Research paper in educational psychology

Reciprocalrelationsbetweenintrinsicreadingmotivationandreadingcompetence.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Research paper in educational psychology

Reciprocal relations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence: A comparison between native and immigrant students in Germany

Ai Miyamoto Bamberg Graduate School of Social Sciences (BAGSS), University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

Maximilian Pfost Department of Educational Research, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

Cordula Artelt Department of Educational Research, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

The present study compares native and immigrant students regarding the direction and the strength of the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence. Within the framework of the German National Educational Panel Study, 4,619 secondary school students were included in the analyses. The present study confirmed the reciprocal cross-lagged effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence from grades 5 to 7 for native students. In addition, the effect of grade 5 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 7 reading competence was mediated by grade 6 reading amount. However, for immigrant students, although the cross- lagged effect of grade 5 reading competence on grade 7 intrinsic reading motivation was significant, the reverse effect was not significant. The present findings suggest that intrinsic reading motivation seems to be essential for the development of reading achievement for native students whereas it seems to be of less importance for immigrant students.

Highlights

What is already known about this topic?

• Intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence are significantly and positively correlated with each other.

• The relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence is mediated by reading amount.

Journal of Research in Reading, ISSN 0141-0423 DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12113 Volume 41, Issue 1, 2018, pp 176–196

• In comparison to native students, immigrant students show lower reading competence despite comparable or even higher levels of reading motivation.

What this paper adds

• Empirical evidence on the reciprocal effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence.

• Empirical support for the significant indirect effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence through reading amount using longitudinal data.

• Students’ immigration status moderates the direction and the strength of the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence.

Implications for theory, policy, or practice

• Increase in reading competence seems to lead to higher levels of intrinsic reading motivation regardless of students’ immigration background.

• Promoting students’ intrinsic reading motivation seems to lead to better reading competence for native students but not for immigrant students.

• Especially with regard to immigrant students, educators should take the availability of adequate reading opportunities into account.

Reading motivation has been defined as ‘the individual’s personal goals, values, and beliefs with regard to the topics, processes, and outcomes of reading’ (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000, p.405). Reading motivation is suggested to be a multidimensional construct which is composed of different aspects including intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation (Wigfield, 1997). Intrinsic reading motivation is defined as individuals’ disposition to read because the process of reading is rewarding and satisfying in itself (Schiefele, Schaffner, Möller, & Wigfield, 2012). In comparison, extrinsic reading motivation is created when individuals read for incentives that are external to the reading activity such as reading for recognition or grades (Schiefele et al., 2012). Extrinsic reading motivation also contains instrumental motives for reading such as influences from parents, schools, or peers (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010). Previous research has consistently shown that students’ intrinsic reading motivation is

positively related to reading competence. This is found to be true even after taking into account students’ reasoning ability, decoding speed, prior reading achievement, gender, and family background (Andreassen & Bråten, 2010; Guthrie et al., 2007; Retelsdorf, Köller, & Möller, 2011; Schaffner, Philipp, & Schiefele, 2014; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). Despite strong empirical evidence for the positive association between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence, most of the evidence is based on correlational studies. Thus, the causal direction of the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence still remains a topic of discussion. Moreover, previous studies have consistently shown that immigrant students tend to

underachieve compared to native students in reading in Germany (Kigel, McElvany, & Becker, 2015; Stanat & Christensen, 2006). Thus, it is highly relevant for current research to better understand the nature of the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence especially for immigrant students. Taken together, the purpose of the present study is to investigate the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence from a longitudinal perspective in a sample of native and immigrant students in Germany.

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 177

The direction of the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence

Previous research suggests three theoretical models for the direction of the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence: the self-enhancement model, the skill-development model, and the reciprocal effects model (Calsyn & Kenny, 1977; Guay, Marsh, & Boivin, 2003). The self-enhancement model suggests that intrinsic reading motivation is a precursor of reading competence. Intrinsically motivated readers tend to improve their reading competence by spending more time on reading, using more complex reading strategies, and preferring to read more challenging texts (Schiefele et al., 2012). Empirical support for the self-enhancement model is provided by Guthrie et al. (2007)

who investigated reciprocal effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence over a 3-month period in a sample of fourth grade students. They found a significant effect of indicators of intrinsic reading motivation (interest in reading, preference for choice, and involvement) on reading competence growth, but they did not obtain a significant effect of reading competence on growth in reading motivation. Moreover, Retelsdorf et al. (2011) found that indicators of intrinsic reading motivation (particularly reading for interest) significantly predicted reading comprehension growth from grades 5 to 8 even after controlling for cognitive skills, family characteristics, and demographic variables. However, Retelsdorf et al. (2011) did not examine the reverse effects of reading comprehension on reading motivation. In contrast to the self-enhancement model, the skill-development model (Calsyn &

Kenny, 1977; Guay et al., 2003) indicates that intrinsic reading motivation is a consequence of reading competence. Students with better reading skills may experience more positive emotions while reading (e.g., enjoyment) due to better understanding of a text, and this could increase their intrinsic reading motivation. In contrast, students with poor reading skills may feel more negative emotions (e.g., frustration), and this could decrease their intrinsic reading motivation. The skill development model is supported by Becker et al. (2010) who showed that

although grade 3 reading competence significantly predicted grade 4 intrinsic reading motivation, grade 4 intrinsic reading motivation did not significantly contribute to grade 6 reading competence. However, Becker et al. (2010) also mentioned that due to the high stability of reading competence from grades 3 to 6 in their study, it cannot be strictly concluded that intrinsic reading motivation has no effect on reading competence. Finally, in order to reconcile the self-enhancement model with the skill-development

model, the reciprocal effects model (Guay et al., 2003) proposes that intrinsic reading motivation is an antecedent as well as a result of reading competence. Although from a theoretical and empirical perspective, the reciprocal-effects model seems to be the most convincing (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007), only a few longitudinal studies (McElvany, Kortenbruck, & Becker, 2008; Schaffner et al., 2014; Schiefele, Stutz, & Schaffner, 2016) have provided empirical support for this model. In a sample of second and third graders, Schiefele et al. (2016) observed reciprocal

cross-lagged effects between an indicator of intrinsic reading motivation (reading involvement) and reading comprehension at the word and sentence levels. However, although the cross-lagged effect of reading comprehension at the passage level on intrinsic reading motivation was significant, the reverse cross-lagged effect was not found to be significant. McElvany et al. (2008) also observed reciprocal cross-lagged effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading comprehension from grades 3 to 4. However, from grades 4 to 6, they obtained neither a significant effect of intrinsic reading motivation on

178 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

reading competence nor a significant effect of reading competence on intrinsic reading motivation. Furthermore, McElvany, Becker, and Lüdtke (2009), who analysed the same data set as McElvany et al. (2008), also did not find a significant effect of grade 4 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 6 reading comprehension even after accounting for vocabulary, reading amount, and various family background characteristics. Finally, Schaffner et al. (2014) observed reciprocal effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence from grades 5 to 6 for students from academic track schools, but not for students from nonacademic track schools.

Reading amount as a mediator

In order to investigate the direction of the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence, it is also important to consider possible mediating processes of this relation. Reading amount, often measured by frequencies of reading, is found to explain the effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence (Schaffner, Schiefele, & Ulferts, 2013; Stutz, Schaffner, & Schiefele, 2016). The mechanism of how intrinsically motivated students tend to improve their reading comprehension through an increased amount of reading involves the following steps. First, intrinsically motivated readers tend to genuinely enjoy reading because it is rewarding and satisfying in itself (Schiefele et al., 2012). Second, readers’ positive emotions experienced during the reading processes may reinforce them to seek more reading activities in the future. This assumption is also empirically confirmed that readers with higher intrinsic reading motivation tend to read more often than readers with lower intrinsic reading motivation (Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Finally, students who spend more time on reading for pleasure tend to become more competent readers (Pfost, Dörfler, & Artelt, 2010). This may be due to an increase in readers’ prior knowledge of text topics which is found to be a strong predictor of reading competence (Artelt, Schiefele, & Schneider, 2001; Guthrie et al., 1999), or because of the automatisation of basic reading skills (e.g., decoding speed, comprehension strategies, and metacognition) that are also shown to facilitate reading comprehension (Andreassen & Bråten, 2010; Artelt et al., 2001). However, previous studies which have examined the mediating role of reading amount

seem to show inconsistent results. In a sample of elementary school children (grades 2 to 5), some studies have found mediation effects of reading amount on the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading comprehension (Schaffner et al., 2013; Stutz et al., 2016) while others have not (De Naeghel, Van Keer, Vansteenkiste, & Rosseel, 2012; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). In these studies, although intrinsic reading motivation was related to reading amount, the reading amount did not significantly contribute to reading competence (De Naeghel et al., 2012; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). Until this time, only a few longitudinal studies (Becker et al., 2010; McElvany et al.,

2008; Schaffner & Schiefele, 2016) have examined indirect effects of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence through reading amount. Schaffner and Schiefele (2016) investigated effects of intrinsic reading motivation on the word and sentence level comprehension before and after 6 weeks of summer vacation in a sample of third graders. Their results revealed that the effect of intrinsic reading motivation on the post-vacation reading comprehension was mediated by reading amount when controlling for the pre-vacation reading comprehension.

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 179

McElvany et al. (2008) investigated mutual relations among intrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and reading comprehension from grades 3 to 6. They found a significant but small indirect effect of grade 3 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 6 reading comprehension through grade 4 reading amount (β = .02, p < .05). Using the same data set as McElvany et al. (2008), Becker et al. (2010) also observed a significant indirect effect of grade 4 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 6 reading comprehension through grade 4 reading amount. However, this indirect effect disappeared when extrinsic reading motivation and grade 3 reading achievement were added to the model. Although grade 4 intrinsic reading motivation positively and substantially predicted grade 4 reading amount, this reading amount did not significantly contribute to grade 6 reading competence. The results of Becker et al. (2010) may differ from that of McElvany et al. (2008)

possibly because of the inclusion of extrinsic reading motivation and the different measures used for intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence. In addition, although McElvany et al. (2008) included all relevant variables in grades 3, 4, and 6, Becker et al. (2010) included intrinsic reading motivation and reading amount only in grade 4 and reading competence in grades 3 and 6. Theoretically, it is plausible to assume that intrinsically motivated students tend to read

more often, and their frequent reading behaviour leads to better reading competence. However, the previous studies seem to show mixed results. These inconsistent results may be due to the mostly cross-sectional nature of the studies. Moreover, the introduction of potential moderators might help clarify these inconsistent relationships.

The role of students’ immigration background as a moderator

In spite of the strong empirical support for the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence, a moderating role of various students’ background variables on this relation is not well understood (Schaffner et al., 2014). Specifically, in Germany, students’ immigration background seems to play an important role in predicting their reading competence as immigrant students tend to show significantly lower reading achievement than their native peers (Kigel et al., 2015; Stanat & Christensen, 2006). According to the PISA framework (OECD, 2010), 15-year-old immigrant students lag

more than 50 score points on average in reading achievement behind native students in Germany. Such native–immigrant achievement gap in Germany can be largely explained by socio-economic status, educational levels of parents, and languages spoken at home (Marx & Stanat, 2012). However, even when taking into account socio-economic status and cultural capital, the negative effect of students’ immigration status on text comprehension and vocabulary was found to remain significant (Kigel et al., 2015). Despite lower reading achievement, immigrant students in Germany tend to have similar

or even higher intrinsic reading motivation than native students. Kigel et al. (2015) showed that native and immigrant students did not significantly differ in the levels of intrinsic reading motivation. In addition, students’ immigration status positively predicted intrinsic reading motivation in grades 4 and 6 when taking into account prior motivation, vocabulary, and text comprehension. Moreover, Villiger, Wandeler, and Niggli (2014) found that students’ immigration status was either uncorrelated or positively correlated with indicators of intrinsic reading motivation (reading enjoyment and reading curiosity) in a sample of German-speaking students in Switzerland.

180 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

Immigrant students’ similar or even higher levels of motivation despite their lower achievement in comparison to native students, sometimes called the aspiration– achievement paradox (Salikutluk, 2016), can be explained by the immigrant optimism hypothesis (Kao & Tienda, 1995). In line with this hypothesis, immigrants often move to other countries with the aim of socio-economic improvement, and they seem to perceive their child education as the key to their upward mobility. For instance, parents of Turkish origin in Germany reported that they wish their children to obtain opportunities for better future outcomes through attaining higher educational qualifications (Relikowski, Yilmaz, & Blossfeld, 2012). Compared to native parents, immigrant parents tend to possess significantly higher educational expectations for their children. Higher parental educational expectations often go along with children’s positive learning attitudes such as high levels of reading motivation (Villiger et al., 2014). Although many studies have examined differences in reading motivation and reading

achievement at mean-levels, no studies to authors’ knowledge so far have directly examined the differences in the relation of these variables between native and immigrant students in a German context. However, it is highly relevant for current research to draw attention to students’ immigration background when examining the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence due to its high practical relevance for curricula aiming to strengthen reading skills of immigrant students.

The present study

The present study intends to answer the following research questions: 1) Do intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence have reciprocal effects on each other? 2) Is the effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence mediated by reading amount? 3) Do native and immigrant students differ in the direction and the strength of the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence? As a reciprocal relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence is most likely (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007), we hypothesised that intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence will significantly predict each other from grades 5 to 7. In addition, consistent with previous research (e.g., Stutz et al., 2016), we also hypothesised that the effect of grade 5 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 7 reading competence will be significantly mediated by grade 6 reading amount. Furthermore, we expect significant and positive reciprocal effects between intrinsic

reading motivation and reading competence for both native and immigrant students. We also expect a significant positive indirect effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence through reading amount for both native and immigrant students. This is due to the assumption that the psychological and behavioural mechanisms of how intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence influence each other should not be different for native and immigrant students. The present study also takes into account the types of school track as a control variable.

In Germany, school tracks can be largely divided into either an academic track which typically prepares students for higher education, or a nonacademic track which emphasises more on practical education and vocational training. Of secondary school students in Germany, 34.2% enroll in academic track schools whereas the remaining students attend nonacademic track schools (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2016). In previous research, school tracks have been found to moderate the relation between

intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence. Schaffner et al. (2014) investigated

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 181

the influence of different track schools on the reciprocal relations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence from grades 5 to 6. Their results revealed that significant reciprocal relations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence were observed only for academic track students. Neither intrinsic reading motivation nor reading competence significantly predicted each other for nonacademic track students. Hence, it is crucial to consider the possibility that the strength of relations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence may significantly differ between different school tracks. As immigrant students are less likely to attend academic track schools and are instead largely concentrated in nonacademic track schools compared to their native peers in Germany (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2010), students’ immigration status may confound with the types of school track. Thus, it is necessary to separate the effect of school tracks from the effect of students’ immigration background on the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence.

Method

Data and sample

The analyses of the present study used data from the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), Starting Cohort Grade 5.1 The NEPS is a framework with a multi-cohort longitudinal design, and their goal is to examine educational processes and outcomes in different developmental stages of a life course (Blossfeld, Roßbach, & von Maurice, 2011). The sampling procedure of the participants includes the following steps. First, regular schools at lower secondary level were randomly sampled. Then, grade 5 classes within the selected schools were randomly chosen. Finally, two classes were selected per school, and all students of selected classes were invited to participate in the study. This sampling procedure ensured that the sample is representative of secondary regular school children in Germany. Participants were asked to fill out the questionnaires and take various competence tests.

The main sample of students (n = 4,619) were tested at three time points: in the beginning of grade 5 in 2010 (T1), in the beginning of grade 6 in 2011 (T2), and in the beginning of grade 7 in 2012 (T3). At T3, in addition to the main sample, more than 2,000 participants were newly recruited to participate in the study as a refreshment sample. However, this sample was not included in our analyses as students in this sample did not participate in the study at T1 and T2. The average age of the main sample was M = 10.50 (SD = .62) years at T1, M = 11.48 (SD = .60) years at T2, and M = 12.59 (SD = .67) years at T3. Males were slightly over represented within our sample (51.6%) Students’ immigration background was defined based on the birthplaces of students and

their parents. Students were asked to indicate their own and their parents’ countries of birth. The countries of birth were then coded as either Germany or other countries. When a student was born in Germany and he/she has at least one parent who was also born in Germany, he/she was categorised as native students (coded as 0). When a student was born outside of Germany (first generation immigrants), he/she was grouped as immigrant students (coded as 1). When a student was born in Germany but both of his/her parents were born outside of Germany (second generation immigrants), he/she was also grouped as immigrant students (coded as 1).

182 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

We considered first and second generation students as immigrant students because previous research including the PISA framework (e.g., OECD, 2010) consistently suggests that these groups of students seem to be significantly disadvantaged in reading achievement compared to students of native-born parents. Thus, it was important to draw attention to these groups of students in our study. In total, our analyses focused on data of 3,907 native students and 712 immigrant students. In our sample, immigrant students tend to have lower educated parents than native students as immigrant parents had shorter education years (M = 12.27, SD = 2.53) than native parents (M = 14.19, SD = 2.22). Of immigrant students, 46.3% spoke only or mostly non-German languages at home.

Instruments

Intrinsic reading motivation. Intrinsic reading motivation was measured with five items taken from the reading enjoyment and reading for interest subscales of the Habitual Reading Motivation Questionnaire (Möller & Bonerad, 2007), a German adaptation of the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ). The selection of these items was based on the decisions of experts in the NEPS core team. In the selection processes, the experts aimed to cover the breadth of the construct by eliminating the items which share similar aspects. Some items were also removed if they were location specific (e.g., at school or at home) in order to address the construct in a general context. Furthermore, to measure the construct across a wide range of age groups, the length and the linguistic level of the items were also taken into account. The selected items include the following statements: 1) ‘I enjoy reading books’, 2) ‘I

think that reading is interesting’, 3) ‘I like reading about new things’, 4) ‘I am convinced that I can learn a lot by reading’, and 5) ‘Reading is important to understand things right’. All items were answered on a four-point rating scale from 1 (do not agree at all) to 4 (completely agree). The higher scores indicated higher intrinsic reading motivation. One item (‘If I had enough time, I would read even more’) was removed from the scale as it may confound with the measure of reading amount. Intrinsic reading motivation was measured at T1 (grade 5) and at T3 (grade 7). Reliabilities of the scale were good for native students (ω = .86, α = .88 at T1; ω = .88, α = .89 at T3) and for immigrant students (ω = .87, α = .89 at T1; ω = .88, α = .90 at T3).

Reading competence. The reading comprehension test administered in the NEPS is intended to measure the functional understanding of written texts in a typical everyday situation. This concept of reading competence is also in line with the reading literacy concept of the PISA framework, that is, ‘the capacity to understand, use and reflect on written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society’ (OECD, 2002). Various text comprehension theories (e.g., Kintsch, 1998) were taken into account by the NEPS framework for assessing reading comprehension (see Gehrer, Zimmermann, Artelt, & Weinert, 2013, for more information on theoretical considerations for the test). The NEPS also meets the demand for constructing a reading competence test that measures the same construct across all age groups (Gehrer et al., 2013). The measurement invariance was checked across various subgroups (e.g., gender,

socioeconomic status, and immigration background) in order to make sure that the test captures the same construct regardless of students’ various demographic characteristics. First, differential item functioning (DIF) was calculated based on a multi-group IRT model,

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 183

in which main effects of the subgroups and differential effects of the subgroups on item difficulty were estimated. Following this, the differences in the estimated item difficulties between the subgroups were assessed. Finally, the model fit was examined by comparing the models with and without the DIF (Pohl, Haberkorn, Hardt, & Wiegand, 2012). The test consisted of five types of continuous texts with approximately 200 to 550 words

each (i.e., informational, commenting or augmenting, literacy, instructional, and advertising texts). Each text involved three kinds of comprehension tasks including finding information in texts, drawing text-related conclusions, and reflecting and assessing an overall message of a text. The majority of tasks used a multiple-choice format whereas some tasks used a decision-making or a matching format. Decision-making tasks required students to assess whether each statement was correct or incorrect, whereas matching tasks involved selecting and assigning titles to different sections of a text (see Gehrer, Zimmermann, Artelt, & Weinert, 2012, for more detailed descriptions and sample items of the test). The test was administered at T1 (grade 5) and T3 (grade 7). It consisted of 32 items at T1

and 40 items at T3. The measurement invariance of the competence scores from two occasions was supported, and the test was linked in order to allow a direct comparison of the competence scores across time (Fischer, Rohm, Gnambs, & Carstensen, 2016). At T3, respondents were administered different test versions depending on their scores at T1. Low-ability respondents received a test with less difficult items, whereas high-ability respondents received a test with more difficult items. Students’ reading comprehension scores were provided in the form of weighted maximum likelihood estimates (WLEs). The use of WLE score over sum/average score is highly recommended by the NEPS psychometricians as it takes into account the difficulties of each item. According to the NEPS technical report (Pohl et al., 2012), reliabilities of the test were satisfactory at T1 (WLE reliability = .77) and at T3 (WLE reliability = .78 for the low-ability test, and .76 for the high-ability test).

Reading amount. Reading amount was measured with a single item asking how much time per day students normally read outside school. This self-reported question was answered with five options (1 = not at all, 2 = up to half an hour, 3 = between half an hour and 1 h, 4 = 1 to 2 h, and 5 = more than 2 h). In the NEPS, reading amount was measured at three time points. The test–retest reliability of this single item scale was sufficient (.48 from T1 to T2, and .53 from grades T2 to T3).

Control variable: types of school track. Students were asked whether they attended academic track schools which prepare students for higher education, or nonacademic track schools which emphasise on vocational training. In total, 1,880 native and 284 immigrant students attended academic track schools whereas 1,213 native and 289 immigrant students attended nonacademic track schools. The remaining students who attended neither academic nor nonacademic track schools (e.g., comprehensive schools) were excluded from the analyses.

Statistical analyses

Prior to the multi-group analyses of structural equation models, measurement invariance tests were conducted across time and groups for intrinsic reading motivation. Then, we estimated a multi-group cross-lagged panel model for testing the reciprocal relations

184 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence. In this model, intrinsic reading motivation in grades 5 and 7 were represented as latent variables, while reading competence in grades 5 and 7 were treated as manifest variables. Furthermore, we specified a multi-group structural equation model for testing indirect effects of grade 5 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 7 reading competence through grade 6 reading amount while controlling for grade 5 reading competence. In this model, reading amount was added as a manifest variable. First, all path coefficients of these models were compared between native and immigrant

students. Then, in order to take into account the types of school track as a potentially confounding variable, we compared the following four groups of students: 1 = native students in nonacademic track schools, 2 = immigrant students in nonacademic track schools, 3 = native students in academic track schools, and 4 = immigrant students in academic track schools. In order to examine whether each observed effect was significantly different between

groups, we compared an initial model in which each observed effect was freely estimated and a model which constrained each effect to be equal between groups. Then, we conducted a chi-square different test to see whether these two models were significantly different from each other. If the initial model was significantly better than the constrained model, we concluded that the observed effect was significantly different between groups. All models were estimated with the maximum likelihood estimation using the lavaan package of program R 3.2.1 (Rosseel, 2012). The average rate of missing values per variable was 10.82%. All missing values were dealt with the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) method option in lavaan.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 represents means and standard deviations of all relevant variables of native and immigrant students. Both groups of students did not significantly differ in the levels of intrinsic reading motivation in grades 5 and 7. Native students significantly outperformed immigrant students in reading competence in grades 5 and 7. There were moderate to large effects of the differences in students’ immigration background on reading competence.

Table 1. Mean values and standard deviations of all variables for native and immigrant students.

Total (n = 4619) Native (n = 3907) Immigrant (n = 712) Effect size

Variables Min Max M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) d

IRM (G5) 1.00 4.00 3.15 (0.78) 3.15 (0.77) 3.15 (0.79) .00

IRM (G7) 1.00 4.00 2.80 (0.82) 2.81 (0.82) 2.75 (0.86) .07

RA (G6) 1.00 5.00 3.09 (1.42) 3.13 (1.41) 2.91 (1.45)** .15

RC (G5) �4.59 4.07 0.04 (1.26) 0.14 (1.25) �0.56 (1.14)** .56 RC (G7) �3.52 5.75 0.74 (1.37) 0.84 (1.35) 0.21 (1.35)** .47 Note. Native = native students. Immigrant = immigrant students. IRM = intrinsic reading motivation. RA = reading amount. RC = reading competence. G5 = grade 5. G6 = grade 6. G7 = grade 7. **Significantly different from native students at p < .01.

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 185

Finally, immigrant students read significantly less frequently compared to native students. There was a small effect of the differences in students’ immigration status on reading amount. Inter-correlations among all variables for native and immigrant students are indicated in

Table 2. Attending upper track schools was significantly and positively associated with intrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and reading competence from grades 5 to 7 for native and immigrant students. Students in more academically advanced school tracks seem to have higher intrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and reading competence than those in less advanced school tracks regardless of students’ immigration status. Furthermore, intrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and reading competence were significantly and positively correlated with each other for both native and immigrant students.

Measurement invariance testing

Prior to the analyses, we conducted measurement invariance tests of intrinsic reading motivation across time (grade 5 and grade 7) and groups (native and immigrant students). Given that the purpose of the present study is to directly compare path coefficients across groups, the assumption of the least restricted model (configural invariance) and the second least restricted model (metric invariance) have to be met (Milfont & Fischer, 2010). Fit indices of the configural invariance model were satisfactory across time (χ2 = 135.81,

df = 8, p = .000, CFI = .997, RMSEA = .062) and groups (χ2 = 753.96, df = 60, p = .000, CFI = .975, RMSEA = .071). Thus, the general factor structure of intrinsic reading motivation was considered to be the same across time and groups. Fit indices of the metric invariance model were also good across time (χ2 = 233.58, df = 12, p = .000, CFI = .994, RMSEA = .066) and groups (χ2 = 764.27, df = 68, p = .000, CFI = .974, RMSEA = .067). In addition, the imposition of constraints of factor loadings did not significantly deteriorate the approximation of the data across time (ΔCFI = .003, ΔRMSEA = � .004) and groups (ΔCFI = .001, ΔRMSEA = .004). Thus, all path coefficients in the models can be compared across time and groups.

Table 2. Inter-correlations of all variables for native and immigrant students.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(1) School —

(2) IRM (G5) .19 / .22 —

(3) IRM (G7) .16 / .20 .47 / .44 —

(4) RA (G6) .21 / .16 .39 / .33 .48 / .36 —

(5) RC (G5) .38 / .47 .25 / .22 .30 / .31 .32 / .29 —

(6) RC (G7) .43 / .52 .25 / .17 .37 / .31 .35 / .29 .60 / .64

Note. First correlation refers to native students, and second correlation refers to immigrant students. School = types of school track. IRM = intrinsic reading motivation. RA = reading amount. RC = reading competence. G5 = grade 5. G6 = grade 6. G7 = grade 7. All correlations were statistically significant at p < .01.

186 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

Reciprocal relations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence

The estimated multi-group cross-lagged panel model showed a good fit ( χ2 = 1,075.25, df = 100, p = .000, CFI = .967, RMSEA = .065, SRMR = .046). The results of all standardised path coefficients for the model can be found in Figure 1. Consistent with our hypothesis, we observed significant and positive cross-lagged effects of grade 5 reading competence on grade 7 intrinsic reading motivation for both native ( β = .19, p < .01) and immigrant students ( β = .22, p < .01). As expected, there was also a significant positive cross-lagged effect of grade 5 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 7 reading competence for native students ( β = .13, p < .01). However, contrary to our hypothesis, the effect of grade 5 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 7 reading competence was not significant for immigrant students ( β = .02, p > .05). This effect was also found to be significantly weaker for immigrant students than for native students (Δχ2 = 7.26, df = 1, p < .01).

A mediating role of reading amount

The specified mediation model showed a good fit ( χ2 = 374.14, df = 36, p = .000, CFI = .979, RMSEA = .064, SRMR = .039). The results of all path coefficients for the model are presented in Figure 2. As expected, the effect of grade 5 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 6 reading amount was significant for both native ( β = .45, p < .01) and immigrant students ( β = .38, p < .01). Furthermore, as hypothesised, the effect of grade 6 reading amount on grade 7 reading competence was significant for both native ( β = .18, p < .01) and immigrant students ( β = .10, p < .01). However, this effect was found to be significantly lower for immigrant students than for native students (Δχ2 = 4.64, df = 1, p < .05). In addition, both groups had significant indirect effects of grade 5 intrinsic

Figure 1. Multi-group cross-lagged panel model analysis (standardised path coefficients β). For each path, the first coefficient refers to native students, and the second coefficient refers to immigrant students. IRM = intrinsic reading motivation. RC = reading competence. *p < .05; **p < .01.

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 187

reading motivation on grade 7 reading competence through grade 6 reading amount. This indirect effect was also found to be significantly lower for immigrant students ( β = .04, p < .01) than for native students ( β = .08, p < .01, Δχ2 = 7.78, df = 2, p < .05).

The influence of academic or nonacademic track schools

In order to exclude the influence of school tracks on the tested models, we replicated and compared the models among the following four groups: 1) native students in nonacademic track schools, 2) immigrant students in nonacademic track schools, 3) native students in academic track schools, and 4) immigrant students in academic track schools. The multi- group cross-lagged panel model showed a good fit ( χ2 = 980.34, df = 208, p = .000, CFI = .966, RMSEA = .064, SRMR = .048). The results of all path coefficients for this model are presented in Figure 3. The cross-lagged effects of grade 5 reading competence on grade 7 intrinsic reading

motivation was significant and positive for native and immigrant students in academic track schools ( β = .16, p < .01; β = .21, p < .01, respectively) as well as in nonacademic track schools ( β = .16, p < .01; β = .15, p < .05, respectively). However, the cross-lagged effect of grade 5 intrinsic reading motivation on grade 7 reading competence was found to be significant only for the native group and not for the immigrant group. This was true for both academic track schools ( β = .10, p < .01 for native students; β = �.03, p > .05 for immigrant students) and nonacademic track schools ( β = .14, p < .01 for native students; β = .01, p > .05 for immigrant students). Furthermore, this effect was found to be significantly lower for immigrant students than for native students in nonacademic track schools (Δχ2 = 3.96, df = 1, p < .05). The multi-group mediation model showed a good fit ( χ2 = 332.65, df = 76, p = .000,

CFI = .978, RMSEA = .061, SRMR = .042). The results of all path coefficients for the model are presented in Figure 4. Grade 5 intrinsic reading motivation had significant positive effects on grade 6 reading amount for native and immigrant students regardless of their track schools (academic: β = .44, p < .01; β = .36, p < .01, respectively;

Figure 2. Multi-group structural equation model analysis (standardised path coefficients β). For each path, the first coefficient refers to native students, and the second coefficient refers to immigrant students. IRM = intrinsic reading motivation. RA = reading amount. RC = reading competence. *p < .05; **p < .01. The effects of previous reading competence (grade 5) were controlled for the model.

188 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

nonacademic: β = .38, p < .01; β = .35, p < .01, respectively). Moreover, grade 6 reading amount had significant positive effects on grade 7 reading competence for native and immigrant students in academic track schools ( β = .16, p < .01; β = .17, p < .01,

Figure 4. Multi-group structural equation model analysis (standardised path coefficients β). ‘N’ indicates nonacademic track schools, whereas ‘A’ indicates academic track schools. For each path, the first coefficient refers to native students, and the following coefficient refers to immigrant students. IRM = intrinsic reading motivation. RA = reading amount. RC = reading competence. *p < .05; **p < .01. The effects of previous reading competence (grade 5) were controlled for the model.

Figure 3. Multi-group cross-lagged panel model analysis (standardised path coefficients β). ‘N’ indicates nonacademic track schools, whereas ‘A’ indicates academic track schools. For each path, the first coefficient refers to native students, and the following coefficient refers to immigrant students. IRM = intrinsic reading motivation. RC = reading competence. *p < .05; **p < .01.

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 189

respectively). However, in nonacademic track schools, the effect of grade 6 reading amount on grade 7 reading competence was significant only for native students ( β = .18, p < .01) and not for immigrant students ( β = .05, p > .05). In addition, this effect was found to be significantly lower for immigrant students than for native students (Δχ2 = 4.93, df = 1, p < .05). There was a significant and positive indirect effect of grade 5 intrinsic reading

motivation on grade 7 reading competence through grade 6 reading amount for native students regardless of their school tracks ( β = .07, p < .01 for academic tracks and β = .07, p < .01 for nonacademic tracks). This indirect effect was significant for immigrant students in academic track schools ( β = .06, p < .01) but not in nonacademic track schools ( β = .02, p > .05).

Supplementary analyses on the influence of the language use for reading

Because the items for intrinsic reading motivation and reading amount were not language specific, it is unknown whether immigrant students answered these questions with reference to reading in their first language or in German. To find this out, we conducted supplementary analyses based on the item that addresses the language use for reading books. This question was asked only for students who learned other languages than German as a family language in their childhood. In fact, the majority of these students (88.2%) answered that they read only or mostly in German. Nevertheless, we replicated the mediation model with the students who read only or mostly in German (n = 2,435) and students who read only or mostly in other languages (n = 147) in order to see if the language use for reading has any effects on the relations among intrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and reading competence. Students who answered that this question did not apply to them (n = 180) were excluded from the analyses. The model showed a good fit ( χ2 = 171.89, df = 36, p = .000, CFI = .980, RMSEA = .054,

SRMR = .043). The results showed that within a group of students who read only or mostly in German, intrinsic reading motivation positively predicted reading amount ( β = .38, p < .01), and reading amount positively predicted reading competence ( β = .14, p < .01). In addition, there was a significant and positive indirect effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence through reading amount for this group ( β = .05, p < .01). However, within a group of students who read only or mostly in non-German languages, intrinsic reading motivation did not significantly predict reading amount ( β = .06, p > .05), and reading amount also did not significantly contribute to reading competence ( β = �.06, p > .05). There was also no significant indirect effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence through reading amount ( β = �.00, p > .05).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate reciprocal relations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence from a longitudinal perspective in a sample of native and immigrant students in Germany. We hypothesised reciprocal effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence for both groups. We also expected that the effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence would be mediated by reading amount for both groups.

190 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

Are intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence reciprocally related?

The present study provides empirical support for reciprocal effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence for secondary school native students. This is in line with the findings of McElvany et al. (2008) and Schiefele et al. (2016) who also confirmed reciprocal effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence in a sample of elementary school children. The present study also provides empirical evidence for the mediating role of reading amount in the effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence for native students. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that when students are intrinsically motivated, they tend to read more frequently and therefore improve their reading competence (Becker et al., 2010; McElvany et al., 2008; Schaffner & Schiefele, 2016; Schaffner et al., 2013; Stutz et al., 2016). However, the present findings are not consistent with the study of Guthrie et al. (2007)

who found the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence to be unidirectional for fourth grade students. Although they observed a significant effect of students’ intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence growth, they did not find a significant effect of reading competence on growth in reading motivation. However, the present study differs from their study in various ways which may have led us to different results. For instance, Guthrie et al. (2007)’s study had much smaller sample size (n = 31) and shorter time span (12 weeks) than our study. In addition, intrinsic reading motivation was measured based on interviews in their study. Finally, Guthrie et al. (2007) mentioned that all students participated in the reading intervention program which was designed to increase both intrinsic reading motivation and reading comprehension. The present study did not provide empirical evidence for reciprocal effects between

intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence for immigrant students. Our findings indicate that for immigrant students, although greater reading skills may lead to an increase in intrinsic reading motivation, higher intrinsic reading motivation does not seem to contribute to the development of reading competence. This is in line with the skill-development model, which suggests that intrinsic reading motivation is a consequence of reading competence rather than a precursor (Calsyn & Kenny, 1977; Guay et al., 2003). However, when we examined the mediating role of reading amount, we found a small but significant indirect effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence through reading amount for immigrant students. Thus, it cannot be strictly concluded that intrinsic reading motivation has no effect on reading competence for immigrant students.

Does attending different school tracks matter?

The present findings confirmed reciprocal effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence for native students regardless of the school tracks. However, within the immigrant sample, a reciprocal relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence was not confirmed for either academic or nonacademic track students. Although there was a significant positive effect of reading competence on intrinsic reading motivation, the reverse effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence was not observed. This result implies that intrinsic reading motivation may be a result of reading competence for immigrant students regardless of school tracks. However, our findings based on the mediation model suggest that when immigrant

students attend academic track schools, higher levels of intrinsic reading motivation lead to an increased reading amount, and the reading amount positively contributes to reading

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 191

achievement. In contrast, when immigrant students attend nonacademic track schools, intrinsically motivated readers tend to read more frequently, but the frequency of reading seems to be unassociated with reading competence. The present findings are partly in line with Schaffner et al. (2014) who found that the

effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence was significant only for academic track students and not for nonacademic track students. Carver and Leibert (1995) suggest that the amount of reading tends to promote reading competence only when students read challenging materials. Schaffner et al. (2014) assumed that in comparison to nonacademic track students, academic track students may be provided with more challenging reading materials; thus, they should have a stronger effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence. In addition to the types of school track, the language use for reading may also be relevant

for influencing the effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence for immigrant students. In our supplementary analyses of the language use for reading, we found that when immigrant students read only or mostly in non-German languages, intrinsic reading motivation as well as reading amount were found to be unrelated to German reading competence. Thus, it may be important for immigrant students, especially those who attend nonacademic track schools, to have sufficient reading opportunities in German at home in order to benefit more from the effect of intrinsic reading motivation for the development of reading competence.

Limitations and future directions of the present study

The present study did not take into account the quality of reading materials that contributed to the amount of reading. Previous research has shown that intrinsic reading motivation tends to be strongly related to fiction and factual book reading while it seems to be unrelated to other forms of reading (e.g., school books, magazines, and online-texts) (McGeown, Osborne, Warhurst, Norgate, & Duncan, 2016). In addition, reading frequencies of certain types of texts (e.g., novels, stories, and tales) tend to be more strongly associated with reading competence than other types of texts (e.g., magazines, newspapers, nonfiction books, or emails, Pfost, Dörfler, & Artelt, 2013). Thus, a further look inside this processes may be obtained by using more extensive measures of reading amount such as time spent reading different types of texts (e.g., reading fiction books, comics, newspapers, etc...) when investigating relations among intrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and reading competence. Moreover, the present study considered the amount of reading as the only mediator of the

relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence. However, in addition to the amount of reading, the use of reading strategies (e.g., self-questioning, integrating, clarifying, or summarising texts) seems to be also important for explaining the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence (Schiefele et al., 2012). For instance, previous research has shown that higher levels of reading motivation go along with more extensive use of reading strategies (Cox & Guthrie, 2001), and the effective use of reading strategies is found to be a significant predictor of reading comprehension (Andreassen & Bråten, 2010). However, empirical evidence on the indirect effect of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence through reading strategies is scarce. Hence, future studies should also consider the use of reading strategies as another potential mediator of the relation between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence.

192 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

Finally, the stabilities of reading competence in the present study seem to be lower than the stabilities of comprehension measures observed in previous studies (Schaffner & Schiefele, 2016; Schiefele et al., 2016). This may be due to the longer duration of the present study (2 years) compared to other previous studies (1 year or shorter). Low stabilities of reading competence could facilitate the effects of intrinsic reading motivation on reading competence. Future studies with the availability of multiple comprehension measures could specify reading competence as a latent variable in a model which may contribute to the higher stabilities of the construct. In conclusion, our findings imply that promoting enjoyment and interest in reading

may improve reading achievement of native students, but it may be less relevant for developing reading competence of immigrant students. Especially with regard to immigrant students, parents and educators should emphasise the importance of having adequate reading opportunities outside the classroom (e.g., teachers may accompany students to the library and make suggestions for interesting books). In addition, it may be important for immigrant students to use the language of instruction for reading at home in order to take advantage of such reading opportunities for strengthening their reading competence.

Note

1. This paper uses data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS): Starting Cohort Grade 5, https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC3:3.1.0. From 2008 to 2013, NEPS data were collected as part of the Framework Program for the Promotion of Empirical Educational Research funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). As of 2014, NEPS is carried out by the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories (LIfBi) at the University of Bamberg in cooperation with a nationwide network.

References

Andreassen, R. & Bråten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 263–283 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9817.2009.01413.x.

Artelt, C., Schiefele, U. & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 363–383 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173188.

Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2010). Bildung in Deutschland 2010: Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Perspektiven des Bildungswesens im demografischen Wandel. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.

Becker, M., McElvany, N. & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 773–785 https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0020084.

Blossfeld, H.-P., Roßbach, H.-G. & von Maurice, J. (2011). Education as a lifelong process: The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) [special issue]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Calsyn, R.J. & Kenny, D.A. (1977). Self-concept of ability and perceived evaluation of others: Cause or effect of academic achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 136–145 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.69.2.136.

Carver, R.P. & Leibert, R.E. (1995). The effect of reading library books at different levels of difficulty upon gain in reading ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 26–48 https://doi.org/10.2307/747743.

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 193

https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC3:3.1.0

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01413.x

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173188

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020084

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.2.136

https://doi.org/10.2307/747743

Cox, K.E. & Guthrie, J.T. (2001). Motivational and cognitive contributions to students’ amount of reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 116–131 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1044.

De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M. & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self- determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1006–1021 https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0027800.

Fischer, L., Rohm, T., Gnambs, T. & Carstensen, C. H. (2016). Linking the data of the competence tests (NEPS Survey Paper No. 1). Bamberg: Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, National Education Panel Study.

Gehrer, K., Zimmermann, S., Artelt, C. & Weinert, S. (2012). The assessment of reading competence (including sample items for grade 5 and 9). Scientific use file 2012, version 1.0.0. Bamberg: University of Bamberg, National Educational Panel Study.

Gehrer, K., Zimmermann, S., Artelt, C. & Weinert, S. (2013). NEPS framework for assessing reading competence and results from an adult pilot study. Journal for Educational Research Online, 5, 50–79.

Guay, F., Marsh, H.W. & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 124–136 https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-0663.95.1.124.

Guthrie, J.T., Hoa, A.L.W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S.M., Humenick, N.M. & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–313 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004.

Guthrie, J.T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol III, (pp. 403–424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J.L. & Cox, K.E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256 https://doi.org/10.1207/ s1532799xssr0303_3.

Kao, G. & Tienda, M. (1995). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76, 1–19.

Kigel, R.M., McElvany, N. & Becker, M. (2015). Effects of immigrant background on text comprehension, vocabulary, and reading motivation: A longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 35, 73–84 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.001.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Marx, A.E. & Stanat, P. (2012). Reading comprehension of immigrant students in Germany: Research evidence on

determinants and target points for intervention. Reading and Writing, 25, 1929–1945 https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11145-011-9307-x.

McElvany, N., Becker, M. & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Die Bedeutung familiärer Merkmale für Lesekompetenz, Wortschatz, Lesemotivation und Leseverhalten. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 41, 121–131 https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637.41.3.121.

McElvany, N., Kortenbruck, M. & Becker, M. (2008). Lesekompetenz und Lesemotivation: Entwicklung und Mediation des Zusammenhangs durch Leseverhalten. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 22, 207–219 https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.22.34.207.

McGeown, S.P., Osborne, C., Warhurst, A., Norgate, R. & Duncan, L.G. (2016). Understanding children’s reading activities: Reading motivation, skill and child characteristics as predictors. Journal of Research in Reading, 39, 109–125 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12060.

Milfont, T.L. & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111–121 https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857.

Möller, J. & Bonerad, E.M. (2007). Fragebogen zur habituellen Lesemotivation [Habitual Reading Motivation Questionnaire]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54, 259–267.

Morgan, P.L. & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional Children, 73, 165–183 https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300203.

OECD (2002). Sample tasks from the PISA 2000 assessment: Reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264194274-en.

OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background – Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (volume II). Paris: PISA: OECD Publishing https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091504-en.

Pfost, M., Dörfler, T. & Artelt, C. (2010). Der Zusammenhang zwischen außerschulischem Lesen und Lesekompetenz: Ergebnisse einer Längsschnittstudie am Übergang von der Grund- in die weiterführende Schule (the relation between extra-curricular reading behavior and reading competence: Results from a longitudinal study at the transition from primary to secondary school). Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie, und Pädagogische Psychologie, 42, 167–176 https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/a000017.

194 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1044

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027800

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.124

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004

https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.001

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9307-x

https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637.41.3.121

https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.22.34.207

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12060

https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857

https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300203

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264194274-en

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091504-en

https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/a000017

Pfost, M., Dörfler, T. & Artelt, C. (2013). Students’ extracurricular reading behavior and the development of vocabulary and reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 89–102 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.008.

Pohl, S., Haberkorn, K., Hardt, K. & Wiegand, E. (2012). NEPS technical report for reading–scaling results of starting cohort 3 in fifth grade (NEPS working paper no.15). Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universität, Nationales Bildungspanel.

Relikowski, I., Yilmaz, E. & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). Wie lassen sich die hohen Bildungsaspirationen von Migranten erklären? Eine Mixed-Methods Studie zur Rolle von strukturellen Aufstiegschancen und individueller Bildungserfahrung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderheft, 52, 111–136 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00120-9_5.

Retelsdorf, J., Köller, O. & Möller, J. (2011). On the effects of motivation on reading performance growth in secondary school. Learning and Instruction, 21, 550–559 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.11.001.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36 https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

Salikutluk, Z. (2016). Why do immigrant students aim high? Explaining the aspiration–achievement paradox of immigrants in Germany. European Sociological Review, 32, 581–592 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcw004.

Schaffner, E., Philipp, M. & Schiefele, U. (2014). Reciprocal effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence? A cross-lagged panel model for academic track and nonacademic track students. Journal of Research in Reading, 39, 19–36 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12027.

Schaffner, E. & Schiefele, U. (2016). The contributions of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation to the development of reading competence over summer vacation. Reading Psychology, 37, 1–25 https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02702711.2015.1133465.

Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U. & Ulferts, H. (2013). Reading amount as a mediator of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 369–385 https:// doi.org/10.1002/rrq.52.

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 https://doi.org/10.1002/ RRQ.030.

Schiefele, U., Stutz, F. & Schaffner, E. (2016). Longitudinal relations between reading motivation and reading comprehension in the early elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 49–58 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.031.

Stanat, P. & Christensen, G. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.

Statistisches Bundesamt (2016). Schulen auf einen Blick, Angabe. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt. Stutz, F., Schaffner, E. & Schiefele, U. (2016). Relations among reading motivation, reading amount, and reading

comprehension in the early elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 101–113 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.022.

Villiger, C., Wandeler, C. & Niggli, A. (2014). Explaining differences in reading motivation between immigrant and native students: The role of parental involvement. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 12–25 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.10.004.

Wang, J.H.-Y. & Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 162–186 https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2.

Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32, 59–68 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3202_1.

Wigfield, A. & Guthrie, J.T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420.

Ai Miyamoto is a doctoral candidate at the Bamberg Graduate School of Social Sciences (BAGSS) at the University of Bamberg, Germany. Her main research interests concern reading motivation, reading comprehension, and the role of students’ migration status on reading development.

Maximilian Pfost is Assistant Professor at the Department of Educational Research at the University of Bamberg, Germany. His main research interests concern emergent literacy skills, individual differences in reading comprehension, and the role of schools and families for literacy development.

READING MOTIVATION AND READING COMPETENCE 195

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.008

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00120-9_5

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.11.001

https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcw004

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12027

https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1133465

https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.52

https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.030

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.031

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.022

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.10.004

https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3202_1

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420

Cordula Artelt is Professor and Chair of the Department of Educational Research at the University of Bamberg, Germany. Her main research interests concern reading and text comprehension, self-regulated learning, and the assessment of competencies.

Received 31 March 2016; revised version received 21 March 2017.

Address for correspondence: Ai Miyamoto, Bamberg Graduate School of Social Sciences (BAGSS), University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]

196 MIYAMOTO, PFOST & ARTELT

Copyright of Journal of Research in Reading is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.