It’s not, “let’s do more”. It’s, “let’s do different”: Recognizing the Important Associations between Children’s Reading Skill and their Motivation and Engagement in the Elementary School Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation contains a collection of three studies that examined young children’s engagement and motivation for reading concurrently in the context of word reading achievement. Participants across the three studies included students in grades 1 and 2, and their teachers, from public and Catholic elementary schools in the Greater Toronto Area. The goal of the first study was to assess how reading motivation and engagement relate to each other and whether they help to explain variance in children’s reading achievement together as a shared unit, or whether they each contribute something unique. Results showed that reading self-concept, reading interest, and emotional engagement are unique dimensions, but that they have a shared component that is related to children’s word reading skills. The goal of the second study was to explore individual differences in early readers’ motivation and emotional engagement. Using person-centered analyses, results identified more than one profile of reading motivation and emotional engagement in grades 1 and 2. The motivation and engagement construct that most informs these profiles appears to change over time, with reading interest being especially important in grade 2. A latent transition analysis suggested that a student’s motivation and engagement profile in grade 1 is important for their later motivation and engagement. Most students did not change profiles over time—maintaining either positive or poor motivation and engagement from grade 1 to 2. The goal of the third study was to assess teacher autonomy support as an instructional approach that may enable positive reading motivation and emotional engagement by offering choice and teaching relevance of learning tasks. Results showed that the pathway between students’ reading achievement in grade 1 and their later reading self-concept in grade 2 was explained by teacher autonomy support and its relation to students’ emotional engagement and reading interest. The contributions of this dissertation are to enhance an understanding of what young readers’ motivation and engagement looks like in grades 1 and 2. By considering different dimensions of motivation, specifically self-concept and reading interest, in addition to children’s general emotional engagement when learning, we may be able to explain some of the observed differences in children’s reading behaviours and achievement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".