**2. Methodology**

This study draws on the theoretical perspective of multiple goals in motivation [63]. In particular, the research is grounded in the work of Eccles on expectancy–value theory of motivation [64]. Consistent with expectancy–value perspectives, the study focuses on the research of Guthrie, Coddington and Wigfield [65], who sugges<sup>t</sup> *reading orientation* and *perceived reading di*ffi*culty* as fundamental constructs in examining reading motivation and on the work of Wigfield et al. [49], who emphasised the role of *self-e*ffi*cacy* in reading as a critical construct of motivation. Accordingly, these three constructs of motivation (self-efficacy, reading orientation, and perceived reading difficulty) were selected for this study based on their potential for influencing the development of reading skill in the early primary school years. In this study reading orientation relates predominantly to students' interest in reading and their attitude toward reading.

The study was conducted through a pragmatic lens, with research questions framed to shed light on the motivation for reading of students in First Class from disadvantaged backgrounds. A mixed methods concurrent triangulation strategy was adopted to gather data from teachers (both class teachers and learning support teachers), students and their parents. In this triangulation approach both quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently providing cross-validation and an opportunity to determine whether there was convergence, differences or a combination of both in the data. A summary of the data sources including questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with teachers and parents and conversational interviews and surveys with students is presented in Table 1.



#### *2.1. Research Questions*

The research carried out in the course of the intervention examined the effects of fluency oriented reading instruction (FORI) on three reading motivation constructs: reading self-efficacy, reading orientation, and perceived difficulty with reading. In particular, the study sought to investigate the following research questions:


#### *2.2. The Research Subjects and Participants*

The research subjects for the intervention were fifteen students in First Class who were struggling readers and were identified as being poorly motivated for reading. All students (eight boys and seven girls) were between the ages of six years one month and seven years two months at the beginning of the study with a mean age of six years, ten months. The student cohort, located across three research sites, represented seven different nationalities and included one child from the travelling community. (The Travelling community is an Irish ethnic minority group whose members maintain a set of traditions language, culture and customs. The distinctive Traveller identity and culture, based on a nomadic tradition, sets Travellers apart from the sedentary population or 'settled people' of Ireland.) The other research participants for the intervention were three learning support teachers, five grade teachers (First Class) and the parents of the participating students.

#### *2.3. Data Collection*

The motivation for reading of struggling readers was assessed before and after the reading intervention using the Young Reader Motivation Questionnaire—Student Form (S—YRMQ). The items on this questionnaire were derived from two standard questionnaires—the *Young* Reader Motivation Questionnaire [43] and the *Me and My Reading Survey* [66]—and were adapted to the aims of the study. This survey was chosen over more commonly used instruments such as Wigfield, Guthrie, and McGough's [67] Motivation for Reading Questionnaire because it was designed to be used with younger children. The S—YRMQ was composed of three subscales to represent the three motivational constructs to be assessed. The *<sup>E</sup>*ffi*cacy for Reading* subscale of the S—YRMQ included six items, e.g., "Do you think you read well?" and "Are you good at remembering words you have seen before?" The *Reading Orientation* subscale of the S—YRMQ included ten items, e.g., "Is it fun for you when you read books?" and "Do you like to read during your free time or do something else?" while the *Perceptions of Di*ffi*culty* subscale of the S—YRMQ included six items, e.g., "Are the books you read in class too hard?" and "Do you need to ge<sup>t</sup> some extra help in reading?" The S—YRMQ was administered to each child individually at the beginning of the intervention and again at the completion of their series of lessons.

Student's motivation for reading was also assessed using the teacher form of the Young Reader Motivation to Read—Teacher Rating (T-YRMR). This form was designed to parallel the student rating form with questions worded to reflect teachers' perceptions of their students' motivation for reading. Class teachers and learning support teachers completed this questionnaire. The T-YRMR featured 20 items spread across three subscales: *Perceptions of Student Self-E*ffi*cacy for Reading*, *Perceptions of Student Reading Orientation*, and *Perceptions of Student Di*ffi*culty in Reading*. All items were worded in declarative format, e.g., "This student thinks he/she is good at remembering words"; "This student thinks it is fun to read books". Teachers responded to each item on a 4-point scale (1 = *No, Never*; 2 = *No, Not Usually*; 3 = *Yes, Sometimes*; 4 = *Yes, Always*). Two additional Likert-style questions were included in the questionnaire to gauge teachers' overall view of each child's achievement level in reading for their age and their overall level of motivation for reading.

Qualitative measures were used to triangulate the evidence from these survey instruments by conducting semi-structured interviews with the teachers and conversational interviews with the students. These conversational interviews were also conducted with the students six months after the intervention to explore enduring effects of the intervention. Individual semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews were also held with parents to triangulate data on student's motivation for reading. These interviews took place before and after the intervention and again six months later.

The concurrent gathering of information throughout this phase provided cross-validation and multiple opportunities to determine whether there was convergence in the data. An elucidation of the triangulation of data to ascertain motivation for reading is presented in Figure 1 where details of the research carried out is illustrated. Bi-directional dotted arrows indicate where comparison of data was used between students and parents and between classroom teachers and learning support teachers to triangulate assessment of student's motivation for reading both pre and post intervention.

**Figure 1.** Assessment of motivation for reading (concurrent triangulation design).

#### Teacher Questionnaire Validity

As the same questionnaire was completed independently for each student by learning support teachers and class teachers, a valuable validity check on the instrument was possible. Initial inspection of the scores reveals that learning support teachers and class teachers reported very similar ratings for individual students on the reading efficacy and reading orientation subscales. Closer statistical analysis carried out on the ratings reveal a close clustering of scores along the linear trendline, indicating positive correlation coefficients (*r* = 0.79; *r* = 0.85) between responses (see Figures 2 and 3).

**Figure 2.** Correlation between teacher ratings of student reading self-efficacy.

**Figure 3.** Correlation between teacher ratings of student reading orientation.

#### *2.4. The Reading Intervention*

The intervention, based on fluency oriented reading instruction (FORI), took place over an eight-week period in three schools. Each day, learning support teachers in these schools instructed struggling readers who were withdrawn from their base class and were taught in groups of five in a learning support room. The fluency oriented reading instruction used in the study was an adaptation of an approach to reading instruction developed by Stahl and Huebach [68]. It was designed to increase the oral reading fluency of the students over the course of the intervention with the hypothesis that this type of instruction would also have a positive influence on their motivation for reading. The intervention featured the gradual release of support from a more knowledgeable reader (in this case the learning support teacher) towards independent reading by the students over the course of a unit of instruction (see Figure 4).

**Figure 4.** Gradual release of responsibility: from modelling to independent reading.

At the beginning of each unit, the learning support teacher carried out full responsibility for modelling a fluent rendering of the text, with a view that the students would be able to read the same

text independently by the end of the unit. The programme was agreed by the participating teachers and featured consistent elements such as modelling fluent reading, assisted guided oral reading instruction (e.g., echo reading, choral reading, antiphonal reading, and paired reading), partner reading and home reading. Word study and syntax activities were also integral elements of the intervention to ensure students had opportunities to build up their sight word knowledge in order to recognise words quickly.

Research on reading instruction indicates that students need plenty of opportunities to read significant amounts of connected text to learn to read fluently [68–70]. Hence, a feature of the intervention was the repeated reading and timed repeated reading of the same text to improve students' automatic word recognition along with their use of appropriate expression. To ensure that students were not bored or fatigued by using the same text, a wide variety of fluency related activities were designed based on all texts. At the beginning of each unit the learning support teachers were furnished with multiple copies of the selected core text and a set of resources for each planned activity in the unit.

The intervention was divided into four units of instruction, with each one focused on fluency-related activities built around a single text. Each unit was taught over two consecutive weeks using a pre-determined fluency oriented reading instruction programme for each week (see Table 2). The first lesson of each unit commenced with the teachers presenting the text with a variety of pre-reading activities that introduced the characters and the seminal vocabulary of the narrative. The teachers read aloud from the appropriate text while the students followed along using their text. On the second day of the unit of instruction, the teachers asked the students to echo read the text.

On the third day of the unit, teachers asked their students to perform a choral reading of the passage. The students were engaged in partner reading of the text on day four of the unit. The fifth day of instruction each week involved performance-related activities designed to motivate pupils to continue to participate in the intervention and to engage students in activities such as timed repeated reading and cumulative choral reading.

A constant feature of the intervention was the requirement that students read passages from the core text at home each day and have a parent or guardian sign a home reading log. This was an important element of the intervention as it ensured that parents were kept informed of progress and remained involved in the process. In the second week of the instructional unit, the emphasis was on increasing students' motivation to read by engaging in a variety of reading activities that encouraged the students to read with increased decoding speed and accuracy. Teachers recorded the use of these core fluency oriented activities (e.g., word dash, timed repeated reading, phrase reading) in an instructional log. The motivational aspect of the intervention was increased by the students recording their progress in these reading activities over the week in their FORI journals. Prosodic elements of fluent reading were also addressed in the second week of each unit when students were introduced to play scripts incorporating vocabulary from the core narratives. Students re-read these scripts in order to prepare for a Readers Theatre performance on the final day of each unit. This strategy, which combined reading practice and performing, enhanced students' reading skills and confidence by having them practice reading with a purpose.


number of pages recorded

number of pages recorded

number of pages recorded

of pages recorded

**Table 2.** Sample weekly plan for fluency oriented reading instruction (week one of a single unit).
