John T. Guthrie University of Maryland. Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing Classroom contexts (CORI +) Policy – present.

John T. GuthrieUniversity of Maryland

Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing Classroom contexts (CORI +)

Policy – present and future (?)

Meanings: Behavioral –doing reading actively

Motivational –reasons for reading

Cognitive –deep processing Social –interpersonal interaction

Knowledge –as generator and enhancement

Meaning--JG:Active reading (behavior) that is strategic (cognitive), internally motivated (motivation), knowledge driven (cognitive), and socially interactive (social).

Disengaged reading? Yes,Time on task or eyes on page? No

Origins—How does engaged reading develop?

Self-determination theory—(internalization)

External goal—You read this book (-)

Introjected goal—I’ll read if I have to (-)

Identified goal—Read. helps me (+)

Intrinsic goal—I enjoy reading (+)

Origins—How does engaged reading develop?

Socio-cultural theory (socialization) Literacy practices are negotiated in

a social context (Gee) Social affordances shape cognitive

competencies (Scribner & Cole) Social interactions enable

motivations to occur and develop (Pianta, others)

Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing and readership

Classroom contexts Policy – present and future (?)

PsychInfo(Reading; Literacy

Motivation; Engagement)

ERIC Combined

2955 8528 11483 less 20%

9186

Major research finding #1Amount of engaged reading

correlates with reading achievement, higher than gender, family income, parental education.

Engaged readers from Mothers with H.S. education achieve higher than disengaged readers from Mothers with College education.

Engaged 8th graders in poverty achieve higher than disengaged 12th graders in affluence.Guthrie, NAEP—9 year olds in USA. Kirsch, PISA 2000 ---15 year olds in 30 countries.

Major finding #2Reciprocal determination—Motivation (self-efficacy; intrinsic mot.)

and achievement spiral upward and downward.For Primary grades K-2; For intermediate

grades 3-5(Finnish studies; self-determination studies;

self-concept studies; Morgan & Fuchs EC)Matthew effect—Stanovich—rich get richer

because they get more motivated

Major finding #3Motivations drive engagement (behavioral and cognitive)

True for internal motivations—interest, intrinsic, pleasure

Not true for external—Grades, competition.

Why Grades ?

Affirming1. Intrinsic

motivation2. Autonomy/

Ownership3. Self-efficacy

4. Social accept.5. Mastery goals

Undermining1. Avoidance

2. Lack of Ownership

3. Perceived difficulty

4. Social rejection5. Performance

avoidance

Major finding #4Classroom practices increase reading motivations that drive engagement.

Short term—30 minutesLong term---16 weeksProfessional development can increase practices

Multi-methods: Observational, Correlational, Experimental

Affirming motivations

1. Intrinsic2. Ownership 3. Self-efficacy4. Social

acceptance5. Mastery goals

Classroom practices

1. Relevance2. Micro-choice3. Success4. Relations—T &

S5. Thematic units

Major finding #5Variation across ethnic groupsIntrinsic motivation increases

achievement (correlational—and experimental evidence)

Confirmed for Caucasian and Asian students

Doubtful (initially disconfirmed) for African American and Hispanic students

Major finding #5Variation across ethnic groupsAvoidance is well associated with low

achievement for African American students (Ogbu, 2003; Graham, 2006; Guthrie, 2007; Long, 2007)

Avoidance has moderate-low correlation with achievement for Caucasian (Baker, 1999; Meece, 1993)

Cultural, experiential, educational sources are probable.

NRRC---1992 Georgia – Maryland Alvermann – Guthrie Co-Directors Thematic Center

Contributors to literatureQualitative—Alvermann, Moje,

O’Brien, Dillon, Brozo, Gee, Ivey, Fink, Au, Taylor, Pearson, Taylor, Smith, Morrow, Bean, Rueda, Pressley, others

Quantitative—Guthrie, Skinner, Deci, Almasi, Gambrell, Blumenfeld, Otis, Unrau, Greene, Baker, Pianta, Wentzel, Lapola, Wigfield, others

Paradigm of research for engagement ?Epistemology—beliefs, methods, findingsMultiple paradigms—multiple speech

communitiesMixed methods—deterred by dysfunctions in

publication system; Journal A—no voicesJournal B—no numbers

Engagement research is incrementalist;Engagement fuses with cognitive and socio-cultural knowledge base in reading

Paradigm sharing rather than paradigm shift

Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing Classroom contexts (CORI +)

Policy – present and future (?)

How does motivation (value, belief, goal) impact cognitive systems of reading?

1. Cognitive effort, attention, persistenceSelf-efficacy increases resilience

Social acceptance increases trying hard

Perceived control (ownership) increases perseverance

How does motivation (value, belief, goal) impact cognitive systems of reading?

2. Motivation ELICITS existing cognitive and metacognitive strategies; such as activating knowledge, organizing, on-line summarizing, self-monitoring

Internally motivated student seeks understanding; externally motivated student seeks task completion.

How does motivation (value, belief, goal) impact cognitive systems of reading?

3. Affective link to text memory—How? Internally motivated S. has positive

affective link to text feature (character, concept)

Feature with affective link is salient, e.g., retrievable

Feature with affective link is generative, e.g., feature connects to other features with pos. link.

Evidence - ?

Upward spiral for: motivation, readership, knowledge,

achievement Internal motivation propels high

volume of reading Amount of reading fosters

knowledge growth (West & Stanovich)

Knowledge generates reading achievement.

Downward spiral occurs also—see graph next

Ga

in in

Re

ad. C

om

pre

hen

sio

n

Gra

de

Le

vel

Low Interest

Increased Efficacy or

Involvement

High Interest

6.0

4.0

2.0

0

Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing and readership

Classroom contexts (CORI +)

Policy – present and future (?)

Terrarium (students fill)Aquarium (students fill)Owl pellet dissectionAnt farmGrow grass from seedsCrack nutsObserve bird feathers

Teacher affords student selection of text, task, partner, expression, link.

Select story.. Select page to read.. Select sentences to explain.. Identify goal for day.. Choose 3 of 5 questions to answer.. Write 3 inferences as true/false items

for partner exchange..

Teacher strongly controls text, task, partner, expression, link to outside.

Teacher selects all text Teacher questions are only questions Student predicts—only on request Teacher starts, stops all reading Text is right; student opinion is not Best answers are right or wrong

Students work together to gain meaning from text, and share

Partners read aloud Partner question exchange Team summarize chapter Literature circles Idea circles (CORI) Jig saw—habitat teams; Peer editing

Instructional units have conceptual complexity and duration

Students learn “big ideas” of survival, COMMUNITY, conflict

Reading topic persists over days and weeks

Students write concept maps of pages, chapters, books, unit

Themes are substantive-and fun Students become experts on theme

Intrinsic motivation (curiosity, self-efficacy, involvement, social)

ES = 1.26

Teacher rating of student engagement

ES = 1.00

Students amount of reading

ES = .49

Reading comprehension

Standardized tests

ES = .91

Multiple text comprehension

ES = .93

Reading strategy performances

ES = .91

Oral reading fluency ES = .70

Guthrie, et. al. 2007 Educational Psychologist

Pianta—Science—2007 Pianta—Child Development—2005 Study

1364 students; 827 classrooms; 747 schools; 295 districts; 32 States

80 minutes classroom observation in day

At risk –behavior, social, academic

Mothers education

Emotional support (engagement practices)

T. sensitivity to Ss needs, moods, interests

Climate of excitement, laughter, warmth Routines are flexible Teacher-centeredness (reversed) Detachment of teacher from Ss (rev.) Negative climate of anger, punishment

(rev.) Over-control and rigid regimentation

(rev.)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Read. Achieve.

Low Mod. High

Engagement Support-Grade 1

No riskRisks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Reading Achieve.

Low Mod High

Reading Instruction Quality-Grade 1

M.Ed.HighM.Ed.Low

Portrait of engagement Major findings & history Roles in processing and readership

Classroom contexts (CORI +)

Policy – present and future (?)

Cassidy---What’s Hot? Motivation is Not Hot—high

agreement Motivation should be Hot---high

agreement WHY? Why is fluency hot and engagement

cold?1.both correlate with achievement; 2.both are measurable; 3.neither is “same thing” as

comprehension;4.teaching fluency does not increase

comprehension, 5.but teaching for engagement does

increase comprehension.

Cassidy---What’s Hot?Engagement is not hot, because… Reading is perceived as

cognitive. Cognitive revolution rescued reading from disrepute, in 1970s.

Reading is perceived as socio-cultural, which shapes text interaction in dynamic relations, which are inherently situated.

Engagement is not policy.

Cassidy---Why Should Engagement be Hot?

Engagement is a means and an end in schooling.

Past educators have been replicators—promoting existing literacy, of Bible, or textbook.

Future educators will empower students’ invention of new literacies (internet).

Invention demands context of engagement—students seeking internally to know, share, design.

New policies are imminent.Accountability for engagement via

Outcomes and Classroom Practices

Outcomes of engagement are: fluency in text interaction, competence in reading

comprehension, expertise in content, expressive communication.

Standards about classroom practices for engagement in reading.RelevanceChoiceSuccessCollaborationThemes

Research base is young, but enlightening.

Implementation depends on you.

Education is not The filling of a pail,

But the lighting Of a fire