The Missouri Reader Vol. 36, Issue 1 | Page 23

According to Pressley (2002), students in
noncompetitive, or task-oriented, classrooms are
rewarded not for doing better than another
student, but for doing better than they had
previously. When students feel a sense of
belonging, feel competent, feel respected, and
feel trusted, it has a significant positive impact on
their motivation for learning (McCombs &
Barton, 2001). Further, students in these
classrooms believe that success in school depends
on interest, effort, and attempting to learn
whereas students in competitive, or egooriented, classrooms believe that success depends
on being smarter than their peers. These taskoriented classrooms are more likely to keep
students interested in and committed to school.
However, Pressley (2002) noted that most
classrooms are ego-oriented rather than taskoriented.
Pressley (2002) stated that teachers who
motivate their students to read have excellent
communication with their students, encourage
the development of students‘ self-concept (for
example, encouraging their students to attribute
success to hard work and to interpret failure as a
sign to work harder), and have exceptional
classroom management skills. In particular, these
teachers possess the ability to monitor the
activities and needs of the classroom as a whole as
well as individual students. Additionally, Pressley
(2002) noted the characteristics of teachers
whose behaviors discourage motivation. These
teachers encourage competition among their
students (for example, by publicly providing
grades). These teachers also provide their
students with content that is uninteresting to the
students or so easy for the students that they are
able to comple te assignments without being
engaged in the activity. These teachers also have
poor communication with their students,
frequently offering negative feedback. Further,
these teachers often discourage the development
of students‘ self-concept by encouraging students
to believe that their success is a result of high
ability and their failure is a result of low ability.
Finally, teachers who discourage motivating

behaviors often have ineffective classroom
management skills, controlling the class with
threats or punishments.

The Role of Instruction
The instructional practices of the classroom
can have an impact on students‘ motivation to
read. According to the Adolescent Literacy
Commission of the International Reading
Association, students need teachers who are
address motivational needs through meaningful
projects designed around students‘ interests
(Moore et al., 1999). Marzano (1992) noted that
teachers must explicitly address student
motivation in their classroom instruction.
Gentile and McMillan (1987) found that the
instructional procedures that cause the most
anxiety and stress among poor readers are
reading aloud and reading material that is too
difficult. This, naturally, leads to a decrease in
reading motivation. Therefore, the practice of
―round-robin‖ reading, where students are asked
to read aloud material that they may have had no
previous exposure to, is an instructional practice
that creates a non-motivating environment.
Further, Gentile and McMillan (1987) found that
giving students monotonous assignments such as
worksheets, decreases the motivation to read.
They also found that focusing on a student‘s
reading weaknesses – rather than providing
positive reinforcement – also leads to a decrease
in reading motivation.
While there are many ways to decrease
motivation, there are instructional procedures
that can increase reading motivation. Research on
reading aloud to students has shown that it is a
powerful motivational tool for students of all
ages. In Becoming a Nation of Readers (Anderson, et
al., 1985), reading aloud was named the single
most effective activity for future success in
reading. Numerous research has indicated a
relationship between teachers reading aloud and a
positive impact on student reading motivation
(Beckman, 1986; Erickson, 1996; Greaney &
Hegarty, 1987; Herrold, Stanchfield, & Serabian,
©The Missouri Reader, 36 (1) p. 23