialists, reading teachers/interventionists, and supervisors. The findings indicated a need for more precise definitions of the roles of these professionals and for preparation programs to include experiences that address the tasks required. Themes discussed included: roles have changed and require more focus on leadership, specialists must be nimble, and they require more in-depth preparation to handle the leadership demands of their positions.

Courageous Reading Instruction: The Effects of an Elementary Motivation Intervention

ABSTRACT In an attempt to more clearly understand the erosion of engagement in some readers, a number of researchers (J. Brophy, 2008; J. Guthrie, 2010; K. Mohr, 2006) and organizations (Education Alliance, 2010) have called for the investigation of strategies to improve elementary reading motivation. Consequently this mixed-methods investigation focused on a motivation intervention for fifth-grade readers. Two constructs consistent with expectancy-value theory (J. Eccles, 1983), self-concept as a reader and value of reading, were examined. A pretest–posttest design was utilized following a motivation intervention arranged during participatory action research. The results suggest that a curricular considerate intervention comprised 3 practices had a significant impact on the reading motivation of 5th-grade students.

Upper Elementary Students’ Motivation to Read Fiction and Nonfiction

This research explores upper elementary students’ motivation to read fiction and nonfiction. Using expectancy-value theory, the researchers developed separate surveys to measure motivation to read fiction and nonfiction. Researchers administered surveys to 1,104 upper elementary students (grades 3–6) in multiple locations across the United States and found the instruments to be psychometrically sound. Results corroborate previous research demonstrating students’ declining motivation to read across grade levels; in particular, students’ value for reading was declining. This research also corroborates previous research findings that girls are more motivated than boys to read fiction. Researchers found insignificant gender differences between girls’ and boys’ motivations to read nonfiction, indicating a need to further investigate students’ motivation to read nonfiction. Implications for classroom application of survey results and the need to enhance students’ value for reading are discussed.

The Unrelenting Search for a Quick Fix

Cassidy, Ortlieb, and Grote-Garcia (2016) have penned an important and insightful article. This reflection on the impact of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association [NGA] Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010) through the lens of What’s Hot, What’s Not for two decades is both accurate and frustrating. Just when research was revealing promising practices for struggling readers, the CCSS emerged and is now dominating the conversation. While perhaps national standards were necessary, the perfect storm of insanity that resulted is not. I have been in the profession a long time, and in the years before the CCSS, I saw the development of effective interventions for our most vulnerable readers. Conversations were occurring about aligning core reading programs and interventions, general education teachers and interventionists were collaborating in meaningful ways, and reading coaches were leading ongoing professional development. There was talk in many circles, including instructional, administrative, and policy circles, that Dick Allington was right (Allington & Walmsley, 1995). No quick fix existed, but with tenacity, some of the most consistently low achieving readers could make gains. We would never get there, but the journey was worth it. That was in 2000. Then, by 2010, the CCSS became a reality, along with the baggage of misguided accountability: intervention in a box, onerous testing, and teacher evaluations tied to test scores. Now close reading of contrived test prep materials replaces authentic, relevant reading for months. The search for the quick fix is back with a vengeance! Hence, given the current political climate (and it is political versus educational), it should be no surprise that some of the most important, and, I argue, life-saving practices are not deemed “hot” by literacy experts who respond to the annual What’s Hot, What’s Not survey. Topics such as early intervention, literacy coaches/reading specialists, struggling readers, and motivation/engagement are cold. And if the rest of the survey respondents are anything like me, they cringe every year when responding to Jack’s inquiries. Like them, I report the state of the profession from my perspective as accurately as I can regardless of how much I vehemently disagree with the trends and practices. And clearly, given my research for the last 15 years, ignoring the importance of motivation/engagement is particularly disturbing. Regardless, I persist. Along with colleagues, we continue to do motivation research and construct new instruments (Marinak, Malloy, Gambrell, & Mazzoni, 2015). Screaming into the wind? Maybe, but ceasing is not an option. It is only by nurturing intrinsic reading