Curricular Materials for Young People Who Struggle with Learning to Read: The Case of Roadrunner Reader Inquiry Kits

  • Misty SailorsEmail author
  • Alicia Villarreal
  • Teresa Sellers
  • Paul A. Schutz
  • Marcy Wilburn
  • Sylvia Minton
Part of the Literacy Studies book series (LITS, volume 15)


In this chapter, we review research on children’s motivation to read and its relations to children’s reading comprehension. Researchers have provided evidence that motivation is strongly associated with reading outcomes such as comprehension and their ability to use effective reading strategies. As such, the consideration of motivation with students who struggle with learning to read becomes particularly important. In this chapter, we will discuss an instructional approach focused on inquiry to address the needs of those children. Dubbed “inquiry kits,” these curricular materials provide teachers instructional spaces to engage students. Informed by self-determination theory, the kits were developed to meet the students’ basic needs related to autonomy, competence, and relatedness. We begin the chapter by explaining the theories that support our work; we describe the process we used in the development of the kits. This development process involved the consideration of an instructional model that was oriented around a “big idea” (topic) connected to a message of social justice. We conclude the chapter with examples of the ways in which these kits have been used to support the instruction of students who struggle with learning to read.


Reading motivation Curricular adjustment Inquiry kits Instructional approach Literacy strategies 


  1. Allington, R. L. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention: Research-based designs. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  2. Alvermann, D. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8–19. Scholar
  3. Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palinscar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chisholm, J. S., & Godley, A. J. (2011). Learning about language through inquiry-based discussion: Three bidialectal high school students’ talk about dialect variation, identity, and power. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 430–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research-Practice Partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. New York: W. T. Grant Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., & McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 127–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coryell, J., Sailors, M., Sehin, O., & Nelson, R. (2016). Capacity building at mid-programme: An international education development programme in Malawi. Development and Practice, 26, 272–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. David, J. (2008). What research says about project-based learning. Educational Leadership, 65, 80–82.Google Scholar
  11. De Naeghel, J., Valcke, M., De Meyer, I., Warlop, N., van Braak, J., & Van Keer, H. (2014). The role of teacher behavior in adolescents’ intrinsic reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 27, 1547–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1006–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., & Aelterman, N. (2016). Promoting elementary school students’ autonomous reading motivation: Effects of a teacher professional development workshop. Journal of Educational Research, 109, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28–41). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining reading. A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J., et al. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction and student awareness and achievement: a study of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., et al. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Easterly, W. (2006). The White man’s burden: Why the West’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  19. Edmunds, K. M., & Bauserman, K. L. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading motivation through conversations with children. The Reading Teacher, 59, 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fairbanks, C. (2000). Fostering adolescents’ literacy engagements: “Kid’s business” and critical inquiry. Reading Research and Instruction, 40(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Motivating boys to reading; Inquiry, modeling, and choice matter. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55, 587–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  23. Gambrell, L. (2009). Creating opportunities to read more so that students read better. In E. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 251–266). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  24. Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Differentiating instruction for struggling readers within the CORI classroom. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C. Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (pp. 1–24). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601–634). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harada, V. H., & Yoshina, J. M. (2004). Inquiry learning through librarian-teacher partnerships. Worthington: Linworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Henk, W. A., Marinak, B. A., & Melnick, S. A. (2012). Measuring the reader self-perceptions of adolescents: Introducing the RSPS2. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 310–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoffman, J. (1992). Critical reading/thinking across the curriculum: Using I-charts to support learning. Language Arts, 69, 121–127.Google Scholar
  30. Jobrack, B. (2012). Tyranny of the textbook. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCormick, S. (1995). What is single subject experimental research? In S. B. Neuman & S. McCormick (Eds.), Single subject experimental research: Applications for literacy. International Reading Association: Newark.Google Scholar
  33. Neuman, S. B., & McCormick, S. (Eds.). (1995). Single-subject experimental research: Applications for literacy. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  34. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–562). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(3), 276–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook on motivation at school (pp. 171–196). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Sailors, M. (2013). Making literacy a “pervasive part” of a second grade classroom. Pennsylvania Reads, 12, 7–15.Google Scholar
  40. Sailors, M. (2016). Working in tandem: Improving reading achievement through a University/School District partnership. Meet the Researcher Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the International Literacy Association.Google Scholar
  41. Sailors, M., & Price, L. (2010). Professional development that supports the teaching of cognitive reading strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 110, 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sailors, M., & Price, L. (2015). Support for Improvement of Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC): A model of coaching for improving reading instruction and reading achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Kleeck, A., vander Woude, J., & Hammett, L. (2006). Fostering literal and inferential language skills in Head Start preschoolers with language impairment using scripted book-sharing discussions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school contexts. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.). Review of Research in Education, 23, 73–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Misty Sailors
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alicia Villarreal
    • 1
  • Teresa Sellers
    • 1
  • Paul A. Schutz
    • 1
  • Marcy Wilburn
    • 1
  • Sylvia Minton
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations