Iatrogenic effects of a book reading program in an elementary school

8/14/2019 Iatrogenic effects of a book reading program in an elementary school

1/12

Book Reading 1

IATROGENIC EFFECTS OF A BOOK READING PROGRAM

IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

M Cecil Smith

Department of Educational Psychology,

Counseling, and Special Education

Northern Illinois University

DeKalb, IL 60115-2854

815/753-8448

fax 815/753-2100

David Abhalter

Forest Hills Elementary School

5020 Central

Western Hills, IL 60558

708/246-7678

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College Reading Association, Arlington, VA,October 31-November 3, 1991.


2/12

Book Reading 2

Abstract

This study is a field-based investigation of childrens book-reading activities basedon a curricular intervention in an elementary school. In the first year of the study, children

were provided with rewards, such as pins and certificates, for reading books. The school-wide goal was for each child to read 30 books during the school year. Concerns aboutadverse effects of providing extrinsic rewards for book reading led to removal of thecurriculum the following year. Instead, students were asked to keep reading logs whichfocused on the volume of reading completed as well as the childrens reasons for selectingthe books they choose. Further, childrens motivational orientations were examined. Thereward-based program appeared to have a debilitating effect on students participation in acommunity library summer reading program, as 10% fewer students from the schoolparticipated as compared to the previous summer. Because students read, on average, 73books each during the course of the extrinsic rewards curriculum, they were likelysuffering from an overexposure to reading that may have long-lasting effects.


3/12


4/12

Book Reading 4

Forest Hills Elementary School (FHES), K-5 elementary school serving a

population of 208 students, served as the site for this field study. The children range in

age from 6 to 11 years of age, are high ability, high functioning students from upper-

middle class homes in a well-to-do western suburb in the greater Chicago area. Generally,

the students parents are well-educated professionals who are highly involved with theschool. The racial composition of the school district population is 98% white.

Procedures

Year one (1989-90) curriculum. Prior to the implementation of the reward-based

intervention in year one of the study, the local school district adopted a whole-language

curriculum. The administration and staff at FHES then planned a program to encourage

students to read more extensively. The goal was to motivate students to engage in

personal reading so that they would be exposed to as much literature as possible. A

program based on a special theme, Shoot for the Stars was created for this purpose.

Each student in the school was asked to sign a contract stating that they would

read at least 30 books during the school year. Once a student accomplished this goal, the

student was awarded a special pin and award certificate that were based on the programs

space adventure theme. In addition, students would receive awards for reading books

beyond the number specified in their contracts. The award structure was as follows:

30 books = Rocket Pilot award

45 books = Planet Crusader award

60 books = Galactic Explorer award

75 books = Space Master award90 books = Universe Grand Master award

+90 books = Universe Grand Master Personal Challenge award.

All students were provided with tally sheets to help them keep a record of their

book reading. Following reading, students were required to give an oral summary of the

book to their parents who signed the tally sheet. Students were also asked to record the

book title and author, and number of pages read. A further condition was that the books

must be age and grade appropriate for the student. Non-readers (e.g., kindergarteners)

were allowed to count the books that their parents read aloud to them. Tally sheets were

collected every two weeks by the classroom teachers. Monthly school-wide award

assemblies were held in which individual students were recognized for their reading

achievements through presentations of the various awards.

Finally, parental and community involvement in the program was bolstered by

having a large, professionally-painted billboard, in the form of a rocket ship, placed in

front of the school. Each month the rocket ship was elevated toward the stars (i.e., the


5/12

Book Reading 5

school-wide goal of 6,060 books) to reflect the total number of books read by the schools

students.

The results of this curricular intervention were dramatic as students exceeded the

goals by nearly two and one-half times. Following the discovery that the summer reading

program appeared to be adversely affected by the reading curriculum, and concerns thatstudents were reading simply to collect somewhat meaningless prizes, a new curricular

intervention was planned for the second academic year.

Year two (1990-91) curriculum. The first author was asked to assist in the

development of a revised curricular intervention for the reading program. Because of our

concerns about how students attitudes were likely to have been affected by the provision

of external rewards, the Shoot for the Stars program was dropped prior to the beginning

of the next school year. Students were, instead, asked to keep a log of their reading

activity. Students were instructed to record, after reading a book, the title and author of

the book, and the number of pages read, as in year one. They were also asked to respond

in writing to the statement, I read this book because... Students were strongly

encouraged to respond to this statement in any way that they pleased, and that their

responses to this item would not be evaluated. Finally, students were asked to attempt to

record the number of minutes that they spent in reading each book at home and at school.

Reading logs were brought to school every two weeks for teacher inspection. Teachers

and parents were instructed to not provide explicit praise of students for their reading

activity.

There were three interrelated purposes for this very simple intervention. First, wewanted to examine the effects of removing the reward system on students reading

behavior, while still maintaining students attention to their reading activities. Second, we

wanted to get students to thinking about why they selected different kinds of books to

read. Finally, we were interested in determining the extent to which students reading

behavior outside of school is related to their performance on standardized reading

achievement tests. This last purpose is based on the previous work in this area by

Anderson et al. (1989) and Taylor et al. (1990).

We were also concerned with determining students motivational orientations

(e.g., toward intrinsic or extrinsic factors). We were concerned that the extrinsic rewards

curricula might have an impact on students motivations for reading. We also wondered

how students motivational orientation interacts with their reading behaviors. Do those

students who work for extrinsic rewards benefit from curricula such as Shoot for the

Stars? Do such curricula adversely impact those students with intrinsic motivational

orientations for reading? Several measures of motivation were obtained on the students in


6/12

Book Reading 6

the school. Parent volunteers were trained to administer these measures to small groups

of students. The parent training was conducted by a colleague.

Instruments

Intelligence and achievement test scores are obtained for all students in the school

as a matter of record in grades two and four. These data were used as correlates ofreading activity. The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT; Otis & Lennon, 1979)

was the IQ measure and the achievement measure was the Stanford Achievement Test

(Madsen et al., 1973).

The motivation measures included the following:

Picture-Choice Motivation Scale (Kunca & Haywood, 1967). This is a 20-item

pictorial inventory. Each item presents a picture of an intrinsically motivating (IM)

activity and an extrinsically motivating (EM) activity. For example, one item depicts an

astronaut going to the moon (i.e., choosing to do something exciting) contrasted with a

person watching an astronaut going to moon (i.e., its safer to stay on the earth).

Respondents indicate their preference for one of the two activities. IM items assess ones

motivation for challenge, mastery of the environment, responsibility, achievement, and

aesthetic values. EM items, on the other hand, assess ones motivation for safety,

security, and external reinforcing activities.

Harter Scales of Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation (Harter, 1981). This measure

consists of 30 items which tap into childrens intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation toward

learning and mastery in the classroom. There are two subscales: motivation, which

measures the dimensions of preference for challenge versus preference for easy work,curiosity/interest versus teacher approval, and independent mastery attempts versus

dependence on teacher; and cognitive-informational, which measures the dimensions of

independent judgment versus reliance on teacher judgment, and internal versus external

criteria for success/failure. An example item reads Some kids know when theyve made

mistakes without checking with the teacher[intrinsic response]BUT other kids need to

check with the teacher to know if theyve made a mistake [extrinsic response]. Children

respond on a modified true-false scale either really true for me or sort of true for me

on the intrinsic side of the item, or sort of true for me or really true for me on the

extrinsic side of the scale. Harter (1981) found that the instrument is a reliable and valid

measure sensitive to individual differences in both intrinsic and extrinsic orientation (p.

308).

Young Childrens Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Y-CAIMI; Gottfried,

1990). This is a 39-item item measure of young childrens academic intrinsic motivation

for reading, math, and school in general. Previous research by Gottfried (1985) has shown


7/12

Book Reading 7

the Y-CAIMI to be a valid and reliable measure. An example item reads, I like learning

new things in reading. Students respond on a five-point Likert scale from strongly

agree to strongly disagree. Academic intrinsic motivation involves enjoyment of

learning which is characterized by a mastery orientation, curiosity, persistence, task-

endogeny, and the learning of challenging, difficult, and novel tasks (Gottfried, 1990).Finally, data were obtained from students reading logs. Theses data included

amount of books read, volume of reading (e.g., number of pages), and qualitative data

concerning the types of literature students were reading.

RESULTS

The results of the year one curricular intervention (i.e., Shoot for the Stars) were

dramatic. Although the school-wide goal was 6,060 books, students were found to have

read 15,239 books over the course of the school year! In other words, students were

reading, on average, one book every two and one-half days, or an average of 73.3 books

per student over the school year. Descriptive data on book reading by grade are displayed

in Table 1. Grade one students read significantly more books than did the other grades

(kindergarten and fifth grade are not reported because kindergarteners were not reading

on their own and fifth graders were not followed in the second year of the study). The

greater number of books read by first graders is likely due to their reading books which

are brief and contain more pictures than text.

Correlations were computed to determine the relationships among IQ, readingachievement, total achievement test score, and total number of books read by students for

grades two, three, and four. These data are shown in Table 2. IQ was significantly

correlated with number of books read for grades two and four, but not grade three.

Reading achievement was significantly correlated with number of books read for grades

two and four, but again, not grade three. Finally, total achievement was significantly

correlated with number of books read for grades two and four, but not grade three. The

lack of significance among correlations at grade three is likely due to the small number of

students in grade three (n = 18).

Year two curriculum (i.e., reading logs) data are currently being analyzed, so no

results can yet be reported. However, as one indication of the possible effects of the

revised reading curriculum, students book reading activity dropped precipitously from

year one to year two. Students read 15,239 books during year one (73.3 books per

student). Students read only 3,872 books, however, during year two (34.9 books per

student). Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine if this effect is due to the withdrawal


8/12

Book Reading 8

of rewards or due to the students simply being burned out and turned off to reading as a

result of the reward-based curriculum the previous school year. Also note that students in

year two read only a little more than half the number of books required to attain the year

one school-wide reading goal (i.e., 6,060 books).

Although data from students year two reading logs have yet to be fully analyzed,students responses to the item I read this book because demonstrate that students in

year two were reading for both intrinsic (e.g., I read this book because I wanted to learn

more about the planet) and extrinsic (e.g., I read this book because my mother made

me) reasons. These data are currently being examined to determine if students

responses are commensurate with their scores on the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation

measures. Also, we have not yet analyzed students responses on the motivational

measures. We expect that a careful examination of these measures will lead to several

important hypotheses about the impact of extrinsic rewards curricula on students

motivational orientations.

What impact did the schools extrinsic reward curriculum in year one have on

students participation in the community librarys summer reading program? Although the

explicit goal of the curriculum was to promote enjoyment of reading, it is possible that the

extent of reading performed by the children lead them to view book reading as a chore

at best, or as something to be avoided at worst. We examined the extent of participation

in the summer reading program before and after the implementation of the extrinsic

reward curriculum. We also compared these participation rates with the rate of

participation for the summer reading program following the year 2 curriculumintervention.

The community librarys summer reading program is also based on the provision of

extrinsic rewards. Typically, a metaphorical theme is employed to get children to think

about reading, such as The Great Book Hunt, Journey into Reading, or Go for the

Gold with appropriate props and rewards provided which match the theme of the

program. Children are recognized for their reading by being presented with certificates of

achievement and having their name placed on a bulletin board in a prominent location in

the library.

Eighty-five of the 208 students at FHES (42%) participated in the library summer

reading program during the summer preceding the implementation of the Shoot for the

Stars curriculum in year one. Sixty-one of these students (72%) completed the summer

reading program. During the summer following the Shoot for the Stars curriculum, only

64 FHES students participated in the library reading program (31%). Forty of these

students completed the summer program (62%). In other words, about 10% of the FHES


9/12

Book Reading 9

students did not participate in the summer reading program following the Shoot for the

Stars curriculum.

During the summer following the reading logs curriculum intervention (year two),

80 FHES students began the library reading program (38%). Fifty of these students

completed the program (63%). Although these data have not been statistically tested forsignificant effects, it appears that the removal of the extrinsic-reward curricula, paired with

the implementation of the reading logs curriculum, may have had a modest effect on

participation in the summer reading program. Rate of participation in the summer reading

program improved to the pre-extrinsic-reward curriculum level (42% pre, 38% post).

Unfortunately, individual data on students summer reading activities was not collected by

the library staff, so we are unable to report little more than this broadly descriptive data.

Conclusions

Given that we have not yet completely analyzed the volumes of data collected over

the past two school years, and that we are continuing to collect reading log data from

students in year three of the study, we are unable to draw any significant conclusions

about the effects of intrinsic versus extrinsic reward-based reading programs. Our initial

data analyses indicate that the more able students in the school read more books--a finding

which is neither novel or surprising. We plan to examine more closely the reading

activities of the less able students and experiment with interventions that might promote

increased reading activities among these students.We are currently considering a variety of curricular interventions that we think

might have an impact on childrens intrinsic motivation for reading. One such approach is

based on findings from the reader response literature (Cullinan, Harwood, & Galda,

1983). Reader response theory views reading as a complex transaction among factors

related to the reader, the text, and the reading situation (Cooper, 1985). Responding to

reading assists children in their comprehension of literature, allows them to sort out their

thinking, and to obtain deeper insights. Activities such as recreating stories allow children

to interpret and evaluate literature on their own terms. The specific approach that we are

considering is to ask students to write letters to characters portrayed in the stories that

they read. These personal communications help students to think about characters

motivations for their actions, and assist in developing students imaginative abilities.

Further, this intervention has the effect of linking writing with literature. These activities

may serve to personalize reading activities for students and makes reading more

interesting and enjoyable.


10/12

Book Reading 10

We believe that literacy education curricula should have as a goal to develop

intrinsic motivation for reading in students. External rewards or extrinsic motivational

reinforcements should be minimized, if not completely eliminated in such curricula,

although they may have a role in prompting students to read initially. Once students begin

reading on their own, we believe that such rewards should be withdrawn. Our goal is toeventually establish a district wide curriculum that emphasizes the development of intrinsic

motivation for reading among students.

We are now collecting data on a second school in the same district that has an

external-rewards curriculum much like the Shoot for the Stars program. In addition,

this school also has students complete reading logs. Reading activity and reading

achievement data from this school will be compared with the data from FHES to

determine the relative advantages of the extrinsic and intrinsic motivational curricula.


11/12

Book Reading 11

References

Anderson, R.C., Wilson, P.T, & Fielding, L.G. (1988). Growth in reading and

how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly,

23, 285-303.

Cooper, C.R. (1985). Introduction. In C.R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching response

to literature and the teaching of literature: Points of departure. Norwood,

N.J.: Ablex.

Cullinan, B.E., Harwood, K.T., & Galda, L. (1983). The reader and the story:

Comprehension and response. Journal of Research and Development in

Education, 16(3), 29-38.

Dwyer, E.J., & Reed, V. (1989). Effects of sustained silent reading on attitudes

toward reading. Reading Horizons, 29, 283-293.

Gottfried, A.E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior

high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631-645.

Gottfried, A.E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school

children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525-538.

Greaney, V., & Clarke, M. (1975). A longitudinal study of the effects of two

reading methods on leisure-time reading habits. In D. Moyle (Ed.), Reading:

What of the future? (pp. 107-114). London: Ward Lock.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation

in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental

Psychology, 17, 300-312.

Healy, A.K. (1965). Effects of changing childrens attitudes toward reading.

Elementary English, 42, 269-272.

Kunca, & Haywood, C. (1967). Picture-choice motivation scale.


12/12

Book Reading 12

Madsen, R. (1973). Stanford achievement test. New York: Psychological Corp.

Morrow, L.M., & Weinstein, C.S. (1986). Encouraging voluntary reading: The

impact of a literature program on childrens use of library centers. Reading

Research Quarterly, 21, 330-346.

Otis, A.S., & Lennon, R.T. (1979). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test. New York:

The Psychological Corporation.

Taylor, B.M., Frye, B.J., & Maruyama, G.M. (1990). Time spent reading and

reading growth. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 351-362.

Documents

Iatrogenic effects of a book reading program in an elementary school