A study of thoughtful literacy and the motivation to read

Applegate, Anthony J., & Applegate, Mary DeKonty. (2010). A study of thoughtful literacy and the motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 64(4), 226-234.


The authors here attempt to establish a relationship between “the inclination to respond thoughtfully to narrative text” and overall motivation to read in elementary grade students. In addition, they look at gender differences in this relationship, and they also look at whether the relationship changes as students get older. They carefully name their variables, differentiating “thoughtful response” from proficiency in “text-based” (aka literal) comprehension. In fact, all of their study participants were elementary children (Grades 2 through 6) who had demonstrated a high level of proficiency on measures of literal comprehension. These participants were differentiated, however, on the basis of their scores on an assessment that purportedly measures higher levels of comprehension and engagement with text. This assessment, the Critical Reading Inventory (CRI) is related to definitions of reading proficiency used in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), which the authors claim focuses on “thoughtful literacy”, in contrast to state assessments, which the authors claim tend to focus more on literal comprehension. The authors cite evidence that while U.S. children appear to be proficient in reading as measured by the state tests mandated by No Child Left Behind, much fewer are considered proficient using the NAEP definitions of reading proficiency. The authors express concern for a population of elementary students who may possess “technical proficiency in reading” (i.e., word reading accuracy, “fluency”, and the ability to recall text on the literal level), but who lack proficiency in the things that really count: thoughtful engagement with text, and placing a high value on reading in their lives. The authors claim that when there is the inclination to respond thoughtfully to text, the typical gender differences in reading motivation (with boys not valuing reading as much as girls do) disappear. They also claim that while the typical “erosion” of reading motivation with increasing age still occurs, it is mitigated somewhat for those who are inclined to thoughtfully engage with texts.

This article resonated with me because I, too, am concerned that our over-focus on testing has had a negative effect on the reading motivation of our impressionable elementary school students. If we test children only on lower level, easily quantifiable skills such as reading accuracy and speed, and the ability to answer literal questions, we are teaching them that good literacy is these things, and reading becomes a routine, boring task rather than an engaging, thoughtful adventure. I have no doubt that there are an increasing number of children out there who do not value reading and who would not welcome a book as a gift. Couple the testing trend’s effects with our society’s fascination with passive entertainment media, and you have a situation that doesn’t make reading a “cool” thing for children, especially as they grow older and become ever more susceptible to media and peer pressure. There probably are ways for literacy educators to jump into this breach and build bridges between these societal forces, bridges that can foster reading motivation in children, but we are slower in developing and implementing those bridges than we should be, and we may lose a whole generation of readers before we figure it out.