Abstract

Three methodological approaches were applied to understand the role of interest and self-efficacy in reading and/or writing in students without and with persisting specific learning disabilities (SLDs] in literacy. For each approach students in grades 4 to 9 completed a survey in which they rated 10 reading items and 10 writing items on a Scale 1 to 5; all items were the same but domain varied. The first approach applied Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation to a sample that varied in specific kinds of literacy achievement. The second approach applied bidirectional multiple regressions in a sample of students with diagnosed SLDs-WL to (a) predict literacy achievement from ratings on interest and self-efficacy survey items; and (b) predict ratings on interest and self-efficacy survey items from literacy achievement. The third approach correlated ratings on the surveys with BOLD activation on an fMRI word reading/spelling task in a brain region associated with approach/avoidance and affect in a sample with diagnosed SLDs-WL. The first approach identified two components for the reading items (each correlated differently with reading skills) and two components for the writing items (each correlated differently with writing skills), but the components were not the same for both domains. Multiple regressions supported predicting interest and self-efficacy ratings from current reading achievement, rather than predicting reading achievement from interest and self-efficacy ratings, but also bidirectional relationships between interest or self-efficacy in writing and writing achievement. The third approach found negative correlations with amygdala connectivity for 2 reading items, but 5 positive and 2 negative correlations with amygdala connectivity for writing items; negative correlations may reflect avoidance and positive correlations approach. Collectively results show the relevance and domain-specificity of interest and self-efficacy in reading and writing for students with persisting SLDs in literacy.

Highlights

  • Interest and self-efficacy were investigated for two reasons in students during middle childhood and early adolescence

  • Research on specific learning disabilities (SLDs)-WL has focused mainly on the language skills and related processes involved in reading and writing, with relatively little focus on how interest and self-efficacy may play an important role in paying attention to instruction and engaging in learning activities to sustain efforts when faced with learning that is difficult and may lower the self-efficacy of the learner

  • A third research aim was to investigate whether the behavioral ratings for the interest and self-efficacy items on the reading and writing surveys were correlated with brain imaging results to assess the behavioral-biological associations underlying the approach-avoidance gradient in interest relevant to motivation for learning (Elliott & Covington, 2001) and affective responses related to self-efficacy; both may be related to attention, engagement, and motivation for language learning

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Interest and self-efficacy were investigated for two reasons in students during middle childhood and early adolescence (corresponding to upper elementary school and middle school in the country where the research was conducted). A recent review of the growing body of research on interest provided evidence for the beneficial impact of interest in focusing learners’ attention and providing learners with a basis for meaningful engagement in learning and motivation to succeed (Renninger & Hidi, 2016). As Renninger and Hidi explained, as interest develops, it is increasingly coordinated with feelings of self-efficacy, the belief that one can succeed (e.g., see Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993), especially if the student is succeeding based on valid assessment measures and that success is effectively communicated with the student. The current study of interest and self-efficacy draws on the Four-Phase Model of Development of Interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Renninger & Hidi, 2011, 2016).

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call