Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors examined how motivational and cognitive variables predict reading comprehension, and whether each predictor variable adds unique explanatory power when statistically controlling for the others. Fourth-grade students (N = 205) completed measures of reading comprehension in September and December of the same year, and measures of background knowledge and cognitive strategy use in December. Teachers rated internal reading motivation of each student. Results from multiple regression analyses showed that motivation, background knowledge, and cognitive strategy-use made significant, independent contributions to children’s reading comprehension when the other predictor variables were controlled. Further analyses showed the same cognitive and motivational variables predicted growth over a 3-month period in reading comprehension. Possible explanations of the observed relations between motivation, cognitive variables, and reading comprehension are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). Profiling the differences in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategic processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L., Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. (1992). Multiple indicators of children’s reading habits and attitudes: construct validity and cognitive correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 489–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almasi, J. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 314–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relationships to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., Palincsar, A. S., & Ambruster, B. (1984). Inducing comprehension-fostering activities in interactive learning situations. In H. Mandl, N. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of texts (pp. 255–287). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 154–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, J. W., Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow, J. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. (1983). Self-generated questions as an aid to reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 36, 770–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, M. J., & Gambrell, L. B. (1985). Teaching children to use a self-questioning strategy for studying expository prose. Reading Improvement, 22, 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldt, R. C., Feldt, R. A., & Kilburg, K. (2002). Acquisition, maintenance, and transfer of a questioning strategy in second-and third-grade students to learn from science textbooks. Reading Psychology, 23, 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfried, A. W., Cook, C. R., Gottfried, A. E., & Morris, P. E. (2005). Educational characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 172–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McMahen, C. L., & Johnson, B. K. (1994). Question asking and answering. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 517–538). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1997). Characteristics of classrooms that promote motivations and strategies for learning. In J. T. Guthrie & W. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 128–148). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 232–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999). A longitudinal analysis of elementary school students’ achievement goals in literacy activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 454–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (2001). Changes in elementary school children’s achievement goals for reading and writing: Results of a longitudinal and an intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 207–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Text coherence, background knowledge and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Tech. Rep. No. 00-4769).

  • Nolte, R. Y., & Singer, H. (1985). Active comprehension: Teaching a process of reading comprehension and its effects on reading achievement. Reading Teacher, 39, 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onatsu-Arvilommi, T., & Nurmi, J. (2000). The role of task-avoidant and task-focused behavior in the development of reading and mathematical skills during the first school year: a cross-lagged longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 478–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 815–860). White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N. E., Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2006). Classroom contexts for motivating learners. In P. Alexander & P. Winnie (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 327–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampton, J. M., & Echevarria, M. (1998). The nature of literacy instruction in ten grade 4/5 classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, G. M., & Harris, K. H. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–122.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory and Cognition, 34, 1157–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 177–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository test. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 141–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 16–32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. Journal of Special Education, 27, 257–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem-solving schema with question generation for comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 166–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E., & Greene, T. (2008). Perceived control: Engagement, coping, and development. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st Century education: A reference handbook. Newbury Park: Sage Publications (in press).

  • Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, A. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. M. (1998). Teacher perceptions and student reading motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 210–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Growth of cognitive strategies for reading comprehension. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C. Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction (pp. 273–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction in the intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relation to reading achievement in an urban middle school. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. H. Y., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 162–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 933–1002).New York: Wiley.

  • Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work reported herein was supported by the Interagency Educational Research Initiative (IERI) (Award #0089225) as administered by the National Science Foundation. The findings and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the Interagency Educational Research Initiative, the National Science Foundation, or the University of Maryland. The authors of this manuscript thank Eileen Kramer and Vanessa Rutherford for their assistance in preparing this document.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education & Human Development, George Mason University, Robinson Hall A, Room 320, 4400 University Drive, MS 4B3, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Ana Taboada

  2. Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

    Stephen M. Tonks

  3. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Allan Wigfield & John T. Guthrie

Authors
  1. Ana Taboada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen M. Tonks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allan Wigfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John T. Guthrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Taboada.

Appendices

Appendix A

Conceptual knowledge rubric

  Background knowledge and multiple-text reading comprehension assessment
Full size table

Appendix B

Questioning rubric

Level 1: Factual information

Questions are simple in form and request a simple answer, such as a single fact. Questions are a request for a factual proposition. They are based on naïve concepts about the world rather than disciplined understanding of the subject matter Questions refer to relatively trivial, non-defining characteristics of organisms (plants and animals), ecological concepts or biomes.

Examples: How big are bats? Do sharks eat trash? How much do bears weigh?

Are there crabs in a river? How old do orangutans get? How big are grasslands? How many rivers are there in the world?

Level 2: Simple description

Questions are a request for a global statement about an ecological concept or an important aspect of survival. Questions may also request general information that denotes a link between the biome and organisms that live in it. The question may be simple, yet the answer may contain multiple facts and generalizations. The answer may be a moderately complex description or an explanation of an animal’s behavior or physical characteristics. An answer may also be a set of distinctions necessary to account for all the forms of species.

Examples: How do sharks have babies? How do birds fly? How do bats protect themselves? What kinds of sharks are in the ocean? What kind of waters do sharks live in? How far do polar bears swim in the ocean?

Level 3: Complex explanation

Questions are a request for an elaborated explanation about a specific aspect of an ecological concept with accompanying evidence. The question probes the ecological concept by using knowledge about survival or animal biological characteristics. Questions may also request information that denote a link between the biome and organisms that live in it. Questions use defining features of biomes to probe for the influence those attributes have on life in the biome. The question is complex and the expected answer requires elaborated propositions, general principles and supporting evidence about ecological concepts.

Examples: Why do sharks sink when they stop swimming? Why do sharks eat things that bleed? How do polar bears keep warm in their den? Why do sharks have 3 rows of teeth? Why is the polar bear’s summer coat a different color? Do fruit-eating bats have really good eyes? Do owls that live in the desert hunt at night? Why do Elf Owls make their homes in cactuses?

Level 4: Pattern of relationships

Questions display science knowledge coherently expressed to probe the interrelationship of concepts, the interaction with the biome or interdependencies of organisms. Questions are a request for principled understanding with evidence for complex interactions among multiple concepts and possibly across biomes. Knowledge is used to form a focused inquiry into a specific aspect of a biological concept and an organism’s interaction with its’ biome. Answers may consist of a complex network of two or more concepts.

Examples: Do snakes use their fangs to kill their enemies as well as poison their prey? Do polar bears hunt seals to eat or feed their babies? Why do salmon go to the sea to mate and lay eggs in the river? How do animals and plants in the desert help each other? How are grassland animals and river animals the same and different? Is the polar bear at the top of the food chain?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taboada, A., Tonks, S.M., Wigfield, A. et al. Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Read Writ 22, 85–106 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation