ENHANCING MOTIVATION 2 Acknowledgements I would first like to thank the members of my committee for their help and support: Dr. Stewart for all of her support, help and patience during the course of this project as well as Dr. Mower and Ms. Hauser. I would like to express appreciation to my administration, Mr. Ernest Broderick and Mrs. Allison Banks for their support during the course of this program. I cannot ignore those who pushed me to this point. I am forever grateful for my angel mother who chose to be a single mother, despite the fears and uncertainty that came with single motherhood. I am grateful that she pushed me to get first a college degree, and then to obtain a master’s degree so that I would never have to face the uncertainty that she did. Thank you for always believing in me and being there when I needed you. Thank you to my Grandma Nelson, though she is no longer with me, she fulfilled the role of a second parent for me, and she too pushed me, and gave me the love and support that I needed to become who I am today. I would also like to thank my mother’s sister who provided us with support when we could get it from nowhere else. I would like to express appreciation for my full brother, Zach, and my half-siblings: Martha, Phil (Marilee), Effie (Trevor), and Joseph for their support during this process. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM…………………………………………………………6 Literature Review………………………………………………………………..6 Building Capable Readers……….………………………………………7 Causes of Low Reading Motivation……………………………………10 Characteristics that Build Reading Motivation………………………...12 PURPOSE……………………………………………………………………………....25 METHOD……………………………………………………………………………....26 Participants………………………………………………………………….….26 Instruments…………………………………………………………………. ....27 Procedures………………………………………………………………….…..28 RESULTS………………………………………………………………………… ..…30 Feedback from Evaluators……………………………………………………..30 Student Results………………………………………………………………. .33 DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………....36 Limitations…………………………………………………………………….41 Suggestions for Future Research…………………………………………… ..42 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….42 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………..43 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………...53 Appendix A: Evaluator Response Form……………………………………....53 Appendix B: Student Motivation Survey……………………………………..59 Permissions…………………………………………………………………………...65 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 4 List of Tables Table 1. Evaluation Team Response to Curriculum…...……………………………….30 Table 2. Comparison between Pre and Post Motivation Scores………………………..33 Table 3. Change in Motivation of High Achieving Students……………………………34 Table 4. Change in Motivation of Average Achieving Students………………………...34 Table 5. Change in Motivation of Low Achieving Students…………………………….35 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 5 Abstract Building motivation is an essential characteristic of teaching reading. Children who are motivated to read more will engage in reading more frequently, and children who read more frequently will naturally practice the essential mechanical attributes of reading and will thereby become more capable and competent readers. This project attempts to integrate what is known about developing capable and motivated readers into an existing core reading program to create a more motivating experience for learners. The newly developed curriculum was evaluated by six on-site evaluators who are familiar with both the school’s program and the students’ demographics. The curriculum was then delivered to 16 students for 5 weeks. The curriculum seemed to have a positive impact on high and low-achieving students, but had a negligible impact on average achieving students. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 6 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Reading is an important skill for students in elementary, secondary and higher education; it is an important skill to successfully navigate the world and culture in which we live. Learning to read is arguably the skill of most importance taught in the elementary years. The art of teaching reading has been extensively studied, likewise has the process of learning how to read. Children frequently lack adequate motivation to read. Children have complex reasons for being motivated to read or lacking that motivation. Children may exhibit high motivation for psychological and social reasons, and the characteristics and demographics of the students themselves can play a role in high or low motivation to engage in reading. Many of the reasons why a child may be motivated or not fall outside the teacher’s control, as teachers do not hand select their students, however, some practices within the classroom can either nurture or hinder student motivation. Building motivation is an essential characteristic of teaching reading. Children who are motivated to read more will engage in reading more frequently, and children who read more frequently will naturally practice the essential mechanical attributes of reading and will thereby become more capable and competent readers. If teachers fail to ensure students are properly motivated to read, then even identified pedagogical and mechanical attributes of learning to read will be less successful in producing capable, competent, and happy readers. Research has identified many different attributes that can be incorporated into curriculum to create motivation in developing readers. Literature Review This literature review will discuss what is currently known, understood and accepted as ways for a teacher to create capable readers, specifically the key elements of ENHANCING MOTIVATION 7 reading instruction. Second, characteristics of students that can affect motivation to read will be discussed. Finally, this review will discuss various elements that can help create capable and motivated readers. Building Capable Readers In 2000 the National Reading panel identified five attributes that must be present in any successful reading curriculum. These attributes are phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, fluency, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). Phonemes can be described as the smallest unit of sound in a language, and phonemic awareness is the ability to identify and manipulate the phonemes of a given language (Antuez, 2002). A moderate to high correlation has been found between phonemic awareness and reading capabilities in children (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Berg & Stegelman, 2003). However, Scarborough, Ehri, Olson, and Fowler (1998), suggests that instruction in phonemic awareness past grade two is not effective and suggests that teachers focus instead on vocabulary development. Because of the importance of phonemic awareness in reading development, teachers of all grades should consider difficulties with phonemic awareness when teaching children of a low reading ability. Phonics refers to the understanding that there is a relationship between phonemes of a language, and their written counterpart. Understanding of phonics is an essential skill for children to successfully decode new words (Antuez, 2002). Research generally finds that phonics instruction is essential to building reading capability (Durrell, Nicholson, Olson, Gavel, & Linehan, 2009; Afflerbach, Cho, Kim, Crassas, Doyle, 2013). Some research has indicated that phonics may not be the best use of instructional time. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 8 Schmidgall and Joseph (2007) in a quasi-experimental study gave two groups of first graders different instruction. One group received phonics analysis instruction and the other group received whole-word fluency instruction. Schmidgall and Joseph found that there was no discernable difference in student ability to read words regardless of the group they had been assigned. However, whole-word fluency can help children learn more words in a short amount of time, indicating that when time is a factor whole-word fluency should be the choice of teachers. Schmidgall and Joseph also note that if the objective of teaching word fluency is decoding, and not simply how many words can be recognized quickly then phonics may be the better instructional choice. Vocabulary development is the learning and retaining of new words. (Antuez, 2002). Vocabulary development can be considered in two ways: receptive vocabulary, or vocabulary that a student can understand; and productive vocabulary, or vocabulary that a student can use. Receptive and productive vocabularies are both important to the ability to understand and talk about text (Sinatra, 2008). Vocabulary development and strategies for understanding unknown words is important for children to become successful readers (Nielsen & Friesen 2012; Sinatra, 2008). Developing student’s vocabulary and vocabulary strategies are particularly important when instructing children from a low socio-economic background (Sinatra 2008). Targeted vocabulary instruction has shown to be a successful intervention when presented as an intervention for at-risk children (Nielsen, and Friesen, 2008). Vocabulary skills as a predictor of a kindergarten student’s success in first grade are second only to letter naming fluency (Yesil-Dagli, 2011). If there is any research that would indicate vocabulary instruction is not an important aspect of reading instruction, it is not readily ENHANCING MOTIVATION 9 available in present research. Because of the body of research indicating that vocabulary instruction is important in quality reading instruction and the lack of available research that would contradict the importance, a teacher must include vocabulary instruction in reading curriculum Reading fluency refers to the ability to read quickly and accurately. Reading fluency is essential to comprehension because if children are capable of reading quickly and accurately, without the need to stop and decode an unknown word, he or she is more likely to remember what he or she has read (Antuez, 2002). The importance of reading fluency has gained such wide acceptance that within the literature the focus is on how to develop reading fluency rather than why reading fluency should be developed. Reading fluency is important to future reading success (Grapin, Kranzler, Waldron, Joyce-Beaulieu, & Algina, 2017; Veenendal, Groen, & Verhoeven, 2015; Price, Meisinger, Louwerse, D’Mello, 2016). How to develop fluent readers is the primary focus in recent years when considering reading fluency during instruction. Successful interventions to develop reading fluency in children include peer tutoring (Dufrene, Reisener, Olmi, Zoder-Martell, McNutt, Horn, 2010), computer assisted programs (Keyes, Jacobs, Bornhorst, Gibson, & Vostal, 2017), and repeated readings (Vostal, and Lee, 2015). Repeated readings appears to be the most well understood and widely accepted way of creating fluent readers. Because there is no evidence apparent that reading fluency has anything but a positive effect in creating successful readers, reading fluency must also be included in quality reading instruction. Reading comprehension refers to one’s ability to create meaning through an active interaction with the text (Antuez, 2002). Reading comprehension is the ultimate ENHANCING MOTIVATION 10 goal of reading instruction, and mastery of phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, and reading fluency is necessary to facilitate reading comprehension, (Antuez, 2002; Kamhi & Catts, 2017). However, comprehension is not simply the end result of instruction in the other aforementioned skills, reading comprehension must also be taught in quality reading curriculum. Reading strategies a teacher may use to assist children in developing reading comprehension include: peer tutoring, questioning, text structure, graphic organizers (Mahdavi & Tensfield 2013), computerized instruction (Yi-Chin, Yu-Ling, and Ying-Shao, 2014), cooperative learning and culturally responsive literature (Bui & Fagen, 2013). The five essential components of quality reading instruction may not be present in every reading lesson for reasons including grade level, and the objectives of a given reading lesson. However, teachers should be aware of these components to identify potential reasons why a child is not achieving success in reading. The National Reading Panel (2000) is an excellent source on building curriculum and planning which materials should be presented to students, however, many students are still failing to learn to read, therefore other factors beyond phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension must be considered. Causes of Low Reading Motivation How to create successful and competent readers has been well established, students must receive quality instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Many students, despite receiving instruction in how to read are highly unmotivated readers (Baker, Wigfield, 1999; Unrau, & Schlackman, 2006; Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks & Perencevich, 2004; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Guthrie, ENHANCING MOTIVATION 11 Coddington, & Wigfield, 2009; Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Holbein, 2005; Baker & Scher, 2002; Gambrell, 1996). This can be due to a variety of factors: gender (Baker, Wigfield, 1999; Unrau, Schlackman, 2006); age (Wigfield, et. al, 1997; Wigfield and Eccles, 2000), ethnicity (Guthrie, Coddington, & Wigfield, 2009; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; Wang and Guthrie, 2004), parental support, (Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Holbein, 2005; Gambrell, 1996; Baker and Scher, 2002), and social influences (Unrau and Schlackman, 2006). However, these demographical reasons for unmotivated readers can be explained in two main ways: low self-efficacy in reading, placing a low value on the task of reading. Wigfield & Eccles (2000) developed the concept of expectancy-value theory of motivation. The theory states that value of a specific learning task is dependent on the self-efficacy beliefs of the student about the task, the student’s prediction of their success at the task, and the amount of interest or potential future use of the task. Therefore, students will be motivated to participate in reading if they feel they can be successful, and if they have a personal interest or stake in reading (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Students who do not place a high value on reading will be unlikely to engage in reading tasks for grades or pleasure (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Children who have high motivation to read are more likely to engage in reading. Those children who choose to engage in reading will read more often and by reading more often those children will become more capable readers (Cambria and Guthrie, 2010). Teachers are required as per their contractual agreements to create capable readers. Thus, adequately motivating children becomes of equal importance for teachers as teaching the five components of reading instruction. Although the primary reasons for ENHANCING MOTIVATION 12 low motivation are low self-efficacy and placing a low value on the task of reading, addressing these issues is not the only way in which teachers can help build motivation. Research has revealed several additional key elements that have been identified to successfully building motivation in readers. Characteristics that Build Reading Motivation Choice has been identified in research and by the children themselves as the seemingly most important factor in increasing motivation (Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield, Tonks, Humerick, & Littles, 2007). In a series of interviews conducted with elementary aged students, the students were asked to share information about a recent expository text they had read. Of the students, all of whom had been allowed to choose the books which they wanted to read, 76% were able to share with the interviewers information about the expository text, while the other 24% either could not, or would not share information about the chosen text. Guthrie, et. al (2007) analyzed a variety of factors, such as choice, social interaction, self-efficacy, and discussion that has been found to increase motivation and competence and found that student choice is the most critical factor for increasing student motivation, accounting for 22% of growth in motivation and competence among upper elementary students, indicating that choice is the most decisive factor in increasing both motivation and competence. Interestingly, the choice does not need to be made solely by the student themselves. If a book is chosen by a person trusted by the child, the increased motivation does not deteriorate. Many students do not trust their own ability to select their own reading material, and the deference to a trusted individual can maintain the effect of ENHANCING MOTIVATION 13 increased motivation of the child (Guthrie, et. al., 2007). Many students identified their teacher as the person who exposed them to a rich variety of narrative books (Edmunds, Buaserman, 2006). The trusted individual to select a book can be a teacher, parent, peer, friend, librarian, or other person in the child’s life (Guthrie, et. al., 2007). While student choice is accepted to be choice in reading materials (Gambrell, 2011), this is not necessarily the only type of choice that has been linked to increased motivation. Simple choices such as the choice of paper color used or who to work with can also provide choice in reading instruction. (Gambrell, 2009; Cambria and Guthrie 2010). Choice gives student perceived control over their learning and provides an avenue for students to express autonomy over their own experiences within reading (Guthrie, et. al. 2007). Self-efficacy can be defined as one’s personal beliefs about his or her abilities and how those beliefs “determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave” (Bandura, 1994, p71). Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1994) postulates that people will avoid participation in activities that they deem beyond their ability to handle and will seek out activities that they believe they can successfully complete. Selectively choosing which skills and activities to participate in will hinder competency in skills and activities that are avoided, and develop competency in skills and activities that are sought after. Available research has had two consistent findings: first, children who have high levels of reading self-efficacy also have high motivation to read; and second, high levels of reading self-efficacy corresponds to high academic competence (Henk & Melnick, 1995, Schunk, 1994, Wigfield, et. al., 2004, Proctor, Daley, Louick, Ledier, & Gardner, 2014, Cho, Roberts, Capin, Miciak, & Vaughn, 2015, Lee &; Jonson-Reid, 2016). Motivation ENHANCING MOTIVATION 14 suffers when self-efficacy is low; children who are certain they will fail are unlikely to attempt a particular task (Schunk, 1994, Henk & Melnick; 1995). In contrast, children who had high levels of reading self-efficacy identified themselves as good readers, and are more likely to engage in reading activities (Henk & Melnick, 1995; Wigfield, et.al., 2004) Studies in self-efficacy as it relates to reading and academic competence have produced consistent results. Self-efficacy as a significant positive predictor of reading comprehension was found in adolescent children with disabilities, half of whom were also identified as ELLs (Proctor, et. al., 2014). Self-efficacy was identified as having a greater impact on the children’ competency than intrinsic or extrinsic motivation (Proctor, et., al. 2014). Low performing readers in fourth grade who had not responded to intensive instructional support and failed to adequately respond to phonological awareness assessment, as well as rapid naming reading assessment were found to have low levels of self- efficacy (Cho, et. al., 2015). Little, if any, research exists to counter the existing research that high levels of reading self-efficacy lead to high academic performance and high reading competency. Success in reading, and in the desire to read depends greatly on prior success in reading; students who have experienced failure in the past are unlikely to put forth effort in new reading tasks (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010). Some struggling students, especially those who have low self-efficacy in reading may benefit from not being challenged. Students who fall into this category may do well with books and other reading material that are on their level and not challenging until their confidence in their reading abilities has been somewhat built up (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010). ENHANCING MOTIVATION 15 Feedback is directly related to several other characteristics identified to build reading motivation. Feedback can be a powerful tool to help build self-efficacy, competence, and motivation (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010), however, teachers must carefully craft the feedback given to students otherwise feedback can decrease motivation, self-efficacy and competence (Lipnevich & Smith, 2008). The feedback that teachers give on both reading competence and reading choices have been found to be a major contributing factor to whether students find enjoyment and fulfillment (Hellmich & Hoya, 2017). Feedback can also assist students who have learned helplessness in reading by providing specific encouragement. Feedback assists students, especially students who are struggling readers, to focus on a specific task related to the feedback rather than worrying about failing at yet another reading task (Brophy, 1999). Teachers must find ways to incorporate positive productive feedback to assist developing readers in motivation and competence (Brophy, 1999). Positive, productive feedback from adults and other students allows students to understand what they need to develop and what they already understand (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010). Several suggestions can be identified in the literature that provides suggestions for creating positive, productive feedback by teachers within curriculum: 1. Provide many opportunities for feedback. Feedback must be routinely given to students during all phases of instruction (Troyer, 2017) 2. Feedback should stress student effort rather than reading ability, personal standards of the teacher, or the individual giving the feedback (Brophy, 1999). ENHANCING MOTIVATION 16 3. Feedback should be kept private so as not to create embarrassment for the student. Feedback should not be made public in class, nor should it be posted anywhere in the room (Ames & Archer 1988). Bandura (1994) postulates that feedback is a critical element of self-efficacy. Young children have largely been ignored in the literature on self-efficacy, with most of the research being focused on children in middle childhood, adolescents and adults (Lee &; Jonson-Reid, 2016). Lee and Jonson-Reid (2016) focused on researching the self-efficacy of young children who were in grades one, two, and three, and found that while the children did exhibit self- efficacy and did experience its beneficial effect in their learning, it was not as profound as in older children, adolescents, and adults. Lee and Jonson-Reid (2016) theorized that young children might not have had enough feedback to build self-efficacy, and therefore do not experience as strong of a positive learning effect. Increasing reading task value for students seems to be the second most vital attribute to developing reading motivation, second only to student choice. Students must believe reading to be a valuable skill to them personally in order to build motivation. Characteristics such as gender, age, skill and ethnicity can have a negative effect on a student’s reading motivation, however, the negative effect of the aforementioned characteristics are erased for students who place a high value on reading (Anmarkrud & Bråten, 2009). Troublingly, the value students place on reading decreases as students age. Students who have the highest value of reading are generally elementary school students and as students age, they value the task less (Wigfield, et. al, 2004; Wigfield and Eccles, 2000). ENHANCING MOTIVATION 17 Task value directly relates to learning goals. Bong (2004), found that students who highly value academics were more likely to independently set learning goals for themselves and were more likely to become self-regulated learners (Bong, 2004). The value of reading can also be affected in the way material is presented or assessed. Solheim & Skaftun (2009) found that self-efficacy and low-task value in reading can be negated simply by changing the format of an assessment from a multiple-choice format to open-ended constructed response format. Because there seems to be nothing in available literature to contradict the expectancy-value theory of motivation as it pertains to reading instruction and motivation, and in fact appears to be second in importance only to student choice, teachers must integrate strategies to increase task-value in reading when planning and delivering instruction. Increasing a student’s task value appears to be able to be increased by increasing self-efficacy beliefs (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), allowing students to have more choice and control over their reading (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000), allowing for more open-ended discussions and assessments (Solheim & Skaftun, 2011), and assisting students to see the value of reading for their futures (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Making the reading experience social includes allowing the students to interact with other students and other adults with assigned texts and choice texts (Gambrell, 1996, 2009; Cambria & Guthrie 2010). Students must be given the opportunity to interact with the text as it relates to the real world and within their class of peers. Collaboration and social interaction with peers can be especially motivating for highly unmotivated students, especially the students who lack motivation because of ENHANCING MOTIVATION 18 actual or perceived reading difficulties (Guthrie & Davis, 2003). Providing students with opportunities to interact with their peers during reading instruction can increase motivation, particularly in low achieving students because it can provide an opportunity to share insights into what he or she may be reading, and more importantly to help the students feel a sense of community and belonging in an area that may be perceived by some students to be a place where they do not belong (Guthrie & Davis, 2003). Providing opportunities for social interaction within reading instruction can assist students in making connections between their own lives and the text (Gambrell, 2009), and these connections can be explored further through interactions with real-world events and problems by role playing characters related to the topic and exploring current and historical events as they relate to the topic (Guthrie & Davis, 2003). Reading is inherently a social activity, therefore increased social interaction generally has a positive effect on reading motivation. In classrooms with increased social interaction, reading competence improves, as well as motivation and children are more likely to identify reading as a preferred subject (Stevens & Slaven, 1995). However, some research seems to contradict the necessity for social interaction. Guthrie, et.al (2007) found that social interaction had the lowest effect size of any other attribute that was investigated on its effect for reading motivation. The researchers prior to conducting their study interviewed the upper elementary students and found that generally the most highly motivated and highly competent readers found reading to be best suited as a solitary activity. The students competent in reading identified social interaction within reading as something to be done with parents and siblings, rather than ENHANCING MOTIVATION 19 peers, suggesting social interaction with peers may be more important for struggling readers than for competent readers. The research conducted by Guthrie et.al (2007) indicates that social interaction might not be as important as some others believe (Gambrell, 2009; Guthrie et. al, 2007). The research does not indicate a negative correlation between reading competency, motivation and social interaction, simply that social interaction isn’t as important. When developing curriculum designed to increase motivation, social interaction should then at least be present, even if it is not the attribute most likely to lead to positive reading motivation. Discussion is closely related to social interaction, but is more guided, directed, and productive than merely allowing students to share books, interests, or work with partners on tasks, as in the attribute of social interaction (Wasserman, 2010). Discussion has been found to be a major factor in increasing student motivation in reading (Almasi, O’Flahavan, & Arya, 1995; McRae & Guthrie, 2013; Wasserman, 2010). Gambrell, et. al (2011) paired intermediate and late elementary aged students with adult pen pals. The students would read material, engage in small group discussions with their same-aged peers about the material, and then discuss through letter writing the reading material with their adult pen pal. This authentic task provided students with many opportunities for text-based discussion. Student motivation significantly increased during the course of the year-long study, especially in the older student participants. Student guided discussions are very powerful. Almasi, O’Flahavan, & Arya (1995), found that students who were allowed to discuss in peer groups without teacher intervention had more open discussions about the text being discussed and were more ENHANCING MOTIVATION 20 open to new and unique interpretations of the text. The peers who were guided by a teacher were still able to discuss the text but were less likely to share new interpretations of the text, thereby decreasing engagement with the text. Students who are allowed to share their own knowledge as it relates to the text, whether through background knowledge, connections, or personal interpretations of the text are more likely to be highly engaged with the text (McRae and Guthrie, 2013). Mixed ability grouping when preparing for discussions can be powerful as well. Sikorski (2004), found that grouping students with mixed abilities was more powerful than similar ability groups. Advanced students benefitted by gaining a deeper understanding by explaining the text to their lower-ability peers, while the lower-ability peers benefitted from the perspective of higher ability readers. Classroom discussions, whether they be whole group or small group, allow students to share their own ideas about a text, and have their voices be heard, rather than being told what they should think. Students can feel a part of the classroom community regardless of ability level (Gambrell, 2009). Discussion also allows students to “invent, create, imagine, take risks, and dig for deeper meaning” (Wassermann, 2010), within any text. Goal setting can be defined in two ways: performance goals and learning goals. Performance goals can be defined as a goal that is set to seek external rewards for achieving a task or learning (Dweck, 1986. Performance goals can undermine intrinsic motivation because the characteristics of intrinsic motivation, such as learning for enjoyment are much more difficult to experience if a student’s reason for reading is overshadowed by the presence of performance goals. (Dweck, 1986). By contrast, ENHANCING MOTIVATION 21 learning goals can be defined as the effort and process used to achieve a given task; learning goals are the “factor that engenders pride and satisfaction with performance” (Dweck 1986, p. 1043). Performance and learning goals have been studied in student learning, but there is little literature on goal setting specifically in reading motivation and achievement. Schunk (1994) evaluated the self-efficacy, motivation and competency in fourth grade students studying mathematics. Students who had been given a performance goal, combined with self-evaluation and students who had been given a learning goal, regardless of the presence of self-evaluation showed greater self-efficacy, skill, and motivation. Students who had been given a performance goal, but with no self-evaluation showed lower self-efficacy, skill, and motivation as compared to their peers. Overall, the students who had been given a learning goal, rather than a performance goal had higher motivation and competency outcomes in mathematics. Junior high and high school students were surveyed and found that students with performance goals negatively evaluated their own abilities, and associated failure with ability (Ames & Archer 1988). Eighth grade students who were given learning goals in a science unit attained higher achievement and produced more work on their achievement assessment than their peers who had been given a performance goal (Farrell & Dweck, as cited in Dweck, 1986). Similarly, fifth and sixth grade students showed greater motivation, persistence, and conceptual understanding in academics when given learning goal, than their peers who had received a performance goal however, rote learning, or basic recall of facts was found to be greater in students with performance goals (Vansteenkiste, Timemrmans, Lens, Soenens, & Van den Broeck, 2008). ENHANCING MOTIVATION 22 When setting goals to help increase motivation, teachers then should take care to only assist students in setting learning goals. Goals set with students to help increase motivation should be specific and unique to each student’s needs, rather than general goals set for small groups or the class as a whole (Servallo, 2014; Zentall & Lee, 2012). Intrinsic motivation is defined as a student’s internal desire to read, while extrinsic motivation is defined as a student’s desire as dictated by some external factor (Schiefele, Schaffner, Moller, Wigfield, 2013). Research has generally shown that intrinsically motivated children are better readers than children motivated extrinsically (Wang and Guthrie, 2004; Shaffner, Schiefele, & Ulferts, 2003). However, some research seems to contradict the general idea that all children perform better with high intrinsic motivation. Unrau and Schlackman (2006) researched the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on reading achievement for urban middle school children in grades six, seven, and eight. They found that differences in gender and ethnicity made a difference in the effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Asian students had high intrinsic motivation and high reading achievement, while motivation of Hispanic students whether intrinsic or extrinsic had no effect on reading achievement (Unrau and Schlackman, 2006). Extrinsic rewards must be minimized to build intrinsic motivation, however proximal rewards, or rewards that are similar in nature to the desired behavior, appear to not have the same negative effects that extrinsic rewards do (Gambrell, 1996). For example, a student receiving a reading-related reward, such as a book, is more likely to engage in future reading tasks than a student receiving a treat or a toy (Gambrell and ENHANCING MOTIVATION 23 Marinak, 2013). Proximal rewards are most effective when combined with learning goals (Schunk, 1984). Increasing student’s abilities in reading cannot be ignored while attempting to increase motivation to read. Students who believe they are incapable of reading will not be motivated to read. Building competence and confidence in students becomes essential for teachers desiring to build motivation (Cambria and Guthrie, 2010). Students who are highly motivated to read are generally more highly skilled readers and use more effective reading strategies, which in turn leads to higher comprehension (Guthrie, et. al, 2007). Students who understand text at a higher level are more likely to engage in reading and have higher reading motivation (Wigfield, Gladstone & Turci, 2016). Students who are low achieving students are less likely to frequently engage in reading and are more likely to avoid reading tasks (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010). Students who do not think that they can be successful in reading, largely because of past failures, are more likely to exhibit low motivation to read in the future (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010). Students who self-report that reading is an important and enjoyable activity are more likely to engage in reading more and are more likely to score higher on objective reading comprehension metrics (Wigfield, et. al., 2016), and the opposite is also true: students who report reading as unimportant and unenjoyable score lower on reading comprehension assessments (Chapman, Tunmer, Prochnow, 2000; Morgan & Fuchs, 2007). The relationship between reading ability and motivation to read has been documented in students as young as first grade (Wilson & Trainin, 2007). Some research indicates that increasing competence with struggling readers may not have any positive effect. Morgan, Fuchs, Compton, Cordray, and Fuchs (2008) ENHANCING MOTIVATION 24 assessed the reading motivation and competence of first graders, and then attempted to raise reading motivation among struggling readers. They were able to raise competence in the students, but were unable to raise motivation, indicating that students who have consistently struggled in reading may not have any increase in motivation as their skill improves. However, Guthrie, et., al (2007), found among middle schoolers that an increase in skill had a direct impact on reading motivation. Teachers must not ignore increasing competence, as this is a major task given to teachers. While not all research associates increased competence with increased motivation, competence must still be increased and there is a large body of evidence suggesting that this can bolster reading motivation as well. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 25 PURPOSE Teachers are tasked with creating capable readers who can read, comprehend and evaluate a wide range of texts in various genres and complexities. Students who read more will become more capable and competent readers, yet many students are not motivated to read due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond the control of the teacher, however teachers do have control over their classroom environment, lesson planning, and delivery. Frequently teachers are limited in their choice of classroom materials due to budget and district mandates. Integrating the identified key elements that can raise motivation: student choice, social interaction, discussion, goal setting, feedback, increasing competence, proximal rewards, building task value, and building self-efficacy, in students with mandated basal programs becomes essential to a teacher’s instruction to ensure that students desire to read independently outside of the classroom, and are willing to engage inside the classroom. The purpose of this curriculum project is to first, develop and evaluate curriculum that integrates the key elements to creating motivation in quality reading instruction, and, second to use that curriculum and evaluate whether it increases the motivation of students. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 26 METHOD Research has revealed key elements that produce motivated readers. This curriculum project incorporated the five essential attributes of reading instruction, as well as the key elements that produce motivated readers into a five-week reading and language arts unit to create capable and motivated readers. Participants There were two groups of participants in this project, an evaluation team and students in an elementary classroom. The evaluation team consisted of six educators familiar with the student population, the community, school and district policies, and the Utah core curriculum for third grade. The six licensed educators work together on a professional learning community at the elementary school. The least experienced member of the team has five years of experience, while the most experienced member has more than 40. Two teachers have 15 years of experience, and the remaining two teachers have 12 and 13 years of experience. Two of the teachers hold master’s degrees, three hold reading endorsements, and one teacher holds a dual certification in Elementary Education and Special Education. One teacher received international teacher training. The student participants were 16 third-grade students ranging in ages from 8 to 10 years in an urban elementary school. Some students who were assigned the class did not participate due to a pull-out model of special education, or they were not registered with the class for the duration of the study. Additionally, some families were uninterested in participating due to fear from the national political climate at the time of the study. The school is a Title One school with 97% of the students receiving free and reduced lunch. Eleven of the third-grade students were of Hispanic origin, two students were of Caucasian origin, two students were of Pacific Island origin, and one student was of ENHANCING MOTIVATION 27 Native American origin. Thirteen of the students spoke English as a primary language at school and at home. The four student participants who did not speak English as a primary language at home spoke Spanish as his or her primary language. Eight students spoke English and Spanish as primary languages, one student spoke English and Marshallese as primary languages, one student spoke English and Micronesian as primary languages, and one student spoke English and Navajo as primary languages. English learners have specific needs that must be addressed, however, the purpose of this curriculum is to address the universal characteristics of motivation, rather than addressing the specific needs of English learners. Instruments Data for the curriculum project was collected using three instruments. First, a survey to evaluate the presence of essential attributes of quality reading instruction and characteristics that affect reading motivation was used by the evaluation team. A score of one indicated the lack of that attribute or characteristic and a score of four indicated the presence of the attribute or characteristic in an effective manner. The rubric included an area where the evaluators could provide suggestions for improvement (see Appendix A). The second instrument was a likert scale survey used to evaluate student motivation. The survey was developed by Mckenna and Kear (1990) and used with permission. The scale included both numbers and visual representations. Students selected a number or a visual representation from one to four on how well they agreed with each statement, one being strongly disagree and four being strongly agree. The questions and survey were given through Google Forms for ease of data analysis and to ensure greater student privacy. See Appendix B for a copy of the student motivation survey. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 28 Third, student competency in reading was measured using two instruments: the common formative assessments (CFA) as designed by the third grade professional learning community team. Procedures First the district mandated core reading program was modified and enhanced by the researcher. The modifications ensured that four of the five essential attributes to quality reading instruction were included. Phonemic awareness was excluded due to a lack of applicability to third grade core curriculum and student development. Each day a daily lesson or mini-lesson for each of the five attributes of quality reading instruction was developed. The lesson or mini-lesson was based on the core reading program’s instructional sequence. The instructional sequence was mapped and recorded to ensure logical progression through the lessons. Each week, all of the identified characteristics that help build reading motivation were included in the lessons or mini-lessons. These characteristics included choice, discussion, feedback, proximal rewards, building self-efficacy, increasing task value, goal setting, social interaction. No single lesson contained all of the characteristics to build reading motivation, however during the course of each week, all characteristics were present at least once. Second, the curriculum was evaluated by the team of six teachers. An overview of the curriculum was given during a PLC meeting, as well as an explanation of how to use the survey to evaluate the curriculum, followed by a question and answer session to allow for any questions to be answered and misunderstandings to be clarified. At the next PLC meeting the surveys were gathered and analyzed. Upon gathering the surveys from the PLC team, the surveys were analyzed first by overall score, and second by individual item score. Surveys that failed to produce a perfect score were analyzed to identify which ENHANCING MOTIVATION 29 attribute was missing. The suggestions from the survey were then used to modify and improve the curriculum. Third, the students reading achievement level and motivation was measured using the CFA and reading motivation survey. For low-achieving students how to take a likert scale survey was practiced before the pre-curriculum survey was given, and when the pre-curriculum survey was administered the survey was read to the low-achieving students by the classroom teacher. Then the curriculum was taught to a third-grade class. The curriculum was taught during the regular reading and language arts instruction block, which lasted for two hours and thirty-five minutes. The curriculum lasted for five weeks. Weekly the students took the CFA. At the end of the five weeks the students completed the reading motivation survey. Each item from the reading motivation survey was analyzed separately to monitor student changes in motivation from the beginning to end of the curriculum. The information gathered by the CFA was analyzed against the Utah State Core Curriculum and the PLC team criteria for mastery. Each item was measured as ‘mastered’ or ‘not mastered.’ ENHANCING MOTIVATION 30 RESULTS Feedback from Evaluators All six evaluators reviewed the curriculum for each of the six weeks of instruction. Each evaluator indicated that all characteristics were present each week, but gave some feedback to improve where the characteristics were present, and how to integrate the characteristics into the curriculum further. Each characteristic received an additional one, two or three suggestions for improvement to either improve the characteristic present or include another lesson or activity for that characteristic. See Table 1. Table 1. Evaluation Team Response to Curriculum Survey Characteristics Present Absent Number of suggestions Choice Yes No 2 Discussion Opportunities Yes No 1 Teacher Feedback Yes No 3 Proximal Rewards Yes No 1 Reading Ability Yes No 1 Importance of Reading Yes No 1 Self-Reflection and Goal Setting Yes No 1 Social Interaction Yes No 1 Note: Table includes responses from all 6 evaluators for all five weeks of instruction Suggestions for improvement from the team of evaluators were limited but included allowing students to choose their own groups for discussions. The suggestion ENHANCING MOTIVATION 31 was also made to allow students to work as a group at the end of the weeks to create a game, poster, or other way of a groups choosing to present about each concept. The example was given by the evaluator to have the students make a poster describing what theme is, what theme means, or how to identify the theme in a story. As a result of this suggestion, following each week of comprehension instruction students worked in a small group to create a visual representation of the week’s comprehension topic of the group’s choosing. Suggestions for improvement from the team of evaluators were mainly focused on other ways to include parents, such as having parents select multiple days rather than just one when they could come into the classroom to better fit parental schedules, as well as the potential for a parent-student reading night. As a result of the feedback to include multiple possible days for parents to come into the classroom, on the sign-up calendar that went home with students, parents were encouraged to select three possible days and times to come to the classroom and read with the students. Then the classroom teacher selected one of the three suggested days and invited the parents to come in on that day. Having a parent night was considered, but ultimately rejected due to the time constraints of multiple jobs for many families in the school boundaries. Suggestions for improvement for discussion included having the students make personal connections to the text and new vocabulary words and phrases. This was integrated on day one of each week’s vocabulary instruction. Students participated in a think-pair-share on any words they recognized or were already familiar with that were suggested by the class. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 32 Suggestions to improve feedback focused on improving feedback from peers. These suggestions included having a discussion guide for students to use when talking about their reading responses after comprehension lessons, as well as sentence stems on daily fluency peer feedback forms. The students were expected to give three pieces of positive feedback, and two pieces of feedback for improvement. The students were given two sentence starters on his or her fluency forms to guide the students in responding to his or her peers in a positive way and one sentence stem to guide students in knowing what to say to his or her partner for feedback for improvement. The suggestion was also made to have the teacher model how to give productive feedback to peers. The team of evaluators gave minimal feedback on proximal rewards. One suggestion was to include the students in the decision-making process for which types of proximal rewards they could earn, instead of having the teacher decide on the rewards. This was partially integrated. Students were included in the decision making process to earn rewards for cumulative points at the end of the unit of instruction. One evaluator suggested students set speed reading goals on phonics and fluency practice. This was partially integrated. Rather than setting a class-wide standard for an expectation of fluency and phonics instruction, students were challenged to increase fluency by five words each timing, making the learning goals more individual. The suggestion was given for the teacher to keep notes on positive reading traits about each student from week to week on the oral reading fluency assessment and then share these with the students before having them take the oral reading assessment. For students who began reading below grade level, and for students who exhibit low motivation this practice was already included in the revised curriculum. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 33 The team of evaluators gave no direct feedback on how to increase social interaction. However, many suggestions in other categories would increase social interaction, such as a discussion guide peers use while talking to each other during comprehension lessons. Student Results A two tailed, paired t-test was conducted to compare the pre-curriculum motivation scores to the post-curriculum motivation scores. There was not a significant difference in the scores for Pre-curriculum motivation (M=2.56 and SD=1.07) and Post curriculum motivation (M=2.69 and SD=1.00; t(-1.873), p=.065. These results suggest that there was no significant different between the pre-curriculum motivation scores to the post-curriculum motivation scores. See Table 2. There were two participants in the study whose first CFA assessment placed them in the high-achieving category. During the course of the six week curriculum both students slightly increased in their motivation scores. The curriculum had a slight positive impact on the motivation of the high-achieving participants in the study. See Table 3. Table 2. Comparison between Pre and Post Motivation Scores Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed Pair 1 Pre-Post -.12 1.16 .06 -.25 .01 -1.9 320 .06 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 34 Table 3. Change in Motivation of High Achieving Students CFA Score (Pre) Motivation Change Score Student 1 75 +0.6 Student 2 75 +0.1 Note: High achieving students are those who scored 75% or greater on the first CFA Assessment There were two participants in the study whose first CFA assessment placed them in the high-achieving category. During the course of the six week curriculum both students slightly increased in their motivation scores. The curriculum had a slight positive impact on the motivation of the high-achieving participants in the study. See Table 3. Table 4 Change in Motivation of Average Achieving Students CFA Score (Pre) Motivation Change Score Student 3 55 +0.3 Student 4 55 -0.1 Student 5 55 -0.3 Note: Average achieving students are those who scored between 50-74% on the first CFA assessment There were three participants in the study whose first CFA assessment placed them in the average achieving category. During the course of the six-week curriculum, one of the students experienced an increase in motivation, while two students experienced a decrease in motivation. One student increased motivation by 0.3, one decreased motivation by 0.3, and one decreased by 0.1. Motivation of average achieving students doesn’t appear to have been impacted by the curriculum. See Table 4. There were ten participants in the study whose first CFA assessment placed them in the low-achieving category. During the course of the six-week curriculum, all but two experienced a slight increase in motivation, while two students experienced a decrease in ENHANCING MOTIVATION 35 motivation. Generally, the curriculum had a positive impact on the motivation of low-achieving students. See Table 5. Table 5 Change in Motivation of Low Achieving Students CFA Score (Pre) Motivation Change Score Student 6 45 +0.2 Student 7 45 +0.3 Student 8 45 +0.2 Student 9 35 +0.4 Student 10 35 +1 Student 11 30 -0.4 Student 12 25 -0.9 Student 13 20 +0.1 Student 14 20 +0.1 Student 15 10 +0.4 Student 16 10 +0.1 Note: Low achieving students are those who scored between 0-49% on the first CFA assessment. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 36 DISCUSSION Research has revealed that choice activities are the most important attribute in creating student motivation (Guthrie, et. al, 2007); choice activities give students perceived control over his or her own learning (Gambrell, 2011). Therefore, choice was integrated in every possible way and appears multiple times per week. Choice generally is meant to mean choice in reading materials (Gambrell, 2011) and therefore opportunities to choose what reading material to read, for example the bags of books were included. Cambria and Guthrie (2010), suggest that other means of choice can be beneficial to students as well. Choice opportunities such as choosing whether to work alone or with a buddy, and which items to place on the student work bulletin board. The team of evaluators gave little feedback on increasing opportunities for choice. One evaluator suggested that during comprehension discussions each week to allow students to choose their own groups, with the understanding that with this age group many students may not make the best choices for group members. Guthrie and Davis (2003) suggest that collaboration between peers can be especially motivating for unmotivated students. The suggestion to allow students choice in picking peers groups was somewhat integrated. On days three and four the groups were created by randomly selecting a child and allowing that child to select which group they wanted to be in. Also integrated was the suggestion to have a choice activity at the end of each week. The choice activity could be to create a poster, game, song, play, or other creative project to illustrate the comprehension skill for the week. This was integrated as the student assessment on the day four comprehension lessons allowing the students the choice and control over what activities would best show what he or she had learned during the week, thereby allowing ENHANCING MOTIVATION 37 students perceived and actual control over his or her own learning as suggested by Guthrie, et. al. (2007). Assisting students in seeing the value of reading was also a large focus of the curriculum, because valuing reading seems to be second only to choice in increasing reading motivation (Anmarkrud & Bråten, 2009). This was achieved by helping students see how reading can be valuable to them outside of school, because many students, especially already competent readers may feel that reading is a solitary or familial activity (Guthrie, et. al, 2007). Very little feedback was given by the reviewers on this topic, but one reviewer commented that inviting parents into the classroom sent a very good message to the students but the reviewer did have concerns about parental willingness to participate due to work schedules during the day. Suggestions for improvement included asking parents to sign up for multiple convenient times and then sending official confirmations to the parents or having a parent’s night when the parents could come in and have a reading night with their children at school. Integrating this suggestion could have been powerful, as research has established that parental support is an important characteristic of student motivation (Gonzalez-DeHass, Willens & Holbein, 2005; Baker & Scher, 2002; Gambrell, 1996), however due to the logistics of creating a parent’s night between the school’s scheduleand finding a night when most parents could come in, the first suggestion of asking for multiple possible dates was chosen. Discussion was included primarily in comprehension lessons by allowing the students to read stories as a group and discussing the focus strategy as it related to the story they read (Wasserman, 2010). Almasi (1995) suggests that discussion within peer groups is especially valuable, therefore discussion was also greatly integrated within the ENHANCING MOTIVATION 38 vocabulary development lessons, with both large and small group discussions. Few suggestions were given to improve discussion opportunities. One evaluator suggested having the students make personal connections to vocabulary words and the text and share those with classmates in a variety of settings: partners, small group, and whole group. These were integrated on the first day of each week’s vocabulary development lessons (Almasi, 1995; Sinatra, 2008; Nielsen & Friesen, 2008). After the definition of each word was determined, the questions of, “What does this word mean to you?” and “Where have you heard this word?” and “Can you use this word in a sentence?” were asked of thee students. Sinatra (2008) suggests that developing vocabulary with students of a low socio-economic background is especially important, these questions allowed the students an opportunity to make a personal connection to each of the vocabulary words and word structures. Incidentally, these questions can also be argued as questions to increase the value of reading (Solheim & Skaftun, 2009). Feedback is an element for increasing motivation based on its effect on self-efficacy and increased competence (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010). Suggestions to improve feedback focused on improving feedback from peers. The suggestion was to have the students give one another feedback on their reading responses and provide a discussion guide based on sentence stems to guide the discussion and feedback. Troyer (2011) suggests that feedback must be routine, therefore daily feedback from peers was integrated into daily reading responses. The suggestion was also given to provide sentence stems on the peer fluency forms from boxes to fill out to sentence stems. This was integrated into the fluency forms (Troyer, 2011). Additionally, positive, productive feedback from adults is important to allow students to understand what they do or do not ENHANCING MOTIVATION 39 know (Becker, Mcelvany & Kortenbruck, 2010). A suggestion was given to model for the students how appropriate and helpful feedback can be given for at least week one, if not week one and week two. This adjustment to the curriculum was made. Schunk (1984) states that proximal rewards are most effective when paired with learning goals. Students were given the opportunity to earn points for participating in classroom activities and making progress towards personal goals, and then purchasing rewards from a menu of proximal rewards. The team of evaluators gave little feedback beyond suggesting to allow the students to have input into the choices of proximal rewards. This suggestion was not included due to the time of year the curriculum was designed to be taught. The unit of the core reading program used in this project was the final unit of the program. If this unit been designed to be taught near the beginning of the core reading program when the rewards could be a regular part of the classroom culture for the duration of the year, the suggestion would have been integrated. Self-reflection and goal setting were initially built into the curriculum by setting individual learning goals with students at the start of the week concerning a focus skill: phonics, vocabulary development, or comprehension; or some combination of the skills, then graphing the progress towards the goal. Dweck (1986, p. 1043) states that learning goals are important to build satisfaction and pride in a student’s own achievements, therefore the goals were designed to be individual, rather than a group goal or related to third grade developmental level. The students were then given the opportunity to build a plan to reach their goal at the end of the week. Ames and Archer (1988) suggest that students reflecting on growth and learning rather than achievement view themselves more favorably as a learner than those reflecting only on achievement. At the end of the week, ENHANCING MOTIVATION 40 the goals were revisited and graphed according to the actual scores students received. There was also an opportunity for students to self-reflect on whether he or she made the goal, and if not, how they grew as a reader anyway. The only suggestion from the team of evaluators on self-reflection and goal setting was to include a goal for reading words in a timed phonics activity. This suggestion was rejected. Goals for students should be based upon personal performance and not an arbitrary goal set by the teacher (Brophy, 1999). The concern that the effect of timed readings could have a negative effect on reading motivation, such as exists in math motivation was the reason this suggestion was rejected. There is significant research to indicate building self-efficacy in reading is important to build motivation in reading (Henk & Melnick, 1995; Wigfield et. al, 2004; Procter, et. al, 2014, Cho, et. al, 2015; Lee & Johnson-Reid, 2016; & Cambria & Guthrie, 2010). The only suggestion from the evaluators was to keep notes on positive reading traits about each student from week to week on the oral reading fluency assessment and share these with the students before having them take the oral reading assessment. This was somewhat included. For students who read below grade level, and for the students who exhibit low motivation, this practice was included in the curriculum. Ames & Archer (1988) states that it is crucial that constructive feedback given to students be private and the teacher notes protected student privacy and focused primarily on what the student could already do (Brophy, 1999). Attempts to increase self-efficacy included giving students control over a bulletin board on which they could post projects and paperwork that made the individual student proud (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010; Brophy, 1999). Throughout the curriculum, social interaction was thoroughly integrated by using partner work, small group work, partner choice activities, and small and large group ENHANCING MOTIVATION 41 discussions (Almasi, 1995). The team of evaluators gave no feedback on how social interaction within the curriculum could better be improved, however some other suggestions such as increasing discussion opportunities and providing more opportunities for peer feedback within reading responses enhanced opportunities for increased social interaction with their peers. Limitations This curriculum project has several limitations. The first limitation is that no attempt was made to track or identify which of the nine characteristics of reading motivation was having the greatest or the least impact, making it difficult or impossible to determine which characteristics would be the most effective for teachers to focus on integrating into the daily curriculum of a classroom. A second limitation is the timing in which the curriculum took place. The curriculum was taught near the end of the school year and overlapped on certain days with state summative testing. This testing could have had a negative effect on overall student’s motivation especially students who were low-achieving learners by affecting the student’s sense of self efficacy (Cambria and Guthrie, 2010). Additionally, reading motivation is something that can take time to develop, and five weeks may not have been enough time for readers, especially students with already low motivation, to develop a greater motivation to read. Student responses may have been influenced by the visual representation on the likert scale. For the students experiencing great personal struggles, student answers on the likert scale may have been influenced by the unhappy faces used in the survey. Finally, there were only 16 participants in the study. This is a small sample size and the small size makes it difficult to make large generalizations about the curriculum’s effect on motivation. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 42 Suggestions for Future Research Further research is needed to clarify how curriculum design can increase student motivation to read. Additional student time on the redesigned curriculum would have likely produce different results. Future research could also focus on discovering which of the nine characteristics had the greatest impact on student motivation, and which ones had the lowest impact, or perhaps even a negative impact on motivation. Delivery of the curriculum at a different point during the academic year, away from state summative testing may also clarify the results. Finally, future research could include a larger sample size of students in order to make broader generalizations to the curriculum’s effectiveness on a larger scale. Conclusion Motivation of the teacher and the students increased, although that motivation was not reflected on the Likert scale. There was no statistical increase in motivation scores, but numbers do not tell the entire story. What the numbers cannot capture is the excitement in the students, the newfound passion in the educator, and a successful opportunity for the educator and the students to build a better relationship during the motivation study. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 43 REFERENCES Afflerbach, P., Cho, B., Kim, J., Crassas, M. E., & Doyle, B. (2013). READING: What else matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 440-448. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1146 Almasi, J. F., O'Flahavan, J. F., & Arya, P. (2001). A comparative analysis of student and teacher development in more and less proficient discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 96-120. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.2.1 Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267. doi:/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260 Anmarkrud, O., Bråten, I., (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences. (19)2, 252-256. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002 Antuez, B. (2002). English Language Learners and the Five Essential Components of Reading Instruction. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/english-language-learners-and-five-essential-components-reading-instruction Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children's motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452-477. doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4 Baker, L., & Scher, D. (2002). Beginning readers' motivation for reading in relation to parental beliefs and home reading experiences. Reading Psychology, 23(4), 239-269. doi:10.1080/713775283 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 44 Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 4, 71-81. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanEncy.html. Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 773-785. doi:10.1037/a0020084 Berg, M., & Stegelman, T. (2003). The critical role of phonological and phonemic awareness in reading success: a model for early literacy in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(4). doi: 10.1177/875687050302200407 Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 287-297. doi:10.3200/JOER.97.6.287-298 Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3402_1 Bui, Y. N., & Fagan, Y. M. (2013). The Effects of an Integrated Reading Comprehension Strategy: A Culturally Responsive Teaching Approach for Fifth-Grade Students’ Reading Comprehension. Preventing School Failure, 57(2), 59-69. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2012.664581 Cambria, J., Guthrie, J.T. (2010). Motivating and engaging students in reading. The New England Reading Association Journal. (46)1, 16-29. Cho, E., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Miciak, J., & Vaughn, S. (2015). Cognitive attributes, attention, and self-efficacy of adequate and inadequate responders in a fourth ENHANCING MOTIVATION 45 grade reading intervention. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 97(6), 299-309. Retrieved April 22, 2016. Dufrene, B., Reisener, C., Olmi, D., Zoder-Martell, K., McNutt, M., & Horn, D. (2010). Peer Tutoring for Reading Fluency as a Feasible and Effective Alternative in Response to Intervention Systems. Journal Of Behavioral Education, 19(3), 239-256. doi:10.1007/s10864-010-9111-8 Durrell, D., Nicholson, A., Olson, A.V., Gavel, S.R., Linehan, E. (2009). Success in first grade reading. Journal of Education, (189)3. doi: 0.1177/002205740918900302 Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 40(10), 1040-1048. Edmunds, K. M., & Bauserman, K. L. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading motivation through conversations with children. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 414-424. doi:10.1598/RT.59.5.1 Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and Small‐Group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203-212. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.0002 Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. Reading Teacher, 50(1), 14. Gambrell, L.B. (2009). Creating opportunities to read more so that students read better. In E.H. Hiebert (Ed.), Read more, read better (pp. 251–266). New York: Guilford. Gambrell, L., & Marinak, B. (2013). Reading Motivation: What the Research Says. Retrieved April 5, 2018, from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/reading-motivation-what-research-says. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 46 Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Marie F. Doan Holbein. (2005). Examining the relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3949-7 Grapin, S. L., Kranzler, J. H., Waldron, N., Joyce-Beaulieu, D., & Algina, J. (2017). Developing local oral reading fluency cut scores for predicting high-stakes test performance. Psychology In The Schools, 54(9), 932-946. doi:10.1002/pits.22035 Guthrie, J. T., Coddington, C. S., & Wigfield, A. (2009). Profiles of reading motivation among african american and caucasian students. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(3), 317-353. doi:10.1080/10862960903129196 Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 59-85. doi:10.1080/10573560308203 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(3), 282-313. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004 Hellmich, F., & Hoya, F. (2017). Primary school students’ implicit theories and their reading motivation: the role of parents’ and teachers’ effort feedback. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie. (225)2, 117-126. doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000288 Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about. Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470. ENHANCING MOTIVATION 47 Kamhi, A. G., & Catts, H. W. (2017). Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2), 73. doi:10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0033 Keyes, S. E., Jacobs, J., Bornhorst, R., Gibson, J. L., & Vostal, B. R. (2017). Supplemental computerized reading instruction in oral fluency and its generalizable effects on at-risk urban second graders. Reading Improvement, 54(1), 9-18. Lee, Y., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2016). The Role of Self-Efficacy in Reading Achievement of Young Children in Urban Schools. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33(1), 79-89. doi:10.1007/s10560-015-0404-6 Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2008). Response to assessment feedback: The effects of grades, praise, and source of information. ETS Research Report Series, 2008(1), i-57. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02116.x Mahdavi, J. N., & Tensfeldt, L. (2013). Untangling Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction: Assisting Struggling Readers in the Primary Grades. Preventing School Failure, 57(2), 77-92. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2012.668576 McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(9), 626-639. McRae, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2013). Teacher Practices that Impact Reading Motivation. Retrieved April 4, 2018, from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/teacher-practices-impact-reading-motivation ENHANCING MOTIVATION 48 Morgan, P. L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between children's reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional Children, 73(2), 165-183. doi:10.1177/001440290707300203 Morgan, P. L., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Cordray, D. S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Does early reading failure decrease children's reading motivation? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(5), 387-404. doi:10.1177/0022219408321112 National Reading Panel (U.S.). (2000). National Reading Panel: teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: reports of the subgroups. Washington, D.C. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Nielsen, D. C., & Friesen, L. D. (2012). A study of the effectiveness of a small-group intervention on the vocabulary and narrative development of at-risk kindergarten children.Reading Psychology, 33(3), 269-299. doi:10.1080/02702711.2010.508671 Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. doi 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 Price, K. W., Meisinger, E. B., Louwerse, M. M., & D’Mello, S. (2016). The Contributions of Oral and Silent Reading Fluency to Reading Comprehension. Reading Psychology, 37(2), 167-201. doi:10.1080/02702711.2015.1025118 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 49 Proctor, C. P., Daley, S., Louick, R., Leider, C., & Gardner, G. (2014). How motivation and engagement predict reading comprehension among native English-speaking and English-learning middle school students with disabilities in a remedial reading curriculum. Learning & Individual Differences, 36, 76-83. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.014 Scarborough, H. S., Ehri, L. C., Olson, R. K., & Fowler, A. E. (1998). The fate of phonemic awareness beyond the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 115-142. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_2 Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., Ulferts, H. (2013). Reading amount as a mediator of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 369-385. doi:10.1002/rrq.52 Schiefele, E., Schaffner, E., Moller, J., Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, (47)4, 427-463. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.030 Schmidgall, M., & Joseph, L. M. (2007). Comparison of phonic analysis and whole word-reading on first graders' cumulative words read and cumulative reading rate: An extension in examining instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Psychology In The Schools, 44(4), 319-332. doi:0.1002/pits.20227 Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58. Schunk, D. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-382. doi:10.3102/00028312033002359 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 50 Sinatra, R. (2008). Creating a culture of vocabulary acquisition for children living in poverty. Journal Of Children & Poverty, 14(2), 173-192 doi:10.1080/10796120802336001 Sikorski, J. F. (2004). Teacher of teachers: An interview with james h. korn. Teaching of Psychology, 31(1), 72-76. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3101_15 Solheim, O. J., & Skaftun, A. (2009). The problem of semantic openness and constructed response. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(2), 149-164. doi:10.1080/09695940903075909 Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. The Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241-262. doi:10.1086/461801 Troyer, M. (2017). Teacher Implementation of an Adolescent Reading Intervention. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement in an urban middle school. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 801-101. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.2.81-101 Vansteenkiste, M., Timmermans, T., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Van den Broeck, A. (2008). Does extrinsic goal framing enhance extrinsic goal-oriented individuals' learning and performance? An experimental test of the match perspective versus self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 387-397. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.387 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 51 Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., and Verhoeven, L. (2015). What oral text reading fluency can reveal about reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading. 38, 213–225. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12024. Vostal, B. R., & Lee, D. L. (2015). Effects of oral reading fluency on students with emotional and behavioral disorders’ latency to continue reading. Reading Improvement, 52(3), 112-12 Wang, J., & Guthrie, J. (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(2), 162-186. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2 Wasserman, S., (2010). Meeting students where they are. Educational Leadership, 67(5). Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–Value theory of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J. R., & Turci, L. (2016). Beyond Cognition: Reading Motivation and Reading Comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 190-195. doi:10.1111/cdep.12184 Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children's Motivation for Reading: Domain Specificity and Instructional Influences. Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 299-309. Wilson, K. M., & Trainin, G. (2007). First-grade students' motivation and achievement for reading, writing, and spelling. Reading Psychology, 28(3), 257-282. doi:10.1080/02702710601186464 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 52 Yesil-Dagli, U. (2011). Predicting ELL students’ beginning first grade English oral reading fluency from initial kindergarten vocabulary, letter naming, and phonological awareness skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 15-29. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.06.001 Yi-Chin, L., Yu-Ling, L., & Ying-Shao, H. (2014). The Effects of Meta-Cognitive Instruction on Students' Reading Comprehension in Computerized Reading Contexts: A Quantitative Meta-Analysis. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 186-202. Zentall, S. S., & Lee, J. (2012). A reading motivation intervention with differential outcomes for students at risk for reading disabilities, ADHD, and typical comparisons: Clever is and clever does. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 248-259. doi:10.1177/0731948712438556 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 53 APPENDICES Appendix A: Evaluator Response Form Week One Instructions: Preview the instructional week. For each characteristic complete the survey questions. Evaluator Name:_________________________________________________________ 1. Does the activity or lesson provide meaningful choice? Yes or No If no, how could the activity or lesson be improved? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Are there other areas in the week where choice would make more sense? Yes or No If yes, where? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Does the activity or lesson provide meaningful discussion opportunities? Yes or No If no, how could the activity or lesson be improved? ENHANCING MOTIVATION 54 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Are there other areas in the week where a discussion would make more sense? Yes or No If yes, where? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Does the activity or lesson provide opportunities for meaningful teacher feedback? Yes or No If no, how could the activity or lesson be improved? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Does the activity or lesson provide opportunities for meaningful peer feedback? Yes or No If no, how could the activity or lesson be improved? ENHANCING MOTIVATION 55 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Are proximal rewards present in the week? Yes or No If no, how could proximal rewards be integrated? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Does the activity or lesson increase a student’s belief that he or she is becoming a better reader? Yes or No If no, how could the lesson or activity be improved? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Are there other areas in the week where increasing belief on their own reading abilities would be useful? Yes or No If yes, where? ENHANCING MOTIVATION 56 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Does the activity or lesson increase student’s belief that reading is important? Yes or No If no, how could the activity or lesson be improved? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Are there any other areas in the week which could help increase student’s belief that reading is important? Yes or No If yes, where? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Does the activity or lesson provide opportunities for self-reflection and goal setting? Yes or No If no, how could the activity or lesson be improved? ENHANCING MOTIVATION 57 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Are there other areas in the week where opportunities for self-reflection and goal setting? Yes or No If yes, where? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Does the activity or lesson provide opportunities for social interaction? Yes or No If no, how could the activity or lesson be improved? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Are there other areas in the week for opportunities for social interaction? Yes or No If yes, where? ENHANCING MOTIVATION 58 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ENHANCING MOTIVATION 59 Appendix B: Student Motivation Survey How do you feel when you read a book on a rainy Saturday? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel when you read a book in school during free time? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about reading for fun at home? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about getting a book for a present? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about spending free time reading a book? 4 3 2 1 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 60 How do you feel about starting a new book? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about reading during summer vacation? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about reading instead of playing? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about going to a bookstore? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about reading different kinds of books? 4 3 2 1 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 61 How do you feel when a teacher asks you questions about what you read? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about reading workbook pages and worksheets? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about reading in school? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about reading your school books? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about learning from a book? ENHANCING MOTIVATION 62 4 3 2 1 How do you feel when it’s time for reading in class? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about stories you read in reading class? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel when you read out loud in class? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about using a dictionary? 4 3 2 1 How do you feel about taking a reading test? ENHANCING MOTIVATION 63 4 3 2 1 Scoring Guide Student Name _______________________________________________________________ Teacher ____________________________________________________________________ Grade _____________________ Administration Date ____________________________ Scoring Guide 4 points Happiest Face (4) 3 points Smiling Face (3) 2 points Sad Face (2) 1 point Crying Face (1) Recreational Reading 1. ____ 2. ____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 5. ____ 6. ____ 7. ____ 8. ____ 9. ____ 10. ____ Academic Reading 1. ____ 2. ____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 5. ____ 6. ____ 7. ____ 8. ____ 9. ____ 10. ____ ENHANCING MOTIVATION 64 Full score: __________________ McKenna, M., & Kear, D. (1990). Measuring Attitude toward Reading: A New Tool for Teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(9), 626-639. Used with permission of the International Reading Association (www.reading.org) Survey designed by Dennis J. Kear, Wichita State University Copyright © 1990 International Reading Association. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Authorization to copy items for internal and personal use is granted by the copyright holder for libraries and other users registered with their local Reproduction Rights Organization (RRO), e.g., Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA (www. copyright.com), provided the appropriate fee is paid directly to the RRO. Individuals may copy a single article from this journal without written permission for nonprofit, onetime classroom use, or make five copies of a single article for library reserve use. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. Special requests should be addressed to: permissions@wiley.com ENHANCING MOTIVATION 65 Permissions Dear Ms. Ellsworth: Re: The Reading Teacher 43(8):626-639 · May 1990 Thank you for your email. Permission is hereby granted for the use requested subject to the usual acknowledgements (author, title of material, title of journal, ourselves as publisher). You should also duplicate the copyright notice that appears in the Wiley publication; this can be found on the copyright page in the journal. Any third party material is expressly excluded from this permission. If any of the material you wish to use appears within our work with credit to another source, authorization from that source must be obtained. This permission does not include the right to grant others permission to photocopy or otherwise reproduce this material except for accessible versions made by non-profit organizations serving the blind, visually impaired and other persons with print disabilities (VIPs). Sincerely, Sheik Safdar Permissions Coordinator II Copyright & Permissions Wiley ssafdar@wiley.com T +1 201-748-6512 111 River Street Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774 U.S. permissions@wiley.com ENHANCING MOTIVATION 66 Title of Project: Primary Investigator(s): Approval Number: Reviewer: Date: Developing, Evaluating, and Delivering Instruction to Increase Reading Motivation and Competency in Third Grade Students Karina Ellsworth 17-ED-044 Natalie A. Williams, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board Education Subcommittee 3/1/2018 COMMITTEE ACTION YOUR PROPOSAL (PROJECT) AND CONSENT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND CLASSIFIED BY THE HUMAN SUBJECTS IN RESEARCH COMMITTEE AS: ___High Risk Moderate Risk X Low Risk BY THE FOLLOWING PROCESS: Full board review Expedited review X _ Exemption THE PROJECT HAS BEEN: X Approved _____Not Approved COMMENTS: See Attached Approval Letter __Natalie A. Williams__________ 3/1/18_______ IRB EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER REVIEW DATE INVESTIGATOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AFTER COMMITTEE ACTION The federal regulations provide that after the committee has approved your study, you may not make any changes without prior committee approval except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subjects. Further, you must report to the committee any changes that you make and any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others that arise. March 1, 2018 ENHANCING MOTIVATION 67 Dear Karina, Your project entitled “Developing, Evaluating, and Delivering Instruction to Increase Reading Motivation and Competency in Third Grade” has been reviewed and is approved as written. It is approved as “exempt” because it involves research in an established or commonly accepted educational setting, involving normal educational practices. Notification of the study and how data will be reported are appropriate. Realize that permission is conditional and becomes permanent with the approval of the site/district letter. Penee Stewart is the chair of the committee who will oversee this study. Anonymity and confidentiality are addressed appropriately, and the type of information gathered could not “reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, or reputation” (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, Subpart D.) You may proceed with your study as written, and your IRB expires one year from today. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. A final copy of your application will remain on file with the IRB records. If you need further assistance or have any questions, call Dr. Williams at 626-8654 or e-mail her at nataliewilliams1@weber.edu Sincerely, Natalie A. Williams, Natalie A. Williams, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board, Education Subcommittee ENHANCING MOTIVATION 68