Download READING SELF-CONCEPT OF CHILDREN WITH DYSLEXIA: DO

READING SELF-CONCEPT OF CHILDREN WITH DYSLEXIA: DO
THEY DIFFER FROM THEIR PEERS?
Manuel Soriano, Carmen Rodríguez & Emilia Soriano
Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology. University of Valencia
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Introduction. Whereas considerable research attention has been devoted to the cognitive
consequences of reading difficulties, less attention has focused on the motivational spinoffs.
More recently, however, motivational beliefs have been included in expanded cognitive models
of learning. Children with reading disabilities hold more negative self-concepts, feel more
helpless, display less emotional self-regulation, and avoid reading activities. Objectives. This
research aimed at exploring reading self-concept of pupils with dyslexia, and to investigate
whether they differ from their peers. Method. A sample of forty children participated in this
study: 20 with developmental dyslexia (M: 11.26; SD: 1.83) and 20 average readers (M=11.50;
SD: 1.61) matched in chronological age and gender. Reading self-Concept Scale (Chapman &
Tummer, 1995) was used. This scale consists of 30 items representing three related aspects of
reading self-concept: perceptions of competence in reading (Cronbach´s α=.73), perceptions of
difficulty with reading (Cronbach´s α=.80) and attitudes towards reading (Cronbach´s α=.74) and
total scale (Cronbach´s α=.87). Results. Results show that developmental dyslexics reported
more negative self-perceptions on all three subscales. Conclusions. Thus, children with
dyslexia viewed themselves as less competent in reading, having more difficult with reading,
and liking reading less than their peers. Thus, developmental dyslexic children could have a
decreased motivation to engage in reading activities. These results are consistent with other
findings in the area of reading motivation.
Key words: reading self-concept, dyslexia, motivation
Conceptual Framework
The importance of student engagement with school is recognized by educators, as is
the observation that far too many students are bored, unmotivated, and uninvolved, that is,
disengaged from the academic and social aspects of school life. More than 20 years ago,
researchers remarked that although attendance at high school was compulsory, engagement
could not be legislated (Mosher &MacGowan, 1985). One constant across the myriad
conceptualizations of engagement is that it is multidimensional. In the literature review of the
literature developed by Jimerson, Campos, & Greif (2003) identified three dimensions of school
engagement: a) the affective dimension includes students´ feelings about the school, teachers,
and/or peers (e.g. positive feelings towards teachers and other students); b) the behavioral
dimension includes students´ observable actions or performance, such as participation in
extracurricular activities (e.g. sports), completion of homework, as well as grades, grade point
averages, and scores on achievement tests; c) the cognitive dimension includes students´
perceptions and beliefs related to the self, school, teachers, and other students (e.g. selfefficacy, motivation, perceiving that teachers or peers care, aspirations, expectations).
Yet because reading is an effortful activity that children often can choose to do or not to
do, it also requires motivation. In reading literature, much of the work relevant to readers’
motivation has been framed in terms of attitudes toward reading. Reading attitudes typically are
defined as readers’ affect toward reading (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995). The motivational
consequences of reading attitudes are that children with more positive attitudes are more
motivated to read. The approach is grounded in two theoretical positions, the engagement
perspective and achievement motivation theory. The engagement perspective on reading
integrates cognitive, motivational, and social aspects of reading (Baker, Afflerbach, & Reinking,
1996; Guthrie & Alvermann, 1999). As Baker et al. (1996) put it, “the engagement perspective
views readers as motivated, strategic, knowledgeable, and socially interactive” (p. xv). Engaged
readers are motivated to read for different purposes, utilize knowledge gained from previous
experience to generate new understandings, and participate in meaningful social interactions
around reading.
In conceptualizing reading motivation, we adapted constructs defined and developed by
researchers in the achievement motivation field. Currently, many motivation theorists propose
that individuals’ competence and efficacy beliefs, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and
purposes for achievement play a crucial role in their decisions about which activities to do, how
long to do them, and how much effort to put into them (Bandura, 1997, 2006; Eccles, Wigfield, &
Schiefele, 1998). Motivated readers thus will engage more in reading (Oldfather & Wigfield,
1996) and will have positive attitudes toward reading (McKenna et al., 1995). Guthrie & Wigfield
(1999), who defined reading motivation as "the individual's goals and beliefs regarding reading"
(p. 199), claimed that what influences reading engagement is different from what influences
engagement in other fields. It must be noted that Wigfield and his associates' Reading
Motivation Theory includes a general dimension that similar motivational factors such as beliefs,
values and goals also influence reading engagement.
Reading Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy
Self-concepts of ability are more or less domain-specific self-perceptions that students
develop as a result of their experiences in different (school) subjects or domains. These
experiences are largely determined by the opinions of significant others, concrete feedback, and
causal attributions. Most prior research viewed the verbal self-concept as being onedimensional, whereas others suggested the differentiation of subcomponents. Accordingly, the
concept of one’s reading ability may be one such subcomponent. In line with this assumption,
Chapman and Tunmer (1995) developed the Reading Self-Concept Scale for elementary
students.
Reading self-efficacy refers to the extent of a person’s expectation to perform well on a
reading task. Bandura (1997, 2006) differentiated between outcome and self-efficacy
expectations. An outcome expectation is defined as the subjective belief that a given behavior
will in fact result in a certain outcome, whereas self-efficacy beliefs refer to the expectation of
being able to execute that behavior. In contrast to academic self-concepts, self-efficacy beliefs
are relatively independent of both social and dimensional comparison processes. However, they
depend more strongly on past experiences with similar tasks. Self- perception is a broad
construct; thus, recent research has focused on self-perception and attitudes towards reading
(Baker & Scher, 2002; Chapman & Tunmer, 1995). In their research, Chapman and Tunmer
(1995) differentiate between three subcomponents of reading self-concept: perceptions of
competence in reading, perceptions of difficulty with reading, and attitudes towards reading.
They have found that in the early grades, perceptions of difficulty are related to reading ability.
When children perceive that they have the ability to accomplish a particular task, they
tend to perform at higher levels and be motivated to select increasingly challenging tasks
(Dweck, 1999; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck & Connell, 1998). Thus, the way in which children appraise their
reading capabilities is expected to relate to motivational aspects, such as interest and
persistence in reading, which in turn relates to their reading achievement (Baker & Scher, 2002;
Chapman & Tunmer, 1995; 2003; Jacobs et al., 2002).
Children´s experiences in school can have a powerful influence on their selfperceptions. Perceived self-efficacy is defined as people's beliefs about their capabilities to
produce designated levels of performance, and the effect this perception has on the on-going
and future conduct of the activity (Bandura, 2006). Whereby, self-perception could motivate or
inhibit learning of any student. In reading, self-perceptions can impact upon an individual
orientation toward the process itself. That is, how an individual feels about herself or himself as
a reader could clearly influence whether reading would be sought or avoided, the amount of
effort that would occur during reading, and how persistently comprehension would be pursued
(Henk & Melnick, 1995). Some studies have found that children with developmental dyslexia
(DD) have lower self-perceptions of competence as compared to children without DD
(Tabassam & Grainger, 2002).
Objectives
This research aimed at exploring reading self-concept of pupils with dyslexia, and to investigate
whether they differ from their peers.
Method
Participants
A sample of forty children participated in this study: 20 with developmental dyslexia (M: 11.26;
SD: 1.83) and 20 average readers (M=11.50; SD: 1.61) matched in chronological age and
gender. The presence of developmental dyslexia (DD) was determined by using an adaptation
of the multifaceted approach developed by Pereira-Laird, Deane and Bunnell (1999). The
requirements followed in the assessment were: (a) poor academic performance in reading using
a teacher´s rating report, and average achievement in other academic areas (e.g. arithmetic);
(b) scores of 80 or higher on an intelligence test (Cattell & Cattell, 1950/1989), in order to
exclude students with intellectual deficits; (c) no evidence or history of neurological damage,
environmental disadvantage, emotional disturbance, hearing and vision abnormalities, or any
other major handicapping condition, in accordance with the conventional exclusion criteria for
the learning disabilities (LD) field; (d) the achievement criteria in reading adopted in this study
have been commonly used in the LD literature. Specifically, developmental dyslexia (DD) was
determined by using a score on the subtest on word reading from the standardized Reading
Test PROLEC-R (Cuetos, Ramos, Ruano y Arribas, 2007) corresponding to the 25th percentile
or less.
Measures
The Reading Self-Concept Scale (Chapman & Tunmer,1995) was used to measure children’s
ratings of their reading self-concept. For this measure, children are asked to respond to each
question on a 5-point scale that ranges from 1 (No, never) to 5 (Yes, always).1 The instrument
measures three aspects of reading self-concept and yields three subscales: competence in
reading (e.g., ‘Do you think you read well?’), perceptions of ease with reading (e.g., ‘Do you
make lots of mistakes in reading?’), and attitudes toward reading (e.g., ‘Is it fun for you to read
books?’). This instrument contains 30 items, 10 items per subscale. Our data show adequate
Cronbach´s α for perceptions of competence in reading (Cronbach´s α=.73), perceptions of
difficulty with reading (Cronbach´s α=.80) and attitudes towards reading (Cronbach´s α=.74) and
total scale (Cronbach´s α=.87).
Results
The results obtained from comparing the two groups of children with and without developmental
dyslexia (see figure 1) revealed significant differences in perceptions of competence, F (1, 39) =
12.237, p < .001, η² = .24, perceptions of difficulty with reading, F(1, 39) = 23.562, p < .000, η² =
.38, attitudes towards reading, F(1, 39) = 6.381, p < .016, η² = .14, and in the total scale, F(1, 39) =
21.071, p < .000, η² = .35, with large size effect sizes in the majority of variables. In summary,
results show that developmental dyslexics reported more negative self-perceptions on all three
subscales.
Figure 1.- Mean on Reading self-Concept Subscales
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Competence
Attitudes
D. Dyslexia
Difficulty
Average Readers
Self-concept Total
Conclusions
Our results show that children with dyslexia viewed themselves as less competent in
reading, having more difficult with reading, and liking reading less than their peers. Thus,
children with DD could become poorly motivated to read and have poorer attitudes toward
reading because of their repeated failure to acquire reading skills. Poor motivation is important
because of its link to reading practice. Thus, developmental dyslexic children could have a
decreased motivation to engage in reading activities. Stanovich (1986) hypothesized that early
but consistent reading failure initiates “a causal chain of escalating negative side effects” (pp.
364). One such negative Mathew effect should be decreased motivation, which, in turn, leads
children to avoid reading practice. This avoidance results in a cascade of “poor-get-poorer”
effects, such that these children display increasingly generalized cognitive, motivational, and
behavioral deficits.
We claim, however, that these difficulties are far from insurmountable. To overcome
both skill deficiencies in reading and the negative reading and achievement related selfperceptions that develop in response to reading difficulties, a comprehensive approach to
remediation is required. In this regard, we maintain that substantial scientific research indicates
that attention to the development of word-level skills and strategies is essential. In addition,
research on the efficacy of the attribution retraining strategies provides promising methods for
teachers to overcome children´s negative self-system beliefs, since self-perceptions are not
exclusively a stable characteristic of a student. It suggests that if we modify and design
curricula, lessons, and schools in a different way, we can improve student´s competence
feelings to improve their reading achievement, and to engage them in reading activities
(Chapman & Tunmer, 2003).
Bibliographical References
Baker, L., & Scher, D. (2002). Beginning reader’s motivation in relation to parental beliefs and
home reading experiences. Reading Psychology, 23, 239–269.
Baker, L., Afflerbach, P., & Reinking, D. (1996). Developing engaged readers in school and
home communities: An overview. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Ed.),
Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp. xiii–xxvii). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307-337). USA: IAP.
Cattell, R. B. & Cattell, A. K. S. (1950/1989). Test de Factor “g”. Escala 2. Madrid: TEA.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self-Perceptions,
and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 5–
24.
Chapman, J.W., & Tunmer, W.E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading selfconcepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 154–167.
Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruano, E. y Arribas, D. (1996). Evaluación de los procesos lectores.
PROLEC-R. Madrid: TEA.
Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (Vol. IV, 5th ed., pp. 1017–1095). New York: John Wiley.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 3, 199–205.
Guthrie, J.T., & Alvermann, D. (Eds.). (1999). Engagement in reading: Processes, practices,
and policy implications. New York: Teachers College Press.
Henk, W.A. & Melnick, S.A. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS): A new tool for
measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48,
470-482.
Jacobs, J., Lanza, S., Osgood, D., Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s
selfcompetence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through
twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527.
Jimerson, S.R., Campos, E., & Greif, J.L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and
measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist,
8, 7-27.
McKenna, M.C., Kear, D.J., & Ellsworth, R.A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A
national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934–955.
Mosher, R., & McGowan, B. (1985). Assessing student engagement in secondary schools:
Alternative conceptions, strategies of assessing, and instruments. University of
Wisconsin, Research and Development Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 272812).
Oldfather, P., & Wigfield, A. (1996). Children’s motivations to read. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, &
D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp.
89–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pereira-Laird, J., Deane, F.P. & Bunnell, J. (1999). Defining reading disability using a
multifaceted approach. Learning Disability Quaterly, 22, 59-71.
Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences and the
development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development,63, 1–220.
Stanovich, K.E.(1986). Mathew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences
in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quaterly, 21, 360-407.
Tabassam, W. & Grainger, J. (2002). Self-concept, atributional style and self-efficacy believes of
students with learning disabilities with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 141-151.