MOTIVATION FOR READING AND UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN READING IN KENYA

Reading Psychology, 34:569 593, 2013 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 online DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2012.664249 MOTIVATION FOR READING AND UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN READING IN KENYA WINNIE MUCHERAH and ABBEY HERENDEEN Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana This study examined primary school students reading motivation and performance on the standardized exam. Participants included 901 seventh and eighth grade students from Kenya. There were 468 females and 433 males. Contrary to previous studies, results showed reading challenge and aesthetics, but not efficacy, predicted reading achievement, indicating reading motivation may not influence achievement similarly across cultures. Gender differences were found in reading achievement but not motivation, an indication of a complex relationship between reading motivation and achievement. Students who read mostly for compliance and recognition did poorly in reading. Eighth graders did better in both reading motivation and achievement. What makes some students move energetically toward their reading goals or academic activities, even when they are bored by these tasks? What directs and maintains their behavior toward reading? According to Anderman and Anderman (2009), the explanation could be drives, incentives, fears, goals, social pressure, selfconfidence, interests, curiosity, expectations, beliefs, and more. For whatever reason students want to read, most educators agree that motivating students to read is one of the critical tasks of teaching. Upper elementary or middle school teachers are consistently searching for ways to motivate their students toward academic achievement (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995). Research in the U.S. and Europe indicates a decrease in reading motivation as students enter middle school (Applegate & Applegate, 2010; Marinak & Gambrell, 2010; Pitcher, Martinez, Dicembre, Fewster, & McCormick, 2010). Applegate and Applegate (2010) found that elementary school students were more engaged and motivated readers compared to middle school Address correspondence to Dr. Winnie Mucherah, Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306. E-mail: wmucherah@bsu.edu 569

570 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen students. The Rand Corporation educational research group (2004) reported that more than half of 8th graders fail to achieve expected levels of proficiency in reading on national tests. It is important to examine motivation to read in upper elementary school, because many states require standardized graduation exams, and students who read poorly in adolescence are not likely to pass them. Students who fail these exams often drop out of school (Ivey, 1999; Ivey & Broaddus, 2001; Wentzel, 1989, 1996). Most of this research is conducted in the United States. Little is known about students motivation to read in other countries, especially in Africa. No empirical research exists to know whether students motivation to read would decrease in upper elementary school in countries like Kenya, where national standardized examinations are crucial because they determine admission to high school (Kenya Institute of Education, 2010). Reading Motivation and Academic Achievement The amount of reading students engage in has been shown to be a strong predictor of academic achievement (Rowe, 1991; Shapiro & Whitney, 1997; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Wigfield and Guthrie (1997), for example, found that middle school students who spent at least 6 hours per week reading did better academically. Furthermore, Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) found that the amount of independent out-of-school reading accounted for 16% of the variance in the reading comprehension of 5th graders. Similarly, Stanovich and Cunningham (1992) found that amount and breadth of reading predicted reading achievement, as indicated by standardized vocabulary tests, even after previous general intelligence was controlled. Both Baker, Mackler, Sonnenschein, & Serpell (2001a) and Cipielewski and Stanovich (1992) found that the amount (at least an hour a day) of reading a child engaged in predicted growth of reading achievement during elementary school on different measures of reading comprehension. In a related study, Applegate and Applegate (2010) found that motivated readers read more and attained higher academic achievement. Hardly any studies have examined whether these findings apply to schools in Africa, specifically Kenya, where accessibility or availability of reading materials may be limited.

Reading Motivation 571 Research in the United States and Europe suggests that students motivation can affect their performance in different achievement areas, including reading (Applegate & Applegate, 2010; Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Coddington & Guthrie, 2009; Oldfather & Wigfield, 1996; O Sullivan, 1996; Rowe, 1991; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1995, 1997). O Sullivan (1996) found that students who were highly motivated were more persistent in their school work and chose challenging tasks compared to their counterparts who were less motivated. Baker s study (1999) of elementary school students found that motivation to read was positively correlated with reading achievement and overall academic achievement. Some schools in the U.S. have therefore developed strategies to foster motivation to read (Baker, 1999; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1995, 1997). Research shows that schools that invest in programs designed to increase students involvement in reading have students who perform better on reading comprehension tests (Aarnoutse & Schellings, 2003; Baker, Afflerbach, & Reinking, 1996; Guthrie, McGough, & Wigfield, 1994; McCarthey, 2000). In light of this research, schools, mostly in the U.S., have put in place a number of programs to motivate their students to read (Baker & Scher 2002; McQuillan, 1997). These programs are designed to provide students with extrinsic motivation to read. Reading At Home (RAH) and Accelerated Reading (AR) are examples of such programs. The significance of examining baseline trends of motivation and achievement in other cultures like Kenya is to determine whether it is necessary to put such programs in place there. Reading Motivation and Age and Grade Level Research evidence shows that grade level influences reading motivation and achievement. For example, research has shown that younger children read more for extrinsic reasons compared to adolescents (Ivey, 1999; McQuillan, 1997; Morgan & Fuchs, 2007; Shapiro & Whitney, 1997). However, younger children have been found to have high reading motivation compared to adolescents (Applegate & Applegate, 2010; Bozack, 2011; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Lau, 2009; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004). In addition, students in lower grades have been found to

572 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen have higher reading motivation than students in higher grades. For example, Kelley and Decker s study (2009) examining middle school students motivation to read found that as grade increased from the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, students overall reading motivation decreased. Furthermore, Lau s study (2009) of junior and senior high school students reading motivation and achievement in Hong Kong found that junior high students had higher motivation than senior high school students. Reading Motivation and Gender There is a wealth of research indicating significant gender differences related to reading motivation and achievement (Applegate & Applegate, 2010; Eccles et al., 1993; Kelley & Decker, 2009; Marinak & Gambrell, 2010; McKenna et al., 1995; Mucherah & Yoder, 2008; Shumow, Schmidt, & Kackar, 2008; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002; Wentzel, 1989; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Baker and Wigfield (1999) and Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) found that elementary school girls consistently reported higher reading motivation and performed higher on reading comprehension compared to elementary school boys. In their study of middle school students motivation to read and academic achievement, Mucherah and Yoder (2008) found that female students were mostly motivated to read for social reasons, while male students were motivated to read challenging material and for curiosity. A study of both single-sex and mixed-sex high schools on reading motivation and achievement found that reading motivation for males in single-sex schools was much higher compared to their peers in mixed-sex schools (Bozack, 2011). However, these findings cannot be generalized to other cultures since they have been conducted mostly in the United States. Description of the Education System in Kenya The Kenyan education system is based on an 8-4-4 system, with 8 years of primary education followed by 4 years of secondary school and 4 years of university education. Primary school in Kenya begins at age 6 or 7 after completion of a year of kindergarten, commonly known as Nursery School or Pre-unit (Kenya

Reading Motivation 573 Institute of Education, 2010). The first class or year in primary school is known as Standard 1, the final year as Standard 8, and primary school children are known as pupils. The school year begins in January and ends in November. The school year is made up of three terms of 3 months each, with 1-month breaks between terms (April, August, and December). At the end of the school year, students advance to the next grade. Students who completely fail their end-of-the-year exams usually repeat the class the following year instead of advancing to a higher grade (Kenya Institute of Education, 2010). Most primary schools (95%) are day schools with pupils living at home. Conversely, most secondary schools (96%) are boarding schools (Kenya Institute of Education, 2010). All 7th and 8th grade pupils sit for the Pre-Kenya certificate of Primary Education, also known as the District Mock standardized examination. Also, all primary school pupils sit for a standardized exam the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) examination at the end of the year in Standard 8 to try to qualify for admission to a secondary/high school of their choice (Kenya Institute of Education, 2010). Theoretical Framework for the Current Study The theoretical framework guiding this study is the expectancyvalue theory of motivation. This theory was developed in an attempt to explain achievement-related behavior regarding students choice of activities, persistence, and performance. The most studied theoretical model is the expectancy-value model developed by Eccles et al. (1983). This theory proposes that individuals expectancy for success and how much they value the successful experience are important determinants of their motivation to engage in academic-related tasks. It further explains that expectancy and value have to be present at the same time to lead to optimal motivation. The Eccles et al. (1983) model reflects the social cognitive theoretical approach. In their model, expectancies and values will influence students performance and task choices directly. Their expectancies and values, in turn, are influenced by their beliefs, goals, perceptions of competence, perceptions of task difficulty, and affective memories, which again are influenced by

574 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen their perceptions and interpretations of past achievement experiences, and other people s beliefs and expectations, which in turn are influenced by a wide array of social and cultural factors. In this theory, expectancy for success is defined as individuals belief of how well they will do on a given task, either in the immediate or distant future. Task value is broadly defined as the incentive for doing different tasks (Eccles et al., 1983). Specifically, four components are proposed. Attainment value is the importance of doing well on a given task. This value is related to identity issues in that doing well is important to one s sense of self. Intrinsic value is the enjoyment one gains or expects to gain from doing a task. Utility value is the usefulness of a task for one s future school or career plans. Perceived cost is about the effort one needs to make to succeed and the psychological cost one needs to undergo (e.g., anticipated anxiety, fear of failure or success) (Eccles, 2005). Theoretically, the impact of motivation to read on students reading achievement in the United States is compelling. However, little empirical research has examined effects of motivation for reading on students performance on standardized tests outside the United States, specifically on the African continent. There is obviously a need to examine the reading motivation and performance on standardized testing in students from other countries. This is particularly crucial given the different education systems across the globe. In addition, the ubiquity of the high-stakes exit graduation exams in Kenya underscores the importance of examining students reading motivation and performance on standardized tests in other countries. The goal of this study was to assess the relationship between reading motivation and upper primary students academic performance on the Pre-Kenya certificate of Primary Education/District Mock standardized exam in reading. Research questions guiding this study were: (1) What is the nature of the motivation to read in upper primary school students? (2) What is the relationship between motivation to read and performance on the District Mock standardized exam in reading? (3) Does school, grade, and gender influence motivation to read? (4) Which aspects of motivation to read significantly influence the performance in reading on the District Mock standardized exam?

Reading Motivation 575 Method Participants Study participants included 901 upper primary school students from five different schools (468 girls and 433 boys) ages 12 to 15 years (M age = 13.01, SD = 1.02). There were 387 8th grade and 514 7th grade students. We chose 8th and 7th grades for two reasons: one, research in reading motivation has focused much more on preschool and lower primary grades (Klauda, 2009), and two, standardized exams are only administered to 7th and 8th grade students at the primary level in Kenya. The sample from each school was as follows: school 1, n = 70; school 2, n = 68; school 3, n = 161; school 4, n = 127; school 5, n = 475. See Table 1 for details on gender and grade-level break-down. One of the schools was located in a rural area, another one was located a few miles away from town, and the remaining three were in big towns. Except for the school that was located a few miles from town (which was private), all the schools were government schools, equivalent to public schools in the United States. Participants from the private school were boarders (lived at the school), while the rest were day scholars. The private school had a wellfurnished library, one of the government schools had a library that consisted only of school textbooks, and the remaining three schools had no library. All the schools were located in three sublocations of Kakamega District in Western Province, 160 miles west of the capital city, Nairobi. Almost all the students in the study were of the Luhya tribe (96%), found in Western Province. These schools are representative of the Kenyan schools. TABLE 1 Number of Students by School, Grade, and Gender 7th Grade 8th Grade School 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Males 25 17 34 29 154 11 18 37 25 83 Females 21 18 51 42 123 13 15 39 31 115 Total 46 35 85 71 277 24 33 76 56 198

576 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen Measures THE MOTIVATION FOR READING QUESTIONNAIRE (MRQ) The MRQ is a 53-item survey developed by Wigfield and Guthrie (1995) to assess 11 different aspects of students motivation for reading. The MRQ items are rated along a 4-step Likert continuum (e.g., 1 = very different from me to 4 = A lot like me ). The first two aspects on the MRQ assess students sense of competence and efficacy in reading (Wigfield, 1994). These two aspects are based on previous work on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Wigfield, 1994) and are termed Reading Efficacy (α =.68), the belief that one can be successful at reading (e.g. I am a good reader ), and Reading Challenge (α =.80), the satisfaction of mastering or assimilating complex ideas in text (e.g., If a book is interesting, I don t care how hard it is to read ). The next aspect on the MRQ is based on work on intrinsic-extrinsic motivation. Theorists in this area propose that intrinsic motivation, or the interest and enjoyment one receives from an activity, is a powerful motivational force (Deci & Ryan, 1985). These aspects are Reading Curiosity (α =.77), the desire to learn about a particular topic of interest to the student (e.g., I like to read about new things ), and Aesthetic Enjoyment (α =.76) of reading, the enjoyment of experiencing different kinds of literary or informational texts (e.g., I read a lot of adventure stories ). Another aspect assessed is Importance (α =.52) of reading (e.g., It is very important to me to be a good reader ), taken from Eccles and Wigfield s work on subjective task values (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Reading Work Avoidance (α =.60) is an aspect that concerns what students say they do not like about reading (e.g., I don t like vocabulary questions ). Several additional aspects of motivation assessed on the MRQ are based on extrinsic motivation and performance goals. These aspects are Competition in Reading (α =.81), the desire to outperform others in reading (e.g., I like being the best at reading ); Recognition for Reading (α =.69), the gratification in receiving a tangible form of recognition for success in reading (e.g., I like having the teacher say I read well ); and Reading for Grades (α =.43), the desire to be favorably evaluated by the teacher (e.g., I read to improve my grades ). Since students often read in school

Reading Motivation 577 where they are evaluated in comparison with others, competition, recognition, and grades may figure prominently in their motivation for reading. The final construct included on the MRQ encompasses the social aspects of reading. These aspects are termed Social Reasons for Reading (α =.72), the process of sharing the meanings gained from reading with friends and family (e.g., I talk to my friends about what I am reading ); and Compliance (α =.55), reading to meet the expectations of others (e.g., I read because I have to ). These aspects are based on previous work on social goals in the motivation literature (Ames, 1992; Wentzel, 1989, 1996). The typical internal consistency reliabilities of these scales in the literature are reasonable, ranging from.52 to.81 except for the reading for grades subscale (.43), which is consistently below.60 (Baker & Scher, 2002; Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1995, 1997). Presented alphas are based on the elementary school students reading motivation study by Wigfield and Guthrie (1995). The traditional use of this questionnaire has been to assess different aspects of elementary school students motivation for reading mostly in the United States. To our knowledge this study is the first time the MRQ has been used with upper-level primary students in Kenya. Therefore, there was a need to determine if the internal consistency reliabilities of the subscales in the present study were comparable to the original MRQ. To this end we subjected the 11 subscales to a reliability test. Reliabilities are presented in Table 2. As seen in Table 2, the current study subscales (except Work Avoidance, Grades, and Compliance) had reasonable reliabilities ranging from.63 to.81. DISTRICT MOCK EXAM The District Mock Exam is a district-wide mandated examination for assessing student readiness for the national standardized KCPE examination. It is administered to grades 7 and 8, and it measures academic achievement in five areas: English, Mathematics, Kiswahili, Science, and Geography/Christian Religious Studies. Students take this exam during the second term of the school year. The exam is graded by external examiners at the district level. National standard setting committees establish cut-

578 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen TABLE 2 Reliabilities for the Original and Current Study for the Reading Motivation Subscales Subscale Original Current Efficacy.68 (3).66 (4) Challenge.80 (5).78 (5) Curiosity.77 (5).70 (6) Aesthetic enjoyment.76 (7).73 (3) Importance.52 (2).68 (2) Compliance.55 (5).58 (5) Recognition.69 (5).79 (5) Grades.43 (4).58 (4) Social.72 (7).63 (6) Competition.81 (6).73 (6) Work avoidance.60 (4).53 (4) Note. Parentheses indicate the # of items per subscale. off marks/scores that indicate mastery. These standards are reflective of the passing marks for the real national standardized exam at the end of the 8th grade. The passing marks are 350+ out of 500, which qualifies for admission to a national or provincial school. For the purposes of this study, we only focused on the marks in English. Procedure Participants were recruited from classrooms at school. Permission to conduct the study was given by the Board of Governors (G.O.B), equivalent of the school cooperation in the United States. Permission to participate in the study was obtained from the participants and their parents. All data were collected by a team of four trained, local Kenyan graduate students, who underwent extensive training from the researcher. All participants completed a Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ). For efficiency purposes, the questionnaire was administered by the researcher and a graduate assistant to small groups (15 20) of students, since some of the class sizes were quite large (n = 50). Completion of the questionnaire was conducted in the classroom during school time. Students were told they were going to answer questions about their reading that had no right or wrong answers. They responded to each item on a 1 to 4 scale, with answer choices

Reading Motivation 579 ranging from very different from me = 1toa lot like me = 4. While students were allowed to read the items on their own, the researcher and the graduate assistants were available to answer questions the students had about individual items. The questionnaire took approximately 30 45 minutes to complete. A list of ID numbers for students who participated in the study was given to the school officials, who then matched the student numbers to the District Mock Examination scores for the year 2010. Construct Validity Prior to the visit, the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) was sent to 2 volunteer teachers from each school (a total of 10) where the study was done. The teachers were requested to examine the validity of the items by pointing out any terms that might be confusing (or mean something different) to the students. The volunteer teachers were recruited via e-mail and personal phone calls. Based on their feedback, 8 of the 10 teachers suggested the deletion of the following items from the questionnaire: I visit the library often with my family (they pointed out that there is no public library in the community), I read stories about fantasy and make believe (they stated that the word fantasy might confuse some students), and I like mysteries (they pointed out that the word mysteries might confuse some students). These three items were subsequently removed from the questionnaire. In addition, all the volunteer teachers identified two terms that they thought might confuse students and gave suggestions for changes. In their view, grades meant levels or scales, and trade meant to do business. Therefore, grades was replaced by marks and trade was replaced by exchange. Note: These 10 teachers students did not participate in the study, to control for possible biases. Pilot Study and Reliability Since the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire has mostly been used with the United States population, we decided to pilot test the questionnaire to a small sample of students in grades 7 and 8 from each of the five schools, prior to the major project. A

580 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen volunteer teacher from each school administered the questionnaire to 10 students (5 boys and 5 girls) in the 7th grade and a similar number in the 8th grade, a total of 20 students from each school (10 girls and 10 boys). A total of 100 students responded to the questionnaire. Volunteer teachers who administered the questionnaire were requested to note how long the questionnaire took to complete and what items raised most difficulty for students. Upon completion of the questionnaire, they talked with students about their experience taking the questionnaire. Across the five schools, the following four items posed the most difficulty for students: Complicated stories are no fun to read, If I am reading about an interesting topic, I sometimes lose track of time, I enjoy a long, involved story or fiction book, and If the assignment is interesting, I can read difficult material. A reliability analysis was conducted on the entire questionnaire. In order to determine which items are potentially problematic, change in reliability was calculated after removing each item individually. Large positive changes in reliability indicate potentially problematic items. The results of the analysis showed an overall reliability of 0.85. Removing each item revealed reliabilities ranging from 0.86 to 0.80, showing no change greater than 0.06. Therefore, no items were removed based on this criterion. Results Plan of Analysis To address the four research questions, the following analyses were computed. First, to assess the nature of students motivation to read, we computed descriptive statistics on all the MRQ subscales. Second, to examine the relationship between motivation to read and performance in reading, we assessed the patterns on correlations among the MRQ subscales and the reading score. Third, to assess whether students motivation to read was influenced by school, grade, and gender, we examined mean differences on MRQ subscales by School (5) x Grade (2) and x Gender (2) using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), and another test of mean differences on reading achievement using univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Finally, to investigate which specific motivation aspects predicted the reading achievement,

Reading Motivation 581 we examined the MRQ subscale predictors of the reading achievement using Analysis of Co-Variance (ANCOVA). What Is the Nature of the Motivation to Read in Upper Primary School Students in Kenya? DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Means and standard deviations of all the MRQ subscales are reported in Table 3. As can be seen in the table, students were motivated to read mostly because they perceived reading to be important (M = 3.72; SD =.53). In addition, students read because of curiosity (M = 3.58; SD =.43). As Table 3 shows, few students avoided engaging in reading (M = 2.01; SD =.72). What Is the Relationship Between Motivation to Read and Performance in Reading? CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS We examined the construct validity of the MRQ as it relates to upper primary students performance in reading. To this end we report in Table 4 the pattern of the MRQ correlations among the subscales and the reading score. As Table 4 shows, all of the MRQ subscales are significantly correlated with the reading score. Furthermore, all the MRQ subscales, except Work Avoidance and Grades, and Curiosity and Competition TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations for the MRQ Subscales Subscale Mean SD Importance 3.72.53 Curiosity 3.58.43 Grades 3.46.57 Recognition 3.35.56 Aesthetics 3.33.65 Efficacy 3.31.54 Challenge 3.24.60 Competition 3.21.55 Compliance 2.97.52 Avoidance 2.01.72 Note. N = 901; Mean range: 1.00 4.00

582 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen TABLE 4 Correlations Among the MRQ Subscales and the Reading Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Efficacy 2. Challenge.34 3. Curiosity.23.44 4. Aesthetic.32.40.38 5. Importance.30.27.35.25 6. Compliance.21.12.16.03.21 7. Recognition.38.26.30.26.35.22 8. Grades.38.35.37.32.41.24.42 9. Social.35.37.32.33.27.20.38.36 10. Competition.40.31.31.24.34.26.37.37.16 11.Work avoidance.10.11.06.16.10.10.10.04.15.05 Reading score.13.30.26.33.13.15.11.15.18.11.14 Note. Underscored correlation coefficients are statistically significant, p <.01. are significantly correlated, with correlations ranging from low to moderately high. The strongest correlations included those between Challenge and Curiosity (r =.44), Grades and Recognition (r =.42), and Grades and Importance of Reading (r =.41). See Table 4 for details. Does School, Grade, and Gender Influence the Motivation to Read? READING MOTIVATION SUBSCALES The first set of analyses examined the 11 MRQ subscales using a MANOVA with School (5) Grade (2) Gender (2) as between-subject variables. The subscales were the dependent while School, Grade, and Gender were the independent variables. The analysis revealed significant main effects for Grade, Pillai s Trace =.068, F (11, 884) = 5.91, p <.001, η 2 =.068, indicating a difference between the 7th and 8th graders in reading motivation. The 8th graders did better on all reading motivation subscales except Reading Compliance and Recognition. There was also a significant main effect for School, Pillai s Trace =.370, F (44, 3548) = 8.21, p <.001, η 2 =.092. There were no significant gender differences. Means and standard errors for all significant effects are reported in Table 5. There was a significant Grade and School interaction, Pillai s Trace =.081, F (44, 3496) = 2.63, p <.01, η 2 =.025. Results of

TABLE 5 Means and Standard Error for Significant Main Effects (N = 901) Effic Chall Curios Aesth Impt Comp Reco Grad Soc Com Avoid Grade 8th 3.41 (.03) 3.30 (.03) 3.54 (.02) 3.41 (.03) 3.81 (.03) 2.95 (.05) 3.37 (.05) 3.53 (.03) 3.21 (.03) 3.21 (.03) 1.91 (.04) 7th 3.23 (.02) 3.13 (.02) 3.30 (.02) 3.28 (.03) 3.61 (.02) 2.98 (.05) 3.33 (.05) 3.37 (.02) 3.07 (.02) 3.06 (.02) 2.12 (.03) School 1 3.44 (.06) 3.17 (.06) 3.43 (.05) 3.31 (.07) 3.70 (.06) 3.31 (.06) 3.43 (.06) 3.56 (.06) 3.03 (.06) 3.25 (.06) 2.25 (.08) 2 3.30 (.06) 3.51 (.06) 3.64 (.05) 3.71 (.07) 3.71 (.06) 2.67 (.06) 3.30 (.06) 3.43 (.06) 3.11 (.06) 3.21 (.06) 2.01 (.08) 3 3.12 (.04) 2.78 (.04) 3.23 (.03) 2.91 (.04) 3.46 (.04) 2.93 (.04) 3.14 (.04) 3.20 (.04) 2.94 (.04) 2.89 (.04) 2.08 (.05) 4 3.41 (.04) 3.31 (.05) 3.51 (.04) 3.48 (.05) 3.73 (.04) 2.93 (.04) 3.49 (.05) 3.54 (.05) 3.34 (.05) 3.10 (.04) 1.87 (.06) 5 3.41 (.02) 3.41 (.02) 3.61 (.01) 3.41 (.02) 3.84 (.02) 2.98 (.02) 3.41 (.02) 3.53 (.02) 3.20 (.02) 3.34 (.02) 1.96 (.03) Notes. Effic = Efficacy; Chall = Challenge; Curios = Curiosity; Aesth = Aesthetics; Impt = Importance; Comp = Compliance; Reco = Recognition; Grad = Grades; Soc = Social; Com = Competition; Avoid = Avoidance. Female: n = 468; Male: n = 433; Grade: 8th, n = 387; 7th, n = 514. 583

584 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen the between-subjects effects test revealed an interaction of grade and school for Reading Challenge, F (4, 881) = 3.23, p <.01; Curiosity, F (4, 881) = 3.11, p <. 01; and Competition, F (4, 881) = 2.45, p <. 03. The analysis revealed that 8th graders in school 3 were less motivated to read challenging material (M = 2.75, SE =.67), 7th graders in school 3 had the lowest curiosity in reading (M = 3.16, SE =.53), while 8th graders in school 5 were the most competitive in reading (M = 3.41, SE =.47). See Table 5 for means and standard errors for all significant main effects. Even though the main effect for Gender was not significant, there was a significant interaction for Gender and School, Pillai s Trace =.072, F (44, 3496) = 2.45, p <.01, η 2 =.021. The interaction effect was significant for Reading Avoidance, F (4, 881) = 3.81, p <.01. Examining the means revealed that males in school 1 rated high on Reading Avoidance (M = 2.47, SE =.86). See Table 6 for all significant interactions. READING ACHIEVEMENT A univariate analysis of variance was computed to assess the interaction between the reading achievement score and the independent variables of School (5) Grade (2) Gender (2). There were significant effects for all independent variables; School, F (4, 894) = 353.26, p <.001, with school 2 performing better and schools 1 and 3 performing poorer in reading achievement, Grade, with 8th graders performing better than the 7th graders, F (4, 894) = 167.96, p <.001, and Gender, with females performing better than males, F (4, 894) = 6.81, p <.009. See Table 7 for means and standard errors for all significant main effects. Which Subscales of Motivation to Read Significantly Relate to the Reading Score? To examine which subscales of MRQ significantly influenced performance in reading, an Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA) with School (5) Grade (2) Gender (2) as categorical independent variables and the MRQ subscales as the continuous dependent covariates was computed. The analysis revealed significant test effects for the following subscales; Challenge, F (1, 883) = 6.02, p <.01, indicating that students who read challenging material and those who read for Aesthetics enjoyment, F (1, 883) = 11.53, p <

Reading Motivation 585 TABLE 6 MANOVA for Grade, School, and Interactions for MRQ Subscales Predictors Dependant Variables F p Eta sq Grade Efficacy 19.39.001.021 Challenge 19.75.001.022 Curiosity 23.33.001.025 Aesthetics 8.99.003.010 Importance 18.19.001.020 Grades 18.31.001.021 Social 7.61.004.010 Competition 11.31.001.012 Avoidance 12.13.001.013 School Efficacy 7.77.001.033 Challenge 40.41.001.153 Curiosity 21.36.001.087 Aesthetics 27.78.001.111 Importance 15.81.001.066 Compliance 13.56.001.057 Recognition 8.41.001.036 Grades 11.57.001.049 Social 10.77.001.046 Competition 16.61.001.069 Avoidance 3.98.003.018 Grade School Challenge 3.23.012.010 Curiosity 3.11.015.010 Competition 2.45.033.009 Gender School Avoidance 3.81.004.018 TABLE 7 Means and Standard Error for Significant Effects for the Reading Score Effect Mean SE F p Grade 167.96.000 8th (n = 387) 60.16.48 7th (n = 514) 51.85.43 Gender 6.81.009 Females (n = 468) 56.23.45 Males (n = 433) 54.78.46 School 353.26.000 1(n= 70) 41.15 1.00 2(n= 68) 78.31 1.01 3(n= 161) 41.14.66 4(n= 127) 66.18.74 5(n= 475) 52.18.39 Note. R 2 =.644 Scores range from 0 100.

586 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen TABLE 8 ANCOVA for the Reading Score and Reading Motivation Subscales Variable Beta t p Eta Sq Challenge 1.45 2.45.012.007 Aesthetic enjoyment 1.74 3.41.001.013 Compliance 1.61 2.71.002.008 Recognition 1.71 2.81.003.009 Grade 6.20 10.46.001.110 Gender 1.35 2.36.014.006 School 8.34 7.41.001.061 Note. R 2 =.644..001, did well in reading. However, those who read because they had to, Compliance, F (1, 883) = 7.24, p <.01, and those who read in order to be recognized, Recognition, F (1, 883) = 8.19, p <.01, performed poorly in reading. Other significant test effects were Grade, F (1, 883) = 109.42, p <.001 with 8th graders reading more challenging material and reading for aesthetic enjoyment, Gender, F (1, 883) = 5.61, p <.01, with more girls reading mostly to be recognized, and School, F (1, 881), p <.001, with school 3 reading less challenging material, for aesthetic enjoyment and recognition. Compared to other schools, school 1 mostly read because they had to, for compliance. See Table 8 for all significant test effects. Discussion Reading Motivation and Reading Achievement The purpose of this study was to examine the relations between upper primary school students reading motivation and their reading achievement. A major conclusion from the results is that certain reading motivation aspects are significantly related to students achievement in reading. Students who enjoy reading challenging material, and those who enjoy reading different kinds of literary material (aesthetics) do better in reading. However, those who are motivated to read more for recognition and compliance do not do as well in reading. This finding is consistent with studies done in the U.S. that found students who were motivated to read challenging material, enjoyed reading different kinds of

Reading Motivation 587 literature, and had high reading efficacy did well in reading achievement (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010; Guthrie et., 2007; Mucherah & Yoder, 2008; Wentzel, 1989, 1996; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Gender, Grade, and School Differences in Reading Motivation There were no significant gender differences in reading motivation. This is contrary to the previous research findings that showed female students having a higher reading motivation than males (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Kelley & Decker, 2009; Kush & Watkins, 1996; Merisuo-Storm, 2006; Shumow et al., 2008; Wentzel, 1989; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). We are not certain as to why there was no gender difference. Further research is needed to help us understand and meaningfully interpret this outcome. Furthermore, unlike previous studies (Eccles et al., 1993; Gambrell, Codling, & Palmer, 1996; Kelley & Decker, 2009; Marsh, 1998; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004), which found low motivation to read in later grades, this study found that 8th grade students scored higher on all aspects of reading motivation except in compliance and recognition. Compared to the 7th graders, 8th grade students read more challenging material and had high curiosity in reading, aspects identified as significant predictors of reading achievement. In contrast, 7th graders tried as much as possible to avoid reading. These grade differences could be attributed to the high-stakes testing in the Kenyan education system. The 8th graders were 3 months away from taking their exit standard examination, which determines whether they attend high school or not (Kenya Institute of Education, 2010). In light of this study s findings, it would be helpful to examine teachers classroom practices and students reading motivation. Students in school 2 outperformed all other students in reading challenge, curiosity, and aesthetics, key predictors of reading achievement. These students were also less likely to read for compliance, a negative predictor of reading achievement. This finding may be due to other factors at school 2 not examined by this study. For example, school 2 was the only school with a library. The rest of the schools had a small room where they kept their textbooks. In addition, school 2 was a private boarding school, located in

588 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen a high-income area. From this finding it appears that having access to literacy resources in school, beside textbooks, is beneficial to reading motivation. This finding is consistent with Chui and Yin s study (2010) that found a significant link between family income and student reading motivation and achievement. Further research is necessary to investigate and interpret this finding. This is particularly important since reading motivation, specifically intrinsic reading motivation, is a powerful influence on students reading and academic achievement (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010; Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992; Goldenberg, Reese, & Gallimore, 1992; McQuillan, 1997; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Reading Achievement and Reading Motivation Previous studies have found a significant positive relationship between the following aspects of reading motivation and achievement: efficacy, challenge, and aesthetic enjoyment (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010; Dreher, 2003; Ivey & Broaddus, 2001; Mucherah & Yoder, 2008). For the current study, the reading motivation aspects that were found to be significant predictors of reading achievement were reading challenge and aesthetic enjoyment. Reading efficacy did not predict reading achievement, yet Chui and Yin s study (2010) found high reading efficacy to be strongly correlated with reading achievement in 8th and 9th grade students. The present study finding suggests that aspects of reading motivation that predict achievement may not uniformly apply across cultures. Reading compliance and recognition were negative predictors of reading achievement. These two are extrinsic aspects of motivation. It could be that students who read for compliance and recognition do not persist at reading tasks when the material becomes challenging. Becker et al. s study (2010) found that compared to those who were intrinsically motivated, students who were extrinsically motivated to read had low reading frequency, short length of reading (in terms of amount) and low achievement. Overall, female students performed better than males in reading achievement. These findings are supported by a wealth of studies (Applegate & Applegate, 2010; Eccles et al., 1993; Kelley & Decker, 2009; Marinak & Gambrell, 2010; McKenna et al.,

Reading Motivation 589 1995; Mucherah & Yoder, 2008; Shumow et al., 2008; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002; Wentzel, 1989; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The fact that there were no gender differences in students reading motivation but a significant difference in achievement indicates a complex relationship between reading motivation and achievement for this sample. More nuanced systematic research is needed to extrapolate the relationship between reading motivation and achievement in this population. Contrary to several previous studies that found a lower reading achievement in higher grades (Applegate & Applegate, 2010; Kelley & Decker, 2009; Lau, 2009), in the current study 8th graders had higher reading achievement compared to 7th graders. As previously mentioned, the 8th grade students were getting ready to take the final standardized national examination. For these students, the national examination determines whether they proceed to high school or not. It could be possible that teachers in 8th and 7th grades teach differently, given that one grade is nearing the national examination. Our next step is to conduct systematic classroom observations in both 7th and 8th grades focusing on teachers classroom practices. Just as they did in reading motivation, students in school 2 performed better on the reading achievement test compared to those in the other four schools. As previously noted, there are considerable socioeconomic differences between school 2 and the other schools. There is a need to recognize that some of the differences observed may reflect the differences between school contexts rather than among students. These school differences call for caution in interpreting the findings. Socioeconomic status appears to have played a role in student reading achievement. Chui and Yin s study (2010) found that family socioeconomic status was significantly related to motivation and achievement. Furthermore, these findings call for a need for future research along these lines that takes into account school effects and socioeconomic status. One limitation of the present study is that we were unable to determine if socioeconomic status influenced students reading motivation, which subsequently predicted their reading achievement. Future research should attend to this variable more systematically. Furthermore, with the national examination oriented Kenyan education system, this finding warrants special attention.

590 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen There is also a need to investigate how lower primary teachers design their instruction in reading. Which motivation dimensions do they emphasize? What about 6th grade reading/english teachers? Findings from these kinds of studies might help us understand better the observed differences in reading motivation and achievement between 7th and 8th grade students. In conclusion, reading motivation is significantly related to academic achievement in reading. However, reading motivation, in and of itself, does not necessarily predict performance on a standardized test in reading. Reading challenge and aesthetic enjoyment consistently predict students performance on the standardized test in reading. However, reading for compliance and recognition alone does not improve one s performance on standardized tests in reading. Clearly, motivation is not onedimensional, given that different aspects of reading motivation produced different results in the present study. Furthermore, motivation varies by gender, grade, and school. In addition, the present study findings indicate that the relationship between reading motivation and achievement may not apply similarly across cultures/countries. References Aarnoutse, C., & Schellings, G. (2003). Learning reading strategies by triggering reading motivation. Educational Studies, 29(4), 387 409. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261 271. Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2009). Motivating children and adolescents in schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall. 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. Applegate, A. J. & Applegate, M. D. (2010). A study of thoughtful literacy and the motivation to read. Reading Teacher 64(4), 226 234. Baker, L. (1999). Opportunities at home and in the community that foster reading engagement. In J. T. Guthrie & D. Alvermann (Eds.), Engagement in reading: Processes, practices, and policy implications (pp. 105 133). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Baker, L., Afflerbach, P., & Reinking, D. (1996). Developing engaged readers in school and home communities: An overview. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Ed.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp. xiiii xxvii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reading Motivation 591 Baker, L., Mackler, K., Sonnenschein, S., & Serpell, R. (2001). Parents interactions with their first-grade children during storybook reading and relations with subsequent home reading activity and reading achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 415 438. Baker, L., & Scher, D. (2002). Beginning readers motivation for reading in relation to parental beliefs and home reading experiences.reading Psychology, 23, 239 269. 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, 452 477. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191 215. Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 773 785. Bozack, A. (2011). Reading between the lines: Motives, beliefs, and achievement in adolescent boys. The High School Journal, 94(2), 58 76. Chui, M. M., & Yin, B. W. 2010. Culture, motivation, and reading achievement: High school students in 41 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 579 592. Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children s exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74 89. Coddington, C. S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Teacher and student perceptions of boys and girls reading motivation. Reading Psychology, 30, 225 249. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Dreher, M. J. (2003). Motivating struggling readers by tapping the potential of information books. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 25 38. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task values and the Eccles et al. model of achievement related choices. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.105 121). New York, NY: Guilford. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., et al (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75 146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in children s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830 847. Gambrell, L. B., Codling, L. B., & Palmer, B. M. (1996). Elementary students motivation to read (Research Rep. No. 52). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Goldenberg, C., Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992). Effects of literacy materials from school on Latino children s home experiences and early reading achievement. American Journal of Education, 100, 497 536. Guthrie, J. T, Hoa, A. 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.

592 W. Mucherah and A. Herendeen Guthrie, J., McGough, K., & Wigfield, A. (1994). Measuring reading activity: An inventory (Instructional Resource No. 4). Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgia and Maryland College Park. Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 172 192. Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). Just plain reading : A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 350 377. Kelley, M. J., & Decker, E. O. (2009). The current state of motivation to read among middle school students. Reading Psychology, 30(5), 466 485. Kenya Institute of Education. (2010). Creating acceptable educational standards. Nairobi, Kenya: The Ministry of Education. Klauda, S. (2009). The role of parents in adolescents reading motivation and activity. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 325 363. Kush, J. C., & Watkins, M. W. (1996). Long term stability of children s attitudes toward reading. Journal of Educational Research, 5, 315 319. Lau, K.-L. (2009). Reading motivation, perceptions of reading instruction and reading amount: A comparison of junior and senior secondary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 366 382. Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementary gender gap. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 129 141. Marsh, H. W. (1998). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of selfconcept: Preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 417 430. McCarthey, S. J. (2000). Home-school connections: A review of literature. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 145 153. McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934 955. McQuillan, J. (1997). Effects of incentives on reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 36, 111 125. Merisuo-Storm, T. (2006). Girls and boys like to read and write different texts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 111 125. 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. Mucherah, W., & Yoder, A. (2008). Motivation for reading and middle school students performance on standardized testing in reading. Reading Psychology, 29(3), 214 235. Oldfather, P., & Wigfield, A. (1996). Children s motivations for literary learning. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp. 89 113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. O Sullivan, J. T. (1996). Causal attributions and reading achievement: Individual differences in low-income families.contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 363 387. Pitcher, S. M., Martinez, G., Dicembre, E. A., Fewster, D., & McCormick, M. K. (2010). The literacy needs of adolescents in their own words. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(8), 636 645.