Book Reading 1

IATROGENIC EFFECTS OF A BOOK READING PROGRAM

IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

M Cecil Smith

Department of Educational Psychology,

Counseling, and Special Education

Northern Illinois University

DeKalb, IL 60115-2854
815/753-8448
fax 815/753-2100

David Abhalter

Forest Hills Elementary School

5020 Central
Western Hills, IL 60558
708/246-7678

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College Reading Association, Arlington, VA,
October 31-November 3, 1991.
 Book Reading 2

Abstract

This study is a field-based investigation of children’s book-reading activities based

on a curricular intervention in an elementary school. In the first year of the study, children
were provided with rewards, such as pins and certificates, for reading books. The school-
wide goal was for each child to read 30 books during the school year. Concerns about
adverse effects of providing extrinsic rewards for book reading led to removal of the
curriculum the following year. Instead, students were asked to keep reading logs which
focused on the volume of reading completed as well as the children’s reasons for selecting
the books they choose. Further, children’s motivational orientations were examined. The
reward-based program appeared to have a debilitating effect on students’participation in a
community library summer reading program, as 10% fewer students from the school
participated as compared to the previous summer. Because students read, on average, 73
books each during the course of the extrinsic rewards curriculum, they were likely
suffering from an overexposure to reading that may have long-lasting effects.
 Book Reading 3

IATROGENIC EFFECTS OF A BOOK READING PROGRAM

IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

There are a number of studies in the literature which have attempted to increase
elementary school children’s motivation for reading literature (Greaney & Clarke, 1975;
Morrow & Weinstein, 1986), attitude toward reading (Dwyer & Reed, 1989; Healy,
1965), and subsequently, to increase their reading activities in terms of numbers of books
read. Other research has examined the relationship of children’s reading activities both
outside of and within school to reading achievement (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1989;
Taylor, Frye, & Maruyama, 1990). The field study reported here is an extension of these
previous investigations, and is part of a long-term project to determine the most effective
curricular intervention for promoting literacy in young children.
The study began as a curricular intervention by the second author (DA), a principal
at the school in which the study is currently being conducted. Following the initial
intervention, the first author (MCS) assisted in the development of a program to shift the
focus of students’reading behaviors from the receipt of external rewards to intrinsic
motivational factors. The purpose for changing the nature of the curricular intervention
was because of the principal’s concerns about the long-term effects of providing children
with “rewards” for reading. Also, the children were found to have engaged in an
extraordinary amount of reading over the school year.
Further inquiry led to the discovery that the children in the school appeared to
have suffered some “ill effects” from reading. Many of the students in the school also
participated in a summer reading program conducted at the local community library.
Participation among students in the target school decreased dramatically following the
reward-based intervention as compared to the previous year. This discovery suggests that
the school reading program had an iatrogenic effect. That is, the intent of the school
reading program was to promote reading activity--which was accomplished in the short
term, but the end result may be that students actually do less reading over the long term.

Method

The investigation has been conducted over the course of two full school years and is
currently in its third year. The curriculum has varied each of the three years.
Sample
 Book Reading 4

Forest Hills Elementary School (FHES), K-5 elementary school serving a

population of 208 students, served as the site for this field study. The children range in
age from 6 to 11 years of age, are high ability, high functioning students from upper-
middle class homes in a well-to-do western suburb in the greater Chicago area. Generally,
the students’parents are well-educated professionals who are highly involved with the
school. The racial composition of the school district population is 98% white.
Procedures
Year one (1989-90) curriculum. Prior to the implementation of the reward-based
intervention in year one of the study, the local school district adopted a whole-language
curriculum. The administration and staff at FHES then planned a program to encourage
students to read more extensively. The goal was to motivate students to engage in
personal reading so that they would be exposed to as much literature as possible. A
program based on a special theme, “Shoot for the Stars” was created for this purpose.
Each student in the school was asked to sign a contract stating that they would
read at least 30 books during the school year. Once a student accomplished this goal, the
student was awarded a special pin and award certificate that were based on the program’s
space adventure theme. In addition, students would receive awards for reading books
beyond the number specified in their contracts. The award structure was as follows:
30 books = “Rocket Pilot” award
45 books = “Planet Crusader” award
60 books = “Galactic Explorer” award
75 books = “Space Master” award
90 books = “Universe Grand Master” award
+90 books = “Universe Grand Master Personal Challenge” award.
All students were provided with tally sheets to help them keep a record of their
book reading. Following reading, students were required to give an oral summary of the
book to their parents who signed the tally sheet. Students were also asked to record the
book title and author, and number of pages read. A further condition was that the books
must be age and grade appropriate for the student. Non-readers (e.g., kindergarteners)
were allowed to count the books that their parents read aloud to them. Tally sheets were
collected every two weeks by the classroom teachers. Monthly school-wide award
assemblies were held in which individual students were recognized for their reading
achievements through presentations of the various awards.
Finally, parental and community involvement in the program was bolstered by
having a large, professionally-painted billboard, in the form of a rocket ship, placed in
front of the school. Each month the rocket ship was elevated toward the “stars” (i.e., the
 Book Reading 5

school-wide goal of 6,060 books) to reflect the total number of books read by the school’s
students.
The results of this curricular intervention were dramatic as students exceeded the
goals by nearly two and one-half times. Following the discovery that the summer reading
program appeared to be adversely affected by the reading curriculum, and concerns that
students were reading simply to collect somewhat meaningless prizes, a new curricular
intervention was planned for the second academic year.
Year two (1990-91) curriculum. The first author was asked to assist in the
development of a revised curricular intervention for the reading program. Because of our
concerns about how students’attitudes were likely to have been affected by the provision
of external rewards, the “Shoot for the Stars” program was dropped prior to the beginning
of the next school year. Students were, instead, asked to keep a log of their reading
activity. Students were instructed to record, after reading a book, the title and author of
the book, and the number of pages read, as in year one. They were also asked to respond
in writing to the statement, “I read this book because...” Students were strongly
encouraged to respond to this statement in any way that they pleased, and that their
responses to this item would not be evaluated. Finally, students were asked to attempt to
record the number of minutes that they spent in reading each book at home and at school.
Reading logs were brought to school every two weeks for teacher inspection. Teachers
and parents were instructed to not provide explicit praise of students for their reading
activity.
There were three interrelated purposes for this very simple intervention. First, we
wanted to examine the effects of removing the reward system on students’reading
behavior, while still maintaining students’attention to their reading activities. Second, we
wanted to get students to thinking about why they selected different kinds of books to
read. Finally, we were interested in determining the extent to which students’reading
behavior outside of school is related to their performance on standardized reading
achievement tests. This last purpose is based on the previous work in this area by
Anderson et al. (1989) and Taylor et al. (1990).
We were also concerned with determining students’motivational orientations
(e.g., toward intrinsic or extrinsic factors). We were concerned that the extrinsic rewards
curricula might have an impact on students’motivations for reading. We also wondered
how students’motivational orientation interacts with their reading behaviors. Do those
students who work for extrinsic rewards benefit from curricula such as “Shoot for the
Stars”? Do such curricula adversely impact those students with intrinsic motivational
orientations for reading? Several measures of motivation were obtained on the students in
 Book Reading 6

the school. Parent volunteers were trained to administer these measures to small groups
of students. The parent training was conducted by a colleague.
Instruments
Intelligence and achievement test scores are obtained for all students in the school
as a matter of record in grades two and four. These data were used as correlates of
reading activity. The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT; Otis & Lennon, 1979)
was the IQ measure and the achievement measure was the Stanford Achievement Test
(Madsen et al., 1973).
The motivation measures included the following:
Picture-Choice Motivation Scale (Kunca & Haywood, 1967). This is a 20-item
pictorial inventory. Each item presents a picture of an intrinsically motivating (IM)
activity and an extrinsically motivating (EM) activity. For example, one item depicts an
astronaut going to the moon (i.e., choosing to do something exciting) contrasted with a
person watching an astronaut going to moon (i.e., it’s safer to stay on the earth).
Respondents indicate their preference for one of the two activities. IM items assess one’s
motivation for challenge, mastery of the environment, responsibility, achievement, and
aesthetic values. EM items, on the other hand, assess one’s motivation for safety,
security, and external reinforcing activities.
Harter Scales of Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation (Harter, 1981). This measure
consists of 30 items which tap into children’s intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation toward
learning and mastery in the classroom. There are two subscales: motivation, which
measures the dimensions of preference for challenge versus preference for easy work,
curiosity/interest versus teacher approval, and independent mastery attempts versus
dependence on teacher; and cognitive-informational, which measures the dimensions of
independent judgment versus reliance on teacher judgment, and internal versus external
criteria for success/failure. An example item reads “Some kids know when they’ve made
mistakes without checking with the teacher [intrinsic response] BUT other kids need to
check with the teacher to know if they’ve made a mistake” [extrinsic response]. Children
respond on a modified true-false scale either “really true for me” or “sort of true for me”
on the intrinsic side of the item, or “sort of true for me” or “really true for me” on the
extrinsic side of the scale. Harter (1981) found that the instrument “is a reliable and valid
measure sensitive to individual differences in both intrinsic and extrinsic orientation” (p.
308).
Young Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Y-CAIMI; Gottfried,
1990). This is a 39-item item measure of young children’s academic intrinsic motivation
for reading, math, and school in general. Previous research by Gottfried (1985) has shown
 Book Reading 7

the Y-CAIMI to be a valid and reliable measure. An example item reads, “I like learning
new things in reading”. Students respond on a five-point Likert scale from “strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree”. Academic intrinsic motivation involves enjoyment of
learning which is characterized by a mastery orientation, curiosity, persistence, task-
endogeny, and the learning of challenging, difficult, and novel tasks (Gottfried, 1990).
Finally, data were obtained from students’reading logs. Theses data included
amount of books read, volume of reading (e.g., number of pages), and qualitative data
concerning the types of literature students were reading.

RESULTS

The results of the year one curricular intervention (i.e., “Shoot for the Stars”) were
dramatic. Although the school-wide goal was 6,060 books, students were found to have
read 15,239 books over the course of the school year! In other words, students were
reading, on average, one book every two and one-half days, or an average of 73.3 books
per student over the school year. Descriptive data on book reading by grade are displayed
in Table 1. Grade one students read significantly more books than did the other grades
(kindergarten and fifth grade are not reported because kindergarteners were not reading
on their own and fifth graders were not followed in the second year of the study). The
greater number of books read by first graders is likely due to their reading books which
are brief and contain more pictures than text.
Correlations were computed to determine the relationships among IQ, reading
achievement, total achievement test score, and total number of books read by students for
grades two, three, and four. These data are shown in Table 2. IQ was significantly
correlated with number of books read for grades two and four, but not grade three.
Reading achievement was significantly correlated with number of books read for grades
two and four, but again, not grade three. Finally, total achievement was significantly
correlated with number of books read for grades two and four, but not grade three. The
lack of significance among correlations at grade three is likely due to the small number of
students in grade three (n = 18).
Year two curriculum (i.e., reading logs) data are currently being analyzed, so no
results can yet be reported. However, as one indication of the possible effects of the
revised reading curriculum, students’book reading activity dropped precipitously from
year one to year two. Students read 15,239 books during year one (73.3 books per
student). Students read only 3,872 books, however, during year two (34.9 books per
student). Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine if this effect is due to the withdrawal
 Book Reading 8

of rewards or due to the students simply being burned out and turned off to reading as a
result of the reward-based curriculum the previous school year. Also note that students in
year two read only a little more than half the number of books required to attain the year
one school-wide reading goal (i.e., 6,060 books).
Although data from students’year two reading logs have yet to be fully analyzed,
students’responses to the item “I read this book because” demonstrate that students in
year two were reading for both intrinsic (e.g., “I read this book because I wanted to learn
more about the planet”) and extrinsic (e.g., “I read this book because my mother made
me”) reasons. These data are currently being examined to determine if students’
responses are commensurate with their scores on the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation
measures. Also, we have not yet analyzed students’responses on the motivational
measures. We expect that a careful examination of these measures will lead to several
important hypotheses about the impact of extrinsic rewards curricula on students’
motivational orientations.
What impact did the school’s extrinsic reward curriculum in year one have on
students’participation in the community library’s summer reading program? Although the
explicit goal of the curriculum was to promote enjoyment of reading, it is possible that the
extent of reading performed by the children lead them to view book reading as a “chore”
at best, or as something to be avoided at worst. We examined the extent of participation
in the summer reading program before and after the implementation of the extrinsic
reward curriculum. We also compared these participation rates with the rate of
participation for the summer reading program following the year 2 curriculum
intervention.
The community library’s summer reading program is also based on the provision of
extrinsic rewards. Typically, a metaphorical theme is employed to get children to think
about reading, such as “The Great Book Hunt”, “Journey into Reading”, or “Go for the
Gold” with appropriate props and rewards provided which match the theme of the
program. Children are recognized for their reading by being presented with certificates of
achievement and having their name placed on a bulletin board in a prominent location in
the library.
Eighty-five of the 208 students at FHES (42%) participated in the library summer
reading program during the summer preceding the implementation of the “Shoot for the
Stars” curriculum in year one. Sixty-one of these students (72%) completed the summer
reading program. During the summer following the “Shoot for the Stars” curriculum, only
64 FHES students participated in the library reading program (31%). Forty of these
students completed the summer program (62%). In other words, about 10% of the FHES
 Book Reading 9

students did not participate in the summer reading program following the “Shoot for the
Stars” curriculum.
During the summer following the reading logs curriculum intervention (year two),
80 FHES students began the library reading program (38%). Fifty of these students
completed the program (63%). Although these data have not been statistically tested for
significant effects, it appears that the removal of the extrinsic-reward curricula, paired with
the implementation of the reading logs curriculum, may have had a modest effect on
participation in the summer reading program. Rate of participation in the summer reading
program improved to the pre-extrinsic-reward curriculum level (42% pre, 38% post).
Unfortunately, individual data on students’summer reading activities was not collected by
the library staff, so we are unable to report little more than this broadly descriptive data.

Conclusions

Given that we have not yet completely analyzed the volumes of data collected over
the past two school years, and that we are continuing to collect reading log data from
students in year three of the study, we are unable to draw any significant conclusions
about the effects of intrinsic versus extrinsic reward-based reading programs. Our initial
data analyses indicate that the more able students in the school read more books--a finding
which is neither novel or surprising. We plan to examine more closely the reading
activities of the less able students and experiment with interventions that might promote
increased reading activities among these students.
We are currently considering a variety of curricular interventions that we think
might have an impact on children’s intrinsic motivation for reading. One such approach is
based on findings from the reader response literature (Cullinan, Harwood, & Galda,
1983). Reader response theory views reading as a complex transaction among factors
related to the reader, the text, and the reading situation (Cooper, 1985). Responding to
reading assists children in their comprehension of literature, allows them to “sort out” their
thinking, and to obtain deeper insights. Activities such as recreating stories allow children
to interpret and evaluate literature on their own terms. The specific approach that we are
considering is to ask students to write letters to characters portrayed in the stories that
they read. These personal communications help students to think about characters’
motivations for their actions, and assist in developing students’imaginative abilities.
Further, this intervention has the effect of linking writing with literature. These activities
may serve to personalize reading activities for students and makes reading more
interesting and enjoyable.
 Book Reading 10

We believe that literacy education curricula should have as a goal to develop

intrinsic motivation for reading in students. External rewards or extrinsic motivational
reinforcements should be minimized, if not completely eliminated in such curricula,
although they may have a role in prompting students to read initially. Once students begin
reading “on their own,” we believe that such rewards should be withdrawn. Our goal is to
eventually establish a district wide curriculum that emphasizes the development of intrinsic
motivation for reading among students.
We are now collecting data on a second school in the same district that has an
external-rewards curriculum much like the “Shoot for the Stars” program. In addition,
this school also has students complete reading logs. Reading activity and reading
achievement data from this school will be compared with the data from FHES to
determine the relative advantages of the extrinsic and intrinsic motivational curricula.
 Book Reading 11

References

Anderson, R.C., Wilson, P.T, & Fielding, L.G. (1988). Growth in reading and
how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly,
23, 285-303.

Cooper, C.R. (1985). Introduction. In C.R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching response

to literature and the teaching of literature: Points of departure. Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex.

Cullinan, B.E., Harwood, K.T., & Galda, L. (1983). The reader and the story:
Comprehension and response. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 16(3), 29-38.

Dwyer, E.J., & Reed, V. (1989). Effects of sustained silent reading on attitudes
toward reading. Reading Horizons, 29, 283-293.

Gottfried, A.E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior

high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631-645.

Gottfried, A.E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school

children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525-538.

Greaney, V., & Clarke, M. (1975). A longitudinal study of the effects of two
reading methods on leisure-time reading habits. In D. Moyle (Ed.), Reading:
What of the future? (pp. 107-114). London: Ward Lock.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation

in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental
Psychology, 17, 300-312.

Healy, A.K. (1965). Effects of changing children’s attitudes toward reading.

Elementary English, 42, 269-272.

Kunca, & Haywood, C. (1967). Picture-choice motivation scale.

 Book Reading 12

Madsen, R. (1973). Stanford achievement test. New York: Psychological Corp.

Morrow, L.M., & Weinstein, C.S. (1986). Encouraging voluntary reading: The
impact of a literature program on children’s use of library centers. Reading
Research Quarterly, 21, 330-346.

Otis, A.S., & Lennon, R.T. (1979). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test. New York:
The Psychological Corporation.

Taylor, B.M., Frye, B.J., & Maruyama, G.M. (1990). Time spent reading and
reading growth. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 351-362.