The Role of Choice and Interest in Reader Engagement

By Terri Flowerday, Gregory Schraw, Joseph J. Stevens. 2004

224 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/451e96df2f1de36416dde76b4337c97528090b74

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Erika A. Patall
2. I. Katz
3. A. Assor
4. Duane F. Shell
5. H. Cooper
6. Sara M. Fulmer
7. S. R. Wynn
8. David H. Palmer

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Erika A. Patall
2. I. Katz
3. A. Assor
4. S. R. Wynn
5. Duane F. Shell
6. Sara M. Fulmer
7. A. Dent
8. H. Cooper

Citations in the corpus

• Supporting Algebraic Reasoning through Personalized Story Scenarios: How Situational Understanding Mediates Performance (2013, background): “…by receiving a personalized problem may promote focus of attention, engagement, and persistence (Ainley et al., 2002; Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007; Flowerday et al., 2004; Hidi, 1995; McDaniel, et al., 2000; Renninger & Wozniak, 1985), which may in turn allow for students to be more successful at…”
• Disentangling the effects of interest and choice on learning, engagement, and attitude (2015, methodology): “Both topic and situational interest have been found to increase positive attitudes about reading, promote personal engagement in tasks (Flowerday et al., 2004; Schraw & Lehman, 2001) and increase learning and understanding of text (Schiefele, 1996; Wade, Buxton, & Kelly, 1999).”
• Student autonomy and course value: The unique and cumulative roles of various teacher practices (2013, background): “…the value of providing choices as a motivational strategy and the frequent failure of prior research to find significant effects of choice provision (e.g. Assor et al. 2002; Flowerday and Schraw 2003; Flowerday et al. 2004; Reeve et al. 2003; Parker and Lepper 1992; Overskeid and Svartdal 1996).”
• When Choice Motivates and When It Does Not (2007, background): “Flowerday et al. (2004), separated the effect of choice on motivation from the effect of interest.”
• The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings. (2008, background): “Choice had no effect on a subsequent test to assess learning (Flowerday et al., 2004).”
• The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. (2010, background): “Significant correlations also have been found between intrinsic motivation and achievement as measured by standardized achievement tests in specific subjects, such as mathematics and reading for early elementary, late elementary, and junior high school students (Gottfried, 1985, 1990).”
• A Motivational View of Constructivist‐informed Teaching (2005, background): “For example, Flowerday, Schraw, and Stevens (2004) found that situational interest increased students’ engagement and use of deep learning strategies, and could actually override the effects of personal interest.”
• Motivation During an Excessively Challenging Reading Task: The Buffering Role of Relative Topic Interest (2011, background): “We ensured a discrepancy between the conditions, as motivational effects are more likely when topic interest is toward the extremes, rather than neutral (Flowerday et al., 2004).”