The effects of family cultural capital and reading motivation on reading behaviour in elementary school students

Abstract

This study proposed and tested a structural model of the effects of family cultural capital and reading motivation on reading behaviour in elementary school students. Participants were 467 fifth and sixth graders from elementary schools in Changhua County, Taiwan. The instruments employed in this study included the Family Cultural Capital Scale, Reading Motivation Scale, and Reading Behaviour Scale. The analyses revealed: (a) The observed data fit the proposed model; (b) family cultural capital had a significant direct effect on reading motivation; (c) reading motivation had a significant direct effect on reading behaviour; and (d) family cultural capital had a significant indirect effect on reading behaviour. Implications emerging from these findings are provided for both school personnel and researchers.

Keywords

Elementary school students family cultural capital reading behaviour reading motivation Taiwan

Traditional education focuses on ‘the three Rs’ (so named because all three start with the strong /r/ phoneme): Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Despite vast societal and educational advances since this term was first coined in the 1800s, the essence of modern education remains fundamentally unchanged. The ‘three R’s’ continue to be focal points for student learning, and this is particularly true for the content area of reading. A critical functional skill for all students worldwide at all levels of education, reading, undergirds success in the other ‘R’ areas of writing and arithmetic. In writing, for example, mastery of words and phrases is an important prerequisite to writing papers that are understandable, fluent, smooth, and elegant. In arithmetic, students need reading to understand the descriptions used in mathematics problems and proceed with mathematical calculations (Amstrong, Henson, & Savage, 2008; Ebert & Culyer, 2010).

At its essence, reading is the foundation to obtaining, accumulating, using, and creating knowledge across content areas. Children who can read effectively and read for meaning can enrich their lives in a way that fosters the development of individual and collective intellectual potential. To promote and encourage children’s reading in an effort to facilitate these positive outcomes, it is necessary to establish environments that promote healthy reading habits and attitudes. In the home setting-often a child’s first learning environment-parents can work toward this goal by encouraging their child to read more, fostering participation in cultural activities, providing their child with an abundance of books, and modelling healthy reading habits. Concurrently, parents can reinforce their child’s interest in reading, to inspire greater enthusiasm. Despite these generally accepted beliefs, limited research has empirically examined factors influencing children’s reading behaviours in Taiwan. Also, those factors (e.g. environment, cultural activities) hypothesized to influence reading still warrant experimental verification. In particular, the influence of family cultural capital and reading motivation are worthy of such investigation.

Literature review

Family cultural capital and reading behavior

According to Bourdieu & Passeron (1990), family cultural capital represents a unique combination of language, thinking pattern, values, behaviours, and taste-for-life or habits that contribute to the attainment of a higher social status. A myriad of family variables that may help one receive the advantages of this heightened social status—including education, knowledge, skills, expectations, experiences, and social connections—are all considered family cultural capital. Generally speaking, family cultural capital is the aggregate of all cultural capital owned by a family, which may be passed down for generations within a family (De Graaf, De Graaf, & Kraaykamp, 2000). Three types of cultural capital have been proposed: (1) internalized capital––capital contained by an individual’s characteristics; (2) concrete capital––the quantity of tangible works such as scientific accomplishments or artistic creations; and (3) institutional capital––the diplomas, certificates, or licenses recognized by society (DiMaggio, 1982).

Families with more cultural capital tend to reinforce social and cultural values and affirm the value of mainstream learning. Children born to such families will have more family cultural capital, which will help them acquire more knowledge and skills in school (Sullivan, 2002). Some research also shows that by investing in school education and encouraging children to participate in different types of school experiences, families strengthen children’s intrinsic learning motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). In addition, children with more family educational resources, such as books or tutors, are more likely to experience intrinsic learning motivation (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1998). Similarly, if children participate in more culture-related activities—such as family discussions on topics of knowledge, reasoning, society, socio-cultural issue influences, politics, and economics—their intrinsic learning motivation can be enhanced (Atkinson, 2009; Gottfried et al., 1998). In fact, Ogbu (2007) believes that unlike children in families with conflicting social values, those having more cultural capital will be more likely to accept the family’s beliefs and experience higher learning motivation. For example, Gottfried, Cook, Gottfried, and Morris (2005) point out that children who engage in more cultural discussions with family members exhibit a greater interest in reading. Similarly, Chiu & Chow (2010), who studied school-aged children from 41 countries, believe that students with more family cultural capital exhibit higher levels of interest and motivation towards studying, are more diligent and persistent, and receive higher reading scores.

Other research indicates that parents who frequently participate in cultural activities, read books themselves, buy or borrow books for their children, converse with their children, or participate in musical activities can facilitate their children’s level of cultural stimulation. These activities encourage children to learn and explore more knowledge (De Graaf et al., 2000; Gottfried, 1990; Gottfried et al., 1998). Also, some research shows that art classes and extracurricular activities in school strengthen students’ cultural capital and increases the possibility of acceptance into university (Kaufman & Gabler, 2004; Zimdars, Sullivan, & Heath, 2009). These researchers also recommend that parents and schools alike should encourage participation in cultural activities. In addition, investigators have pointed out that families with more cultural capital are better connected to their children and to their children’s learning (Lee, 2006). Graves and Wright (2011) also mention that only home-based parent involvement was significantly related to reading achievement. Through dialogue with families, these parents help their children better understand the expectations of teachers and classmates thereby guiding appropriate behaviours in school. This allows children to build better relationships with their teachers and classmates (Delia & Applegate, 1995; Lareau, 1989; Pan, Perlmann, & Snow, 2000). By obtaining support from teachers and classmates, such children will develop an even stronger learning orientation, leading to improved academic success (Chiu & McBride-Chang, 2010). Overall, the extant evidence suggests a positive correlation exists between family cultural capital and both reading motivation and reading behaviour.

Reading motivation and reading behavior

Another important factor is reading motivation—the external and internal motivation forces contributing to children’s desire to read (Guthrie, Coddington, & Wigfield, 2009). Some academics have emphasized the powerful influence of motivation on literacy achievement (Guthrie et al., 2007; Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009). However, significantly fewer instances of research consider the mechanisms underlying the impact of family cultural capital on reading motivation and reading behaviour. Some researchers have found that children in families lacking cultural capital may experience more challenges overcoming reading or writing difficulties (Beswick & Sloat, 2006; Tramonte & Willms, 2010). Motivation researchers historically have focused on the interaction between motivation and cognition and how it influences learning outcomes. However, if children are not amenable to being motivated during the process of developing reading habits, simply having family cultural capital will be insufficient to realize its effect (Pintrich, 2003; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993; Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006).

According to research by Wigfield & Guthrie (1997), reading motivation consists of three categories and 11 dimensions: Competence and efficacy beliefs (self-efficacy, challenge, work avoidance); goals for reading (curiosity, involvement, importance, recognition, grades, competition); and social purposes of reading (social, compliance). Furthermore, most researchers distinguish the dimensions of reading motivation as being either externally- or internally-driven (Fan, Williams, & Wolters, 2012; Guthrie et al., 2006; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1995; Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004). Intrinsic-motivation refers to a sense of achievement, ability to satisfy personal curiosity, or joy experienced from participating in certain activities, which leads to increased participation in those activities. Extrinsic-motivation refers to receiving external rewards, such as earning prizes or avoiding punishments, leading to increased participation in the activities resulting in these rewards (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Closely related to intrinsic-motivation is reading interest, a driving force to inducing and sustaining motivation. Children with higher levels of reading interest experience excitement or joy when reading, and knowledge acquisition is facilitated when such interest is present (Renninger, 1992, 2000). Reading motivation is significantly and positively correlated with reading achievement: For example, students having more academic intrinsic motivation have been shown to outperform others in reading tests (Gottfried et al., 2005). In addition, the writing and reading proficiencies of students in upper-elementary grades are related to their learning strategies. Students’ intrinsic motivation, performance on complex reading, writing assignments, amount of reading, and reading comprehension are significantly correlated (Fan et al., 2012). Also, intrinsic motivation and the depth levels of reading contents (Schiefele, 1999), reading grades for elementary students (Sweet, Guthrie, & Ng, 1998), and university students’ level of course knowledge and learning strategies (Alexander & Murphy, 1998) are closely related. According to Renninger’s (1992) research, elementary school students with stronger reading interest evidence more complete recollection from reading passages. Therefore, reading (intrinsic) motivation may be said to positively influence reading behaviour.

On the other hand, extrinsic motivation refers to the drive to engage in behaviour due to external rewards, recognition, or encouragement. Competition frequently serves as an extrinsic motivator, where the purpose of learning or reading is to outperform others (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wigfield, 1997; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). In a study following 740 students who participated in a longitudinal assessment starting in Grade 3, with further points of measurement in Grades 4 and 6, Becker, McElvany, and Kortenbruck (2010) found a significant negative correlation between external reading motivation and reading performance. Morgan and Fuchs (2007) also discovered that students with reduced reading motivation read only when required to do so, such as when preparing for examinations; consequently, these students developed weaker reading skills. Wang and Guthrie (2004) proposed that the reason underlying the negative correlation between extrinsic reading motivations and reading performance is that students who emphasize extrinsic reading motivation care more about social rewards. When such rewards cease to exist or fall below students’ expectations, reading motivation diminishes. On the other hand, school children may try to read more books to get recognition, and will do so from competition with others, challenging others, or sharing with others.

Research also has revealed a significant correlation between reading motivation and reading behaviour (Fan et al., 2012; Tan, Sharan, & Lee, 2007). For example, Fan et al. (2012) discovered that extrinsic motivation can positively influence children’s quantity of reading, although the long term effect remains unknown. In addition, Brophy (2004) found that the experience of lack of reading interest will lead one to becoming bored and be uninterested in textbooks and other books. Students who lack reading interest may participate in a reading activity because of a strong extrinsic motivation; however, reading will remain intrinsically uninteresting to them (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002).

Most of the research reviewed on children’s reading behaviour relies on single-variable analyses. It is more difficult, although necessary, to discover the cause and effect relationships between multiple variables. Structural models aim to be used to analyse the potential variables for the path taken. Using an overall structural model to discover important cause and effect relationship between important items (Byrne, 2001; Kline, 2010; Froiland, Powell, & Diamond, 2013) may be an appropriate method of discussing research related research.

Research objectives

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of family cultural capital and reading motivation on Taiwanese children’s reading behaviour. The amount of time spent reading is a variable of consequence; according to a ‘2012 reading investigation’ reported by the World Magazine, Taiwanese people spend only about 7.5 hours per week reading (i.e. time spent reading newspapers, magazines, etc.). This study investigates whether the results described in the literature review detailing interlinkage between cultural capital, reading motivation, and reading behaviour generalize to this setting.

The model investigated here includes the independent variable of family cultural capital and the two potential dependent variables of reading motivation and reading behaviour. The study assumes that there is a significant influence of family cultural capital on children reading behaviour. However, in between these two variables, lies a reading motivation as an influence. Therefore, it is hypothesized that family cultural capital has a direct influence on children’s reading motivation, and has an indirect effect on reading behaviours through reading motivation. Overall, this study’s main purpose is to determine if the relationship between the three main variables can explain children’s reading behaviour.

Methodology

Participants

Participants in this study were fifth- and sixth-grade students from 175 elementary schools in rural Chunghua County, Taiwan. Twenty classes at ten of these elementary schools were selected via random stratified cluster sampling. The final sample size consisted of 467 students, with 238 male students (51.0% of sample) and 229 female students (49.0% of sample). Two hundred and twenty-eight of the participants (48.8% of the sample) were fifth-grade students, and the remaining 239 (51.2% of the sample) were sixth-grade students. Participants’ reading ability was presumed to be average.

Instrumentation

Three quantitative self-report questionnaires were adapted for use in this study: (1) Family Cultural Capital Scale; (2) Reading Motivational Scale; and the (3) Reading Behaviour Scale. These three forms were designed to be suitable fifth- and sixth-graders in elementary school.

Family Cultural Capital questionnaire

The Family Cultural capital Scale was translated from Tramonte and Willms’ (2010) research. To avoid central-tendency scoring by participants and encourage a greater option of choices between agreement and disagreement, the questionnaire consists of 12 items, each one scored using a four-point Likert scale (1 = total disagreement, 4 = total agreement). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.770, and the Bartlett test of sphericity was significant at p < 0.001, revealing the appropriateness of the items for factor analysis. Four factors were revealed: (1) cultural activities (three items; e.g. ‘My parents frequently join in school activities’); (2) audiovisual technologies (three items; e.g. ‘My family has audiovisual systems such as VCR and DVD’); (3) ‘school competitiveness’ (three items; e.g. ‘I am frequently evaluated in school [monthly exams, sectional exams] with awards’); and (4) parental participation (three items; e.g. ‘My parents will monitor and supervise my homework’). Together, these factors explain 62.5% of the variance. The internal consistency of the scale using the Cronbach α coefficient is 0.778, indicating strong reliability of this measure.

Reading Motivational Scale

The Reading Motivational Scale was developed referencing the definitions of intrinsic motivation posited by Alexander and Murphy (1998), Pintrich and Schunk (2002), Wigfield (1997), and Wigfield & Guthrie (1997). There are six items on this scale, which also uses a four-point Likert scale for scoring. The KMO (0.802) and Bartlett (p < 0.001) test values indicate the items are appropriate for factor analysis. Two factors emerged, named interests (three items) and competition (three items), that together explain 65.5% of the variance. The internal consistency of the Reading Motivational Questionnaire using the Cronbach α coefficient is 0.783, indicating strong reliability.

Reading Behaviour Scale

The Reading Behaviour Scale was based on Guthrie, McGough, and Wigfield’s (1994) Reading Activity Inventory (RAI) and related papers (Guthrie et al., 2006; Tan et al., 2007; Wigfield et al., 2004; Wigfield et al., 2006). This scale consists of eight items and is scored using a four-point Likert scale. Both the KMO value (0.913) and Bartlett’s test value (p < 0.001) were within normal limits. Two factors were obtained, reading habits (four items) and active emphasis (four items), that collectively explain 61.7% of the variance. The internal consistency using the Cronbach α coefficient is 0.869, indicating strong reliability of this form.

Model test and statistical analysis

All the variable coefficients of skewness and kurtosis fall between ± 3, indicating that the data were normally distributed. AMOS 6.0 (Analysis of Moment Structures) statistical software was used to conduct a factor structural and validity analysis on the three concepts of family cultural capital, reading motivation, and reading behaviour. This study used several indices to determine the model fit, including χ², GFI, CFI, and RMSEA. In order to indicate a close fit, the χ²/df values should be no more than 3 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), the GFI index should exceed 0.9 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), the CFI index must exceed 0.95 (Bentler, 1988), and the RMSEA index needs to be below 0.08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Overall, this study’s test assumes that the model represents a function, with the model implying the degree of difference between the covariance matrix and the population covariance matrix (Byrne, 2001; Kline, 2010).

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis

For family cultural capital, the results of the four factors confirmatory factor analysis on the model fit are: χ²/50(n = 467) = 2.105, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.971, CFI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.044. For reading motivation, the results of the two factors confirmatory factor analysis on the model fit are: χ²/8(n = 467) = 3.014, p = 0.002, GFI = 0.982, CFI = 0.978, RMSEA = 0.066. For reading behaviour, the results of the two factors confirmatory factor analysis on the model fit are: χ²/19(n = 467) = 1.851, p = 0.013, GFI = 0.985, CFI = 0.990, RMSEA = 0.038.

Correlation analysis

All of the correlation coefficients in the form reach the level of significance of 0.001. The correlation coefficients for family cultural capital, reading motivation, and reading behaviours are between 0.40–0.70, showing medium correlation.

Other than audiovisual technologies with school competition (r = 0.226, p < 0.001), parents participation (r = 0.276, p < 0.001), competition (r = 0.133, p < 0.001), and reading habits (r = 0.274, p < 0.001), and school competition with parental participation (r = 0.249, p < 0.001), interests (r = 0.297, p < 0.001), competition (r = 0.289, p < 0.001) and with parental participation with reading habits (r = 0.294, p < 0.001) having coefficients under 0.30, belong to low correlation, the correlation coefficients for all other variables are between 0.30–0.70, showing medium level of correlation.

Family cultural capital model’s goodness of fit

Bagozzi and Yi (1988) pointed out that basic standards for structural equation modeling require that the estimated results have no negative error variance nor a large standard error. The study’s proposed estimate outcomes for the family cultural capital theoretical model do not have negative error variance, with none larger than standard error. In addition, the estimates relation between the parameters are no greater than 0.90. These outcomes show that the theoretical model did not violate the basic goodness fit standards. The model overall good fit values are χ² (17, n = 467) = 1.781, p = 0.024, GFI = 0.984, CFI = 0.988, RMSEA = 0.041, with ideal good fit outcomes, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Family cultural capital theoretical model’s standardized path.

Based on the outcomes, there are significant and positive relationship between family cultural capital, reading motivation, and reading behaviour. Reading motivation can positively predict reading behaviour (γ = 0.748, p < 0.001). Family cultural capital can positively predict reading motivation (γ = 0.706, p < 0.001). However, there is no significant predictive correlation that exists between family cultural capital and reading behaviour (γ = 0.166, p < 0.05). Family cultural capital accounts for 49.9% of variance in reading motivation, and family cultural capital and reading motivations can account for 76.2% of variance in reading motivation.

Intermediate effect of reading motivation

Further evaluation of the relationships among family cultural capital, reading motivation, and reading behaviour showed that significant direct effects existed between family cultural capital and reading motivation (γ = 0.706, p < 0.001), as well as between reading motivation and reading behaviour (γ = 0.748, p < 0.001). However, after reading motivation entered the model in the significant positive correlation between family cultural capital and reading behaviour, the predictive effect between family cultural capital and reading behaviour (γ = 0.166, p > 0.05) became statistically insignificant. Further analysis showed a significant indirect effect of reading motivation in the relationship between family cultural capital and reading behaviour (z = 5.12, p < 0.001). These results showed that reading motivation had a complete intermediate effect between family cultural capital and reading behaviour. More importantly, family cultural capital could explain 76.08% of the variance in reading behaviour through the intermediate variable of reading motivation (Iacobucci, 2008, pp. 21–22). This shows that family cultural capital must influence reading behaviour through reading motivation with the implication that teachers must first elevate their students’ reading motivation before students can elevate their reading behaviour.

Discussion

The structural model posited here is supported; three paramount findings emerged. First, a significant and positive correlation was found between family cultural capital and reading motivation. This finding is consistent with conclusions from studies by Chiu and Chow (2010) and Ogbu (2007), and also extends the conclusions to a Taiwanese sample of school children. Second, a significant and positive correlation was found between reading motivation and reading behaviour, consistent with conclusions from the studies by Brophy (2004), Gottfried et al. (2005), and Guthrie et al. (1999). Finally, these findings revealed no direct significant influence of family cultural capital on reading behaviour. However, family cultural capital through the intervening variable of reading motivation has a demonstrable effect on reading behaviour. Where reading motivation is absent, family cultural capital has no positive impact on reading behaviour. In other words, reading motivation plays a key and intermediary role between family cultural capital and reading behaviour. The conclusion reached from this study is that even though family cultural capital is important, it is important only to the extent that it influences reading motivation. If children lack reading motivation, they may not develop healthy reading behaviour even when family cultural capital exists in abundance.

Overall, children with higher family cultural capital were found to have higher reading motivation (Chiu, & Chow, 2010; Chiu, & McBride-Chang, 2010). During the development of children’s reading behaviour, those who read habitually are more likely to read proactively and view reading with importance. In addition, in terms of the intermediary effect of reading motivation, this study’s observed data indicates that reading motivation plays a key intermediate role between family cultural capital and reading behaviour. This intermediate effect produces a higher value than the direct influence of family cultural capital on reading behaviour, supporting the hypothesized model for this study. In the development of reading behaviours, reading motivation is a key intermediate variable. If children are unable to develop appropriate reading motivation, an abundance of family cultural capital alone may not be effective in helping children develop reading habits. Therefore, to develop children’s reading behaviour, in addition to raising the level of family cultural capital, it is even more important to stimulate reading motivation in children.

Footnotes

Limitations

This study used four indices in terms of the quantitative model for family cultural capital: Cultural activities, audiovisual technologies, school competition, and parental participation. The strongest correlation index is cultural activities, followed by school competition and parental participation with value of 0.5. Only the value of audiovisual technologies index is below 0.5. Thus, the indices chosen for family cultural capital lack good inherent qualities, and the conclusion reached for the possibility of a relationship between family cultural capital and other variables should be viewed with reservation. We recommend that future studies choose more reliable family cultural capital quantitative tools for verification, so as to test the relationship between family capital culture and other variables. The study relied on self-report gathered through paper and pencil surveys. Self-report is a weak measure of behaviour and independent verification through multi-method investigation including teacher-report, direct observations, etc., should be considered in future research.

Implications for practice

This study reveals the necessity of assessing school children’s family cultural capital. The quantitative measure of this study on family cultural capital uses family participation in cultural activities, level of parental participation, the availability of audiovisual technologies provided by families, and children’s participation in all types of competitive activities for assessment and evaluation. The outcomes from this study shows that self-assessment by children on their family’s resources (such as cultural activities, parental participation, audiovisual technologies, and school competition), can help parents provide physical resources, cultural values, and family cultures. Evaluating children’s family cultural capital can help identify children with low family cultural capital, and lead to the implementation of plans to raise reading behaviours by developing appropriate reading habits. pointed out that significant improvements in motivation and self-esteem identified by children and their parents were less apparent to the child’s teachers. So, teachers can also provide more assistance to children lacking family cultural capital and thereby more effectively narrow the gap of family cultural capital.

Second, results from the study reveal the need to assess and strengthen children’s reading motivation in order to increase their reading behaviour. This study uses the two indices of interests and competition for reading motivation to measure children’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The conclusion reached is that family cultural capital seems to help children internalize reading motivation. When children enjoy reading, their internalized motivation increases the likelihood that they will attend to reading assignments in school. In addition, students with a strong interest in reading will not give up on reading as easily when facing reading challenges. Parents and teachers should stimulate children’s reading through exercising their curiosity and interests—so as to strengthen children’s reading interest while incorporating appropriate external rewards to raise children’s reading motivation.

Author biographies

Shao-I Chiu, EdD, PhD, is Associate Professor at the Taipei College of Maritime Technology (TCMT) in the Center for General Education. He was previously the Dean of Academic Affairs and Dean of Research and Development at TCMT. He has long directed and executed research projects funded by the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan. His research focus includes adolescent behavior, addiction behavior, educational psychology, quality management, quality model development and vocational education.

Fu-Yuan Hong, PhD, is Associate Professor at TCMT Center for General Education. He has completed several research projects funded by the National Science Council of Taiwan. His research interests include classroom management, educational psychology, health psychology and child development.

Hsiu-Yuan Hu, PhD, is Assistant Professor at the Department of Food Technology and Marketing Management, TCMT. Her research focuses on consumer loyalty, qualitative explorations of the behavior of Taiwan youth, and methodology, behavior analysis and leadership.

References

Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). Profiling the differences in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategic processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 435–447, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.435.

Amstrong

D. G.

Henson

K. T.

Savage

T. V.

(2008) Teaching today: An introduction to education, Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

Atkinson, C. (2009). Promoting high school boys’ reading engagement and motivation: The role of the school psychologist in real world research. School Psychology International, 30(3), 237–254, doi:10.1177/0143034309106494.

Bagozzi. R. P., & Yi Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94, doi: 10.1007/BF02723327.

Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 773–785, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0020084.

Bentler

P. M.

(1988) Theory and implementation of EQS: A structural equations program, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Beswick

J. F.

Sloat

E. A.

(2006) Early literacy success: A matter of social justice. Education Canada 46: 23–26.

Bourdieu

Passeron

(1990) Reproduction in education, society and culture, London: Sage.

Brophy

(2004) Motivating students to learn, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

10.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(eds) Testing structural equation models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 136–162.

11.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86, doi: 10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_4.

12.

Chiu, M. M., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2010). Culture, motivation, and reading achievement: High school students in 41 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 579–592, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.03.007.

13.

Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2010). Family and reading in 41 countries: Differences across cultures and students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14(6), 514–543, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/10888431003623520.

14.

De Graaf, N. D., De Graaf, P. M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2000). Parental culture capital and educational attainment in the Netherlands: A refinement of the culture capital perspective. Sociology of Education, 73(24), 92–111, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/2673239.

15.

Delia, B. B. J., & Applegate, J. (1995). The socialization of person-centered communication: Parents’ contributions to their children’s social-cognitive and communication skills. In M. Fitzpatrick, & A. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 34–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4135/9781483326368.n2.

16.

DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on the grades of US high school students. American Sociological Review, 47(2), 189–201, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/2094962.

17.

Ebert

E. S.

Culyer

R. C.

(2010) School: An introduction to education, Singapore: Wadsworth Publishing.

18.

Fan, W., Williams, C. M., & Wolters, C. A. (2012). Parental involvement in predicting school motivation: Similar and differential effects across ethnic groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(1), 21–35, doi: 10.1080/00220671.2010.515625.

19.

Froiland, J. M., Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2013). Relations among neighborhood social networks, home literacy environments, and children’s expressive vocabulary in suburban at-risk families. School Psychology International, 1–16, doi: 10.1177/0143034313500415.

20.

Gottfried, A. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525–538, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037//0022-0663.82.3.525.

21.

Gottfried, A. W., Cook, C. R., Gottfried, A. E., & Morris, P. E. (2005). Educational characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(2), 172–186, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/001698620504900206.

22.

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1998). Role of cognitively stimulating home environment in children’s academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 69(5), 1448−1460, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/1132277.

23.

Graves, Jr. S. L., & Wright, L. B. (2011). Parent involvement at school entry: A national examination of group differences and achievement. School Psychology International, 32(1), 35–48, doi:10.1177/0143034310396611.

24.

Guthrie, J. T., Coddington, C. S., & Wigfield, A. (2009). Profiles of motivation for reading among African American and Caucasian students. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(3), 317–353, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/10862960903129196.

25.

Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 282–313, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004.

26.

Guthrie

J. T.

McGough

Wigfield

(1994) A questionnaire measure of children’s motivations for reading, Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgia and Maryland College Park.

27.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232–246, doi: 10.3200/JOER.99.4.232-246.

28.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/10705519909540118.

29.

Iacobucci

(2008) Mediation analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Kaufman, J., & Gabler, J. (2004). Cultural capital and the extracurricular activities of girls and boys in the college attainment process. Poetics, 32(2), 145−168, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.poetic.2004.02.001.

31.

Kline

R. B.

(2010) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

32.

Lareau

(1989) Home advantage, New York, NY: Falmer.

33.

Lee, C. (2006). Every good-bye ain’t gone. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(3), 305−327, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/09518390600696729.

34.

Morgan, P. L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional Children, 73(2), 242165–255183. http://cec.metapress.com/content/LU166583HU064346.

35.

Ogbu

(2007) African American education: A cultural-ecological perspective. In: McAdoo

H. P.

(ed) Black families, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 79–94.

36.

Pan

B. A.

Perlmann

R. Y.

Snow

C. E.

(2000) Food for thought. In: Menn

Ratner

N. B.

(eds) Methods for studying language production, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 205–224.

37.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667.

38.

Pintrich

P. R.

Schunk

D. H.

(2002) Motivation in education: Theory, research and application, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

39.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3102/00346543063002167.

40.

Renninger

A. K.

(1992) Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and practice. In: Renninger

Hidi

(eds) Role of interest in learning and development, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 361–395.

41.

Renninger

A. K.

(2000) Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In: Sansone

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 373–404.

42.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

43.

Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257–279, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4.

44.

Smith

M. W.

Wilhelm

J. D.

(2002) Reading don’t fix no chevys: Literacy in the lives of young men, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

45.

Sullivan

(2002) Bourdieu and education: How useful is Bourdieu’s theory for researchers? Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences 38(2): 144–166.

46.

Sweet, A. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. (1998). Teacher perceptions and student reading motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 210–224, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037//0022-0663.90.2.210.

47.

Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(1), 85–106, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y.

48.

Tan, I. G. C., Sharan, S., & Lee, C. K. E. (2007). Group investigation effects on achievement, motivation, and perceptions of students in Singapore. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 142–154, doi: 10.3200/JOER.100.3.142-154.

49.

Toland, J., & Boyle, C. (2008). Applying cognitive behavioural methods to retrain children’s attributions for success and failure in learning. School Psychology International, 29(3), 286–302, doi: 10.1177/0143034308093674.

50.

Tramonte

Willms

J. D.

(2010) Cultural capital and its effects on education outcomes. Economics of Education Review 29: 200–213.

51.

Wang, J. H. Y., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between US and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162–186, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2.

52.

Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 59–68, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/s15326985ep3202_1.

53.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, 6(3) (pp. 933–1002). New York, NY: Wiley.

54.

Wigfield

Guthrie

J. T.

(1995) Dimensions of children’s motivations for reading: An initial study, Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.

55.

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(3), 420–432, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037//0022-0663.89.3.420.

56.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S, & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 299–310, doi: 10.3200/JOER.97.6.299-310.

57.

Zimdars, A., Sullivan, A., & Heath, A. (2009). Elite higher education admissions in the arts and sciences: Is cultural capital the key? Sociology, 43(4), 648−666, doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0038038509105413.