Technology isn’t inherently motivational to students, but teachers can employ a variety of strategies that can harness technology to promote student engagement.
Teachers often tell me that we should incorporate technology into the English language arts classroom because it motivates students. It is difficult to argue with this premise. I’ve seen kindergarten students engrossed in a shared writing experience on an interactive white board, and I’ve observed adolescents spend countless hours creating digital videos that capture the themes and plots of novels read.
But motivation is a complex, multidimensional construct (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000), and the assumption that all kids are motivated by it or that technology is inherently motivating is a superficial one. It behooves us to consider technology integration at a deeper level. We must ask which dispositions and experiences might incline students to engage (or disengage) with digital literacies and which aspects of technology are likely to be motivating.
The word motivation derives from the Latin word movere, which means “to move.” As it relates to literacy, then, we’re asking what moves someone to engage in (and with) literacy? The short answer: It depends. What motivates Karl might be different from what motivates Natasha. What motivates kindergartners will be different from what motivates 4th graders. The long answer — the one with the potential to inform our planning — requires us to consider both the motivational dispositions of students and the different affordances of technology. Figure 1 may be helpful in distinguishing these two elements: those that reside within the student and those that characterize technology.
Reader motivational constructs
In my own research, unpacking the various components of motivation has been helpful (Conradi, Jang, & McKenna, 2014; Jang et al., in press). Doing so lets us move beyond oversimplified dichotomies that label students as motivated or unmotivated to read. Instead, it helps us negotiate the nuances of motivation for the purpose of “moving” students. For example, it is helpful to understand that some of my students are likely to engage in an activity because they like it, while others are willing to engage because they value it. Knowing these distinctions leads to more thoughtful ways to employ technology effectively and to leverage its affordances.
A goal of teachers, parents, and leaders should be to foster positive reading self-concepts.
Let’s step aside from literacy for a moment and consider an activity to which we might not all have a positive predisposition: exercise. Like reading, exercise is good for us. But, also like reading, not all of us engage in it regularly. What is it that motivates some of us to exercise and others to resist? Some people genuinely enjoy exercise and do it because they like it. They have a positive attitude toward working out. Others might harbor less positive attitudes but nevertheless see the inherent benefits (losing weight, reducing stress, toning up) and are moved to visit the gym as a result. Now imagine you were tasked with getting others to exercise. How would you proceed? The first step should be to figure out precisely what motivates different individuals, and the best way to accomplish that is to consider the components of motivation — those factors that work within each of us to determine ultimately whether we will engage or resist.
Motivation includes a number of components (values, goals, interests, attitudes, self-efficacy, self-concept, and others), and I focus on only two here. These two — self-concept and attitude — are especially relevant to effective planning related to reading.
Self-concept.
Our reading self-concepts have to do with how and whether we see ourselves as readers. Our self-concept is built incrementally, over time, as a result of our collective experiences with reading. When those experiences are mostly positive, a positive reading self-concept develops, but when experiences involve boredom or frustration, a negative self-concept results (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995).
Self-concepts should be understood as preconditions to motivation (Schiefele et al., 2012). Specifically, a higher self-concept promotes engagement, persistence, and subsequent achievement (Dweck, 2007; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In contrast, a lower self-concept can result in lower motivation (and achievement). Whether Neil believes that he is a good reader likely has significant implications for whether or not he reads (and, in consequence, becomes a better reader). Given its relationship to both persistence and achievement, a goal of teachers, parents, and leaders should be to foster positive reading self-concepts.
Most students do not equate the reading they do on tablets or computers with real reading.
We currently suffer from a divide in how children and adolescents think about reading. Interestingly, most students do not equate the reading they do on tablets or computers with real reading. In fact, research suggests that students do not include digital reading when asked to account for how much they read (Pitcher et al., 2007). My own research with 4th and 5th graders confirms this notion. In interviews, I asked students how they felt about reading on computers or tablets. One student responded, “I mean that’s just an odd question. I didn’t know that reading a short little thing on a screen is reading.” Another offered a distinction between the purpose for reading in print and digital settings: “Well, I research on the computer, but I read books.”
Obviously, if students don’t consider the digital reading to be actual reading, then even the most positive experiences won’t contribute to their reading self-concepts. It falls on the teacher to validate students’ reading experiences, regardless of the setting in which it occurs (O’Brien, Stewart, & Beach, 2009; Ruday et al., 2013). This proves particularly important for students who have struggled. A middle school teacher in one study noted:
I want to show them that they are readers, and I want to validate the reading they do online as “real reading” for them. I want to say to them, “You’re reading a sports article [online] — you are a reader” (Ruday et al., 2013, p. 207).
Other students may have experienced repeated difficulty reading in traditional print settings but are actually quite sophisticated readers in digital environments (O’Brien, Stewart, & Beach, 2009). By acknowledging all types of reading as reading, we have the opportunity to affirm and improve students’ self-concepts.
Digital tools and technology can also be used to support student reading, which, in turn, should positively affect student self-concepts, particularly for beginning readers and older students who struggle. Another way to use technology to support reading experiences and consequently the development of positive self-concepts is using e-readers instead of traditional texts. At the North Carolina State Reading Clinic, we often serve older students who are reading significantly below level and are well aware of their struggles. By giving them tablets instead of traditional texts to use with their tutors, we avoid some of the embarrassment and stigma they feel about reading “baby books.” We can then focus on improving their reading, which, in turn, should improve their self-concepts.
Attitude.
A second component of motivation is attitude, defined as “A learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 6). Attitudes are acquired, and, like self-concepts, they are the long-term results of experiences. Research suggests that attitudes toward reading worsen as students progress through school, that girls generally have more favorable attitudes than boys, and that better readers have more favorable attitudes than those who struggle (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995).
It might be tempting to think that all students have more positive attitudes toward reading in digital contexts than traditional print contexts and that we always should give students opportunities to read on the latest device. But research has revealed that though students in general hold very positive attitudes toward reading in digital settings, this isn’t always the case (McKenna et al., 2012). One key is to offer students options for reading in traditional modes (print magazines, books, etc.) and digital settings.
Tapping students’ out-of-school literacies — such as social media — requires subtlety and caution.
Another is to offer guidance and support appropriate to both. It may be natural to assume that little guidance is needed for technology use — after all, aren’t students digitally savvier than adults? The reality can be quite different, however. In an interview I conducted with one 5th-grade student, he said he disliked reading online because the information was overwhelming:
I mean, Google brings up everything ever. Like if I type in “history of Rome,” it’ll bring up Rome today or mistakes in history books. I mean when it comes down to it, I’d prefer the library if I have time instead of taking the time to find the perfect site. For the Internet, you have to go through processes.
His negative attitude, then, could quickly change with the right support.
It might also be tempting to take advantage of the positive attitudes students harbor toward social media by bringing students’ out-of-school literacy practices into the classroom. We might assume that those attitudes will transfer to the in-school practices we wish to cultivate. For example, a teacher might ask students to discuss academic content via Facebook. This plan is straightforward, but O’Brien, Stewart, and Beach (2009) warn that we should be careful not to “co-opt” students’ literacies (p. 87). Our well-intentioned idea of bridging students’ in-school and out-of-school literacies as a means of cultivating positive attitudes toward academic reading could backfire and leave students resentful and resistant. This is not to say that tapping positive attitudes toward social media can never work, but its use requires subtlety and caution.
Technology-specific motivational contexts
The two constructs of motivation I focused on above are student focused; that is, they are motivational characteristics that might incline them to engage or not engage with technology. Of course, learning hardly occurs in a bubble, and we’d be remiss not to focus on the learning contexts made possible in classrooms that integrate technology. Digital tools make it easier for learning to be social and for instruction to be differentiated. Each of these factors holds benefits for engagement and achievement.
Technology can be social.
Literacy is an inherently social experience (Street, 1995), and learning is optimized in an interactive, social context (Vygotsky, 1978). We are motivated by the notion that we can share our reading and writing (including multimodal compositions) with one another, and technology provides opportunities for discussion and collaboration in ways that traditional practices do not always allow. Perhaps a reason that the social aspect of technology is so motivating is that it gives our literacy activities and experiences purpose, which Daniel Pink (2009) highlights as one of the three essential elements of motivation, which include autonomy and mastery. In coconstructing meaning with peers and with the possibility of sharing written, multimedia products with a global audience, we are providing students with purposeful opportunities to engage with literacy.
Having students collaborate also leads to better comprehension. Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner (2001) stress that in collaborative tasks, students combine their background knowledge and skills, and together build comprehension. By asking students to collaborate on a Google doc or blog or VoiceThread®, we are in fact providing opportunities for deeper meaning making. These experiences help ensure that reading occupies an important part of their self-concept and that their attitudes become more positive.
Teachers can differentiate with technology.
We have long accepted the notion that it is important to differentiate instruction according to student interests, needs, and profiles (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). I have suggested that teachers provide a variety of texts in traditional print and digital form to meet the different interests of students. But differentiation to meet the diverse needs of students can also be brought about by using tools that exist within the technology itself. Using e-readers in the classroom, for example, enables teachers to scaffold student reading. Depending on their needs, students can enlarge the font of the text, look up words in the built-in dictionary, or even take advantage of text-to-speech features. Some web sites, like Newsela.com, provide the same text at different Lexile levels, allowing teachers to address the same content with students while differentiating the levels of the text used. Other sites, like ThinkCERCA.com, allow teachers to embed different questions and activities. These examples barely scratch the surface. NC State College of Education librarian Kerri Brown Parker has created a table that highlights dozens of digital tools, their applications, and opportunities for differentiation. It can be found at: http://ncsucedmetrc.weebly.com/digital-literacy-tools-and-differentiation.html.
Final thoughts
There is little question that technology has the potential to motivate. But to tap that potential, teachers must consider factors within the student and then implement technology based on the features it affords. Reading self-concept can be improved when teachers validate the fact that reading digital texts is indeed true reading, when they allow students to work collaboratively, and when they differentiate by making built-in supports available. These actions make it possible for all students to view reading as an inherently social activity and for those who struggle in print settings to succeed in more supportive environments. Successful experiences enable struggling students to see themselves as readers and to develop more positive attitudes toward reading. Social experiences enable all students to view reading as the wonderful cultural pursuit it can be.
References
Chapman, J.W. & Tunmer, W.E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 154.
Chinn, C.A., Anderson, R.C., & Waggoner, M.A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378-412.
Conradi, K., Jang, B.G., & McKenna, M.C. (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 127-164.
Dweck, C.S. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Eccles, J.S. & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Guthrie, J.T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3) (pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jang, B.G., Conradi, K., McKenna, M.C., & Jones, J.S. (in press). Motivation: Approaching an elusive concept through the factors that shape it. The Reading Teacher.
McKenna, M.C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B.G., & Meyer, J.P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U.S. survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 283-306.
McKenna, M.C., Kear, D.J., & Ellsworth, R.A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934-956.
O’Brien, D.G., Stewart, R., & Beach, R. (2009). Proficient reading in school: Traditional paradigms and new textual landscapes. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 80-97). New York, NY: Guilford.
Pink. D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Pitcher, S.M., Albright, L.K., DeLaney, C.J., Walker, N.T., Senarinesingh, K., Mogge, S., . . & Dunston, P.J. (2007). Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 378-396.
Ruday, S., Conradi, K., Heny, N., & Lovette, G. (2013). “You can’t put the genie back into the bottle”: English teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding digital literacies in the classroom. In P.J. Dunston, S.K. Fullerton, C.C. Bates, P.M. Stecker, M.W. Cole, A.H. Hall, D. Herro, & K.N. Headley (Eds.), Sixty-second yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 198-215). Altamonte Springs, FL: Literacy Research Association, Inc.
Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 427-463.
Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. London, UK: Longman.
Tomlinson, C.A. & Moon, T.R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: ACSD.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CITATION: Conradi, K. (2014). Tapping technology’s potential to motivate readers. Phi Delta Kappan, 96 (3), 54-57.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kristin Conradi Smith
Kristin Conradi Smith is an associate professor of reading education at William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
