Interesting Reading About Reading (Links)

We have been really busy with our upcoming move from Germany to Wisconsin the last couple of weeks, so I haven’t had much time to write. I am currently working on researching and writing a post for Father’s Day, but in the meantime here are a couple of articles that support an earlier post here about avoiding formal reading instruction at early ages.

The first link is from the New York Times, and is an article from last week titled “Let the Kids Learn Through Play” and discusses how current research demonstrates the importance of valuing play at an early age. For me, the key quote in the article is, “Reading, in particular, can’t be rushed. It has been around for only about 6,000 years, so the ability to transform marks on paper into complex meaning is not pre-wired into the brain. It doesn’t develop “naturally,” as do other complex skills such as walking; it can be fostered, but not forced.” [emphasis added]

The second article, “Report: Requiring Kindergartners to Read — As Common Core Does — May Harm Some” is from Valerie Strauss of The Washington Post. Among other points raised, the authors of the report mentioned state, “Research shows greater gains from play-based programs than from preschools and kindergartens with a more academic focus.”

Books for Rewards, Not Rewards for Books

If children are not interested in reading, does it make sense for schools and parents to reward children for reading more? After all, several studies show that a student’s growth in reading is determined by the amount of reading she does in that school year and the PIRLS international reading test determined the number one predictor of academic success is the amount of time a child reads. The more we do something the better we get at it. Does it really matter why they are reading as long as they are reading? Research says yes, it matters.

There is a very significant difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Whether it is a study of 10,000 West Point cadets, British youth soccer players, or a population of middle school students, intrinsic motivation has been show to be far more successful than extrinsic motivators. While intrinsic motivation is closely related to conceptual understanding and higher level thinking skills, extrinsic motivation tends to result in surface level learning.

In fact, tangible extrinsic motivators like prizes or rewards actually have been demonstrated to decrease motivation to do something. In an analysis of 128 different experiments looking at extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, extrinsic rewards were found to undermine intrinsic motivation time and time again. According to the authors of the study, “tangible rewards had a significant negative effect on intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks, and this effect shows up with participants ranging from preschool to college.”

Children are perceptive enough to realize adults offer bribes to do things that are not fun. They get rewards for going to the dentist or for mowing the lawn, not for going to the water park or playing more video games. If the most important message we can relay about reading to our children is that it is fun, we need to be careful that this is expressed not just in our words but also in our actions.

There are two exceptions to consider when avoiding extrinsic motivators. Praising a child’s efforts in reading has been shown to help improve attitudes in reluctant readers and encourages them to read more. The other exception is to offer rewards that are related to literacy, which were found to have no negative effect on intrinsic motivation. Giving books and other items related to reading sends the clear message that they are valued prizes. If you are considering making a deal with your child to get him/her to read more, you could promise the next title in a series, a book by a favorite author, or a trip to a bookstore.