Eunsoo Cho, Unhee Ju, Eun Ha Kim, Minhye Lee, Garam A. Lee, D. Compton
{"title":"Relations Among Motivation, Executive Functions, and Reading Comprehension: Do They Differ for Students With and Without Reading Difficulties?","authors":"Eunsoo Cho, Unhee Ju, Eun Ha Kim, Minhye Lee, Garam A. Lee, D. Compton","doi":"10.1080/10888438.2022.2127357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose We examined the extent to which achievement goals predict reading comprehension, measured by two response formats (free recall and constructed response), and how these relations differ for students with and without reading difficulties (RD). We further explored how executive functions (working memory and semantic verbal fluency) mediate the relations between achievement goals and reading comprehension. Method We fit multigroup structural equation models with data from monolingual English-speaking fifth graders (n = 146 for RD; n = 109 for non-RD) in the United States. Results Results revealed that achievement goals predict reading comprehension as measured by the free recall but not by the constructed response format, and this pattern was moderated by RD status. For students with RD, mastery goals positively predicted performance on free recall, a relationship that was completely mediated by semantic verbal fluency, whereas performance-approach goals were negatively related to free recall. For students without RD, however, achievement goals did not predict reading comprehension as measured by either assessment format. Conclusion Our findings underscore the need to account for motivational differences in reading comprehension and the importance of fostering mastery goals when teaching reading comprehension, particularly for students with RD.","PeriodicalId":48032,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Studies of Reading","volume":"27 1","pages":"289 - 310"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Studies of Reading","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2127357","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose We examined the extent to which achievement goals predict reading comprehension, measured by two response formats (free recall and constructed response), and how these relations differ for students with and without reading difficulties (RD). We further explored how executive functions (working memory and semantic verbal fluency) mediate the relations between achievement goals and reading comprehension. Method We fit multigroup structural equation models with data from monolingual English-speaking fifth graders (n = 146 for RD; n = 109 for non-RD) in the United States. Results Results revealed that achievement goals predict reading comprehension as measured by the free recall but not by the constructed response format, and this pattern was moderated by RD status. For students with RD, mastery goals positively predicted performance on free recall, a relationship that was completely mediated by semantic verbal fluency, whereas performance-approach goals were negatively related to free recall. For students without RD, however, achievement goals did not predict reading comprehension as measured by either assessment format. Conclusion Our findings underscore the need to account for motivational differences in reading comprehension and the importance of fostering mastery goals when teaching reading comprehension, particularly for students with RD.
期刊介绍:
This journal publishes original empirical investigations dealing with all aspects of reading and its related areas, and, occasionally, scholarly reviews of the literature, papers focused on theory development, and discussions of social policy issues. Papers range from very basic studies to those whose main thrust is toward educational practice. The journal also includes work on "all aspects of reading and its related areas," a phrase that is sufficiently general to encompass issues related to word recognition, comprehension, writing, intervention, and assessment involving very young children and/or adults.