University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The adolescent learner's perspective on intensive literacy intervention curriculum

(USC Thesis Other)

The adolescent learner's perspective on intensive literacy intervention curriculum

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

The Adolescent Learner’s Perspective on Intensive Literacy Intervention Curriculum

by

Melanie Cox

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2019

2019 Melanie Cox

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

2
Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background 8
The Scope and Consequences of Adolescent Illiteracy 10
The Nature of Reading Difficulties for Older Students 12
Cultivating Student Voice for Struggling Adolescent Readers 16
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 19
Significance of the Study 20
Research Question 21
Theoretical Framework 21
Self-Determination Theory 21
Critical Pedagogy 22
Student Voice 23
Methodology 23
Summary 25
Operational Definitions of Key Terms 26
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature and Research 27
Scope, Consequences, and Nature of Adolescent Illiteracy 28
Literacy Intervention for Older Students 31
Design of the Language! Live Program 33
Word Training 34
Text Training 34
Defining Engagement 35
Self-Determination Theory 36
Supporting Autonomy 39
Supporting a Sense of Competence 40
Supporting a Sense of Relatedness. 42
How the Language! Live Program May Foster Self-Determination 44
Critical Pedagogy and Marginalized Student Populations 45
Critical Pedagogy as a Tool for Liberation 46
Student Voice Work 48
The Importance of Student Voice Work to Motivation 52
and Engagement
Summary 55
Chapter Three: Methodology 58
Design of the Study 59
Setting and Participants 60
Site Selection 60
Participants 62
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

3
Instrumentation and Data Collection 63
Semi-structured Interviews 63
Focus Group 66
Data Analysis. 67
Organizing and Preparing the Data for Analysis 67
Reading Through the Data 68
Coding. 68
Using the Coding Process to Generate Categories and Themes 69
Advancing The Description of Themes to Narrative Analysis 70
Interpreting the Findings 70
Enhancing the Trustworthiness of the Study 70
Internal Validity or Credibility 70
Reliability or Consistency 71
External Validity or Transferability 71
Limitations 72
Summary 72
Chapter Four: Findings 73
Design of the Language! Live Program 74
Word Training 75
Text Training 76
Theoretical Framework 76
Methodology 78
Setting, Participants, and Data Collection 78
Setting and Participants 78
Data Coding 81
Findings 84
How Language! Live May Foster Autonomy 85
Choice 85
Self-Paced Learning 89
How Language! Live May Foster Competence 91
Feeling Able 91
Feedback and Recognition 95
Feedback 95
Recognition 98
How Language! Live May Foster Relatedness 101
Social Support 101
Discussion of Ideas 103
Summary 106
Chapter Five: Discussion 108
Methodology 110
Discussion of Findings 111
Autonomy 111
Choice 112
Self-Paced Learning 113
Competence 115
Feeling Able 115
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

4
Feedback and Recognition 116
Feedback 116
Recognition 117
Relatedness 118
Social Support 118
Discussion of Ideas 119
Implications for Practice and Future Research 120
Implications for Practice 121
Foster Autonomy 121
Foster Competence 122
Foster a Sense of Relatedness 123
Implications for Future Research 124
Conclusion 125
References 127
Appendix A Recruiting Script 142
Appendix B Parental Assent Form 143
Appendix C Interview Guide 145

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

5
List of Tables

Table 1.1: Intensive Literacy Intervention Programs Adopted by California 15
Department of Education

Table 2.1: Intensive Literacy Intervention Programs Adopted by California 33
Department of Education

Table 4.1: Description of Participants and Lengths of Interviews 81
Table 4.2: Qualitative Findings Summary Table 83

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

6
List of Figures

Figure 2.1 The Self-Determination Continuum, Ryan and Deci (2000) 38

Figure 4.1 The Self-Determination Continuum, Ryan and Deci (2000) 77

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

7
Abstract
Struggling adolescent readers and writers who have a history of underachievement and
frustration with their lack of literacy attainment are especially prone to disengagement and
motivational issues (Gilson et al., 2018; Lovett et al., 2012). This qualitative study employs self-
determination theory as a framework for understanding how the motivational needs of struggling
middle school literacy learners are met through their participation in an intensive literacy
intervention program, Language! Live (Niemec & Ryan, 2009). The researcher interviewed 11
middle school students and conducted a single focus group session to allow the struggling
adolescent literacy learners in this study to describe their experiences in their own words. Data
collected during the interviews and focus group discussion was transcribed and analyzed
consistent with Creswell’s (2014) process of thematic content analysis and included both a
deductive and an inductive approach. The themes that emerged as a result of this process
revealed how the students’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are
met through structures, strategies, and tools embedded in the design of the Language! Live
program. The findings of this study can assist researchers and educators of struggling adolescent
literacy learners in understanding how to better design and implement intensive literacy
intervention programs in ways that promote students’ motivational needs and fosters their
engagement in learning.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The topic of intensive literacy intervention for adolescent students has increasingly
become a subject of inquiry in recent decades; however, there still exist areas in need of
exploration to better understand and improve the experiences and outcomes of adolescent
learners in need of remedial language arts instruction (Gilson, Beach, & Cleaver, 2018; Herrera
et al., 2016). Further study is particularly needed to understand how to improve the motivation
and engagement of struggling adolescent readers and writers participating in intensive literacy
intervention programs (Herrera et al., 2016; Gilson et al., 2018; Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009).
Many struggling adolescent literacy learners have a history of frustration due to their
underachievement in language arts and are especially prone to disaffection and issues of
disengagement (Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009; Melekoglu, 2011). The qualitative study
privileged the voices of struggling adolescent literacy learners to better understand how their
motivational needs were fostered through their participation in a commercially designed
intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live.
Background
Literacy is an essential competence for lifelong learning and a precondition for career
advancement and success in a knowledge-based economy. Being fully literate in today’s society
increases the possibilities of being autonomous, self-determinate, and agentive in one’s life and
in the larger world (Giroux & Giroux, 2004). In the 21
st
century, the concept of literacy can be
understood as the ability to read, write, understand, interpret, and discuss texts and ideas across
multiple contexts (Carnevale, Jayasundera, & Cheah, 2012). For adolescent students who
struggle with reading, writing, and/or expressing ideas, there is decreased likelihood of achieving
economic and professional success in today’s global marketplace (Haynes, 2011). The
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

9
consequences of poor literacy can be cumulative and profound, and because a lack of literacy
proficiency can negatively and severely impact the life choices of adolescents and adults,
adolescent literacy can be considered a human rights issue that warrants attention and further
study (Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009).
Though the body of knowledge on the most effective methods of addressing the needs of
struggling adolescent readers and writers (those students in grades 4–12 performing significantly
below grade level language arts) has grown over the past two decades, there still exist many
aspects of adolescent literacy that are yet to be fully explored (Calhoun & Petscher, 2013;
Jacobs, 2008). Experts in the field of reading research, however, are in general agreement on the
guiding principles of effective literacy instruction for struggling adolescent readers and writers
(Morris et al., 2012; Vaughan & Fletcher, 2012). These guiding tenets include, but are not
limited to, a focus on teaching higher-level thinking skills and strategies coupled with systematic
instruction in foundational literacy skills, vocabulary, and fluency (Morris et al., 2012).
Researchers have also highlighted the importance of increasing motivation and student
engagement for struggling adolescent literacy learners, especially since many older students have
adopted maladaptive behaviors that often manifest as reluctance to fully participate in literacy
activities (Lovett, Lacerenza, De Palma, & Frijters, 2012). Since motivation and engagement are
critical to the participation and success of adolescents in literacy intervention programs, it is
important to better understand how their motivational needs are being met by the curriculum and
programs used to accelerate their literacy so that curriculum developers and educators can create,
modify, and adapt curriculum to meet the needs and interests of this specific population of
learners.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

10
There is a lack of literature, however, that incorporates the struggling adolescent literacy
learner’s perspective on the curriculum and programs in which they participate (Elish-Piper &
Tatum, 2006; Wendt, 2013). Despite growing attention to the problem of adolescent literacy, the
voice of the struggling adolescent reader herself is often absent. Feedback and critiques from
students can serve as rich sources of data to understand how literacy intervention curriculum can
better foster the motivational needs of adolescent students and can be used by educators to shape
their learning experiences. This study was designed to privilege the voices of struggling
adolescent literacy learners by eliciting their feedback and perspectives on the literacy
intervention curriculum used to instruct them in an effort to understand how their motivational
needs were fostered through their participation in the Language! Live program.
The Scope and Consequences of Adolescent Illiteracy
There is mounting concern that many adolescent students are not prepared to meet the
literacy challenges of school and life in the increasingly complex global economy (Fagella-Luby,
Ware, & Capozzoli, 2009). Data provided by the National Assessment for Educational Progress
(NAEP) revealed that fewer than 38% of adolescents in the United States are deemed
“proficient” in reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). In California, data from
statewide standardized measures of literacy achievement suggest that many California
adolescents also struggle in the area of language arts, as fewer than 50% of eighth-grade students
and fewer than 60% of 11
th
-grade students met or exceeded literacy proficiency standards per the
2017 administration of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
(CAASPP, 2017). The issue of adolescent illiteracy is even more marked for high-poverty
students and for students of color (Lee, Griggs, & Donahue, 2007).
There exist long-observed and persistent literacy achievement gaps by race, gender, and
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

11
social class in the United States and in California specifically, with students of color and
economically disadvantaged students performing the least well on measures of literacy
attainment (CAASPP, 2017; Lee et al., 2007; NCES, 2017). Fewer than 37% of eighth-grade
Latino students and less than 32% of African American students in California scored at or above
a level of proficiency in language arts on the CAASPP (2017). The percentage of economically
disadvantaged California students who met or exceeded language arts proficiency standards was
thirty-six (CAASPP, 2017). For minoritized and economically disadvantaged adolescents, a lack
of competence in reading, writing, listening, and speaking often consigns them to lower status on
literacy achievement hierarchies in schools and in society at-large, which serves to further
marginalize them.
Literacy attainment, then, can also be understood in the ways that it privileges certain
groups over others (Giroux, 1992). Students deemed to be at the bottom tiers of the literacy
hierarchy are at greater risk of experiencing negative outcomes both in and out of school. Those
who fail English in middle and/or high school, for instance, are significantly less likely to
graduate from high school on time (Balfanz & Herzog, 2006). Not only does a lack of
proficiency in reading and writing negatively impact students’ academic choices and
performance in secondary schools, it has also been cited by students as the main reason for
dropping out of high school (Snow & Biancura, 2003). Oftentimes, students who are relegated to
the ranks of the struggling are alienated and further limited in having autonomy and choice in
their academic decision-making; thus, these students may also be referred to as “marginalized”
literacy learners due their positioning in schools as less likely to matriculate at four-year
universities and achieve professional success after high school (Anderson, Stewart, &
Kachorsky, 2017; Moje, Young, Readence, & Moore, 2000).
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

12
Findings also suggest a link between low literacy attainment and an increased risk of
incarceration and encounters with the criminal justice system (Martin & Beese, 2017). Of the
approximately 93,000 minors incarcerated in detention and correctional centers in the United
States, there is a disproportionate rate of illiteracy and students experiencing reading difficulties
(Music, 2012). In fact, data suggest that up to 80% of adjudicated youth are functionally illiterate
(Music, 2012).
Although the framing of literacy crises in schools is socially contested, as fears of such
crises often mask deeper societal and moral issues, it is important to improve the literacy
attainment of adolescents whose lack of literacy achievement may negatively impact their future
success (Fagella-Luby et al., 2008). The implications of low literacy attainment are vast and may
include the delimiting of professional opportunities and social mobility, as well as the increased
risk of adjudication. These implications are often compounded for those who may already be
disenfranchised due to ethnicity, social class, or disability status. Due to the detrimental effects
that being marginalized for lack of literacy have on students’ opportunities for success both in
and outside of school, it is important to better understand what constitutes effective intensive
literacy curriculum that serves to engage, motivate, and empower struggling and marginalized
adolescent literacy learners (Anderson et al., 2017).
The Nature of Reading Difficulties and Literacy Intervention for Adolescents
Literacy is a dynamic construct, and the reasons why many adolescents struggle with
reading, writing, listening and/or speaking are diverse and complex (Lesaux, 2012). Some of the
reasons that help to explain why older students, those in grades 4–12, are not successful by
institutional standards in the language arts include a lack of foundational literacy skills, English-
learner status, learning disabilities, as well as sociocultural explanations, including lack of
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

13
student motivation, engagement, and sense of self-efficacy (Kavanaugh & Rainey, 2017).
Adolescent students deemed less-than-proficient literacy learners, whether due to
assessment results or other criteria that carry significant currency in educational policy and
practice, are often referred to by educators as “struggling” or “at-risk” of failure (Franzak, 2006).
The terms “struggling” and “at-risk” are generally reserved for those students who are
considered to be two or more years below grade level in language arts based on institutional
standards, such as standardized measures of literacy, district benchmarks of reading and writing,
curriculum-embedded and teacher-created formative assessments, and/or annual state-mandated
tests.
Common to most adolescents who read and write at a level that would require intensive
instructional support (typically performing two or more years below grade level) is the need to
continue instruction in word study, either at the basic or advanced level (Lovett, Barron, &
Frijters, 2013), as well as the need to receive sustained and intensive instruction in vocabulary,
fluency, comprehension, and writing skills and strategies (Calhoon, Sandow, & Hunter, 2010).
Regardless of the reason(s) for their low performance in the language arts, many adolescents
who are poor readers and writers may require evidence-based literacy intervention curriculum
that is motivating and engaging for the adolescent learner. Struggling adolescent readers and
writers can benefit greatly from learning curriculum that is specifically designed to intensify and
accelerate literacy instruction so that they can accelerate progress toward closing the gap in
literacy with their peers (Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012).
There is a growing body of research that suggest that struggling adolescent readers and
writers can markedly improve their literacy attainment if they receive systemic, explicit, direct,
and targeted literacy intervention instruction that is age-appropriate and engaging (De Palma,
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

14
Lacerenza, De Palma, & Frijters, 2012). Blended curricular programs, those incorporating
computer-assisted instruction that incorporates these key literacy components, for example, have
yielded encouraging results (Cheung & Slavin, 2011). Recommendations for improving the
literacy achievement of adolescents include a strong emphasis on addressing issues of student
motivation engagement in the development of intervention programs, thus it is important to
consider these factors when developing and implementing literacy intervention programs (Kamil,
Borman, Dole, Kral, Salinger, & Torgesen, 2008).
Adolescent students identified as struggling readers and writers often receive
interventions or are remediated in a broad range of settings and with a variety of programs and
curriculum. In some schools, struggling readers and writers participate in the core or general
education classes and are expected to learn grade-level language arts curriculum with or without
strategic support from the classroom teacher. Some identified struggling readers and writers
participate in ongoing literacy remediation courses with teachers or tutors using modified
curriculum or strategies, either as elective courses or in after-school or summer-school settings
(Vaughn and Fletcher, 2012). And, some struggling readers and writers participate in more
structured, comprehensive, research-based intervention programs, which may be “double-
blocked” for two class periods (or at least 90 minutes of instruction), during which students learn
curriculum that is specifically designated as intensive literacy intervention. Adolescent students
who are learning disabled may also be considered struggling literacy learners and may receive
intensive instruction in an SDC (Special Day Class) setting or RSP (Resource Specialist
Program) setting, or may be mainstreamed into a general education setting for literacy instruction
(Higgins Averill & Rinaldi, 2013).
Although the outcomes of commercial literacy intervention programs for older students
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

15
have been mixed, in 2015, the California Department of Education formally sanctioned and
adopted five intensive literacy intervention programs grounded in relevant and recent research
findings on adolescent literacy that may serve as intensive intervention pathways to support the
needs of students in grades four and up whose academic performance in English language arts is
two or more years below grade level (California Department of Education, 2015). These
programs are based on the most recent and relevant research on adolescent literacy and
incorporate the use of technology in some capacity. Table 1.1 includes a listing of the programs
that were adopted the California Department of Education in 2015 to serve as intensive literacy
intervention for adolescent learners.
Table 1.1
Intensive Literacy Intervention Programs Adopted by California Department of Education
Program Title Publisher
FLEX Literacy McGraw Hill School Education
Inside
National Geographic
Learning/Cengage
Language! Live Voyager Sopris Learning
CA Pearson iLit Pearson Education
California Read 180 Universal System HMH Intervention Solutions

Language! Live is one of the programs approved by the California Department of
Education to provide intensive literacy support for older students. Language! Live was the
curriculum used by the participants in this study who were asked to provide their perspectives on
varying aspects of the program in order to better understand how their motivational needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness were fostered through their participation in this program.
Language! Live is a blended technology program grounded in part in self-determination
theory, which maintains that the facilitation of autonomy, competence, and relatedness promotes
motivation and engagement, and thus increased performance (Deci & Ryan, 2015; Moats et al.,
n.d.). In the context of educational settings, self-determination theory maintains that when
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

16
students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and a sense of relatedness are fostered, they are more
likely to be intrinsically motivated to engage in learning (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). One of the
goals of this study was to determine the extent to which student participants feel a sense of
agency and control (autonomy), believe that they are able to succeed (competence), and feel a
connection to others (relatedness) when participating in the Language! Live program.
Cultivating Student Voice for Struggling Adolescent Readers
Some contend that by adolescence many struggling literacy learners have already
constructed identities as “nonreaders,” which further delimits their potential to grow into fully
literate students (Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009). Many older students who have been
unsuccessful in reading and/or writing have carried these labels for most of their school-age
years, and their perceptions of themselves as remedial readers and writers have been reinforced
throughout their earlier years in school (Salinger, 2011). Adolescent students who have a history
of failure and frustration with their lack of success in the language arts are especially prone to
motivation and engagement issues, which may further contribute to their lack of self-efficacy in
reading and writing (Moats, 2010). These students may have adopted maladaptive behaviors,
such as “fake reading” and avoidance, and their lack of engagement can further inhibit their
potential for literacy growth and closure of the achievement gap in language arts (Kokik &
Novosel, 2014).
For adolescent students to be motivated to engage in classroom instruction, they must
first be interested to do so, and this tenet is especially true for “struggling” readers and writers
whose previous lack of success in the language arts has negatively impacted their self-efficacy
beliefs (Brophy, 1999). It can be said that student engagement is the mediating factor in
classroom instruction that is most influential to student outcomes and that when students are
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

17
disengaged, they tend to lose interest and underperform (Alvermann, 2001). Jere Brophy (1999)
encouraged educators and researchers to focus less on ability and expectancy beliefs and more on
the value aspects of motivation and asserted that by examining classroom environments that
students find to be engaging, educators could better understand how to promote student
motivation and foster engagement. As such, in addition to providing explicit skill and strategy
instruction for struggling adolescent readers and writers, enhancing motivation and engagement
should be a focus of educators and researchers because improving students’ motivation and
engagement holds promise for improving the effectiveness of literacy interventions at the
secondary level (Melekoglu, 2011).
Cultivating student voice in the classroom has been proposed as a strategy to improve
motivation and engagement for students, which may in turn have positive implications for
enhancing the motivation and self-determination of adolescent students who are often
marginalized due to their literacy deficits. The concept of “student voice” is borne from the
seminal work of Goodlad (1984) whose vast contributions to the field of education include
research on student perceptions of curriculum. Student voice activity can now be thought of as
the promotion of student agency and to the creation of practices, programs, and policies that
center around students’ needs and interests (Toshalis & Nokkula, 2012). Having a voice in how
an activity or lesson is designed and implemented can greatly enhance students’ motivation and
engagement and listening to student voices can help educators to minimize resistance behaviors
for struggling adolescent readers and writers (Toshalis & Nokkula, 2012; Borjian & Padilla,
2010).
Remedial adolescent literacy instruction, however, has traditionally operated from a
deficit model perspective wherein the purpose of teaching has been to input literacy skills into
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

18
the empty vessel that is the struggling student (Borjian & Padilla, 2010). Despite the fact that
students are the primary stakeholders in their education, they typically have the least influence
and control in its design and implementation (Borjian & Padilla, 2010). Soliciting and
privileging student voice in the evaluation and design of literacy intervention program is a prime
opportunity for educators to co-construct curriculum and experiences that serve to motivate and
engage the adolescent reader and writer. Their voices can shed light on how best to engage them
in their learning and can help educators and researchers understand if and how their programs
foster a sense of agency (autonomy), provide opportunities for them to feel able and successful
(competence), and allow them to feel connected to their peers and teachers (relatedness).
Statement of the Problem
Due to their history of underachievement in the language arts, many struggling
adolescent readers and writers, those students in grades 4–12 deemed to be working significantly
below grade level in language arts, are especially prone to disengagement and motivational
issues (Lovett et al., 2012; Moats, n.d.). Struggling adolescent literacy learners are in need of
research-based intensive literacy intervention programs that are specifically designed to motivate
and engage the older student (Kim, Hemphill, Troyer, Thomson, Jones, Larusso, & Donovan,
2017). Due to their positioning within literacy hierarchies in schools, however, struggling
adolescent literacy learners are less likely to be solicited for their perspectives on the literacy
intervention programs and curriculum used to instruct them (Franzak, 2006; Lenters, 2006; Saal
& Sulentic Dowell, 2014). Struggling adolescent readers and writers are often marginalized due
to their lack of academic success, and their voices may be deliberately or unintentionally
excluded because their voices and identities do not align with traditional school structures or
definitions of scholarly success (Anderson et al., 2017; Lenters, 2006). This is problematic
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

19
because the adolescent literacy learner’s perspective on the intensive literacy intervention
curriculum that they are learning can serve a rich source of data that can be used to understand
how to better foster their motivational needs. This data can be used to inform the design and
implementation of literacy intervention curriculum, as well as the professional development of
teachers of struggling adolescent readers and writers.
Purpose of the Study
In light of the importance and need to engage struggling adolescent readers and writers as
active participants in shaping their literacy education, it is useful for educators to better
understand the factors that contribute to student engagement, motivation, and effort in literacy
intervention programs from the perspective of the adolescent student. The purpose of this study
was to employ semistructured interviews and a focus group to explore the perspectives of
struggling adolescent literacy learners in an effort to understand how their motivational needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met by their participation in the intensive literacy
intervention program, Language! Live. By hearing from the voices of adolescent students,
educators may better understand how to design, modify, and implement intensive literacy
intervention programs that are motivating and engaging for older students.
Student voice work, and more specifically the usage of one-on-one student interviews
and a student focus group, is an appropriate tool for engaging in this work for a variety of
reasons. It affirms that children have the right to have a voice in matters that affect them and
works toward changing power dynamics by providing a platform for student voices that are often
disenfranchised to be heard (Anderson et al., 2017). More pragmatically, involving students in
the design and/or implementation of curricular programs has the potential to improve the
relevance of curriculum.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

20
This study also employed a critical pedagogical perspective to prioritize student voice in
an effort to understand how to motivate and engage struggling adolescent literacy learners whose
voices are often marginalized due to their positioning on literacy hierarchies within schools, as
well as how best to incorporate such feedback into the design, modification, and implementation
of intensive literacy intervention curriculum and professional development for teachers.
Significance of the Study
Adolescent literacy instruction has increasingly become a topic of inquiry among
researchers for the past several decades, and much of these research findings have informed the
development of literacy intervention programs designed specifically for this older population of
struggling literacy learners (Herrera, Truckenmiller, & Foorman, 2016). In the state of
California, the Department of Education has adopted several intensive intervention programs
specifically designed to meet the needs of “struggling adolescent readers,” including blended
technology curriculum, that are currently being implemented with struggling adolescent readers
and writers in various settings in many California schools (CDE, 2015).
Despite the increased attention given to adolescent literacy in the past few decades,
however, there are still many areas in need of exploration in order to better understand and
address the issue of adolescent illiteracy, including the examination of the students’ perspectives
on their experiences in intensive literacy intervention programs in relation to how their
motivational needs are being met (Herrera, Truckenmiller, & Foorman, 2016). Further study in
this area may provide insight into students’ relevant contextual experiences that are associated
with motivation and engagement. Understanding how their needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness are being supported in these programs has implications for the design, revision, and
implementation of existing and future interventions developed for the purpose of improving the
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

21
literacy attainment, and ultimately the economic and personal advancement, of “at-risk” and
marginalized adolescent readers and writers.
Research Question
How does the intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live, foster adolescent
literacy learners’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness?
The answer(s) to this question has the potential of influencing and/or strengthening the
design and implementation of intensive literacy intervention curriculum for struggling adolescent
readers and writers.
Theoretical Framework
This study was framed, in part, using a critical pedagogical perspective and draws upon
student voice work to privilege student voice, via one-on-one interviews and a student focus
group discussion, in an effort to understand the adolescent literacy learner’s experience
participating in intensive literacy intervention and to better understand how their motivational
needs were being met. This study employed self-determination theory, a macrotheory of human
motivation, as a framework for understanding how motivation influences engagement (Niemec
& Ryan, 2009). Because self-determination theory is concerned with motivational processes, it is
appropriate for understanding the learning experiences and educational outcomes of students
with learning challenges (Deci & Chandler, 1986).
Self-Determination Theory
Self-determination theory is a macrotheory of human motivation that maintains that
people have fundamental psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci
& Ryan, 2002). Self-determination theory assumes that in educational settings that foster these
needs and wherein students feel that they have control over their learning, believe that they are
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

22
able to succeed, and feel a sense of connection to others, “they are more likely to internalize their
motivation to learn and to be more autonomously engaged” in their learning (Niemec & Ryan,
2009, p.139). Thus, they are more likely to be self-determined (Niemec & Ryan, 2009).
Critical Pedagogy
Paolo Freire’s conceptualization of critical pedagogy draws upon previous liberatory
movements and thinking about the role of education in promoting social transformation (Freire,
1970; Cook-Sather, 2007). Freire challenged dominant perspectives on education and introduced
a progressive method in changing the educational system and subsequently curriculum planning.
In his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970) asserted that the traditional
“banking” model of learning in which students are treated as empty vessels unto whom educators
must deposit knowledge is dehumanizing as it negates learning as a process of inquiry and
engagement. According to Freire (1970), without inquiry and praxis one cannot truly be human.
In the banking model, the student is a passive actor or “object” whose ignorance justifies the
teacher’s existence (Freire, 1970, p. 54). As such, the traditional banking model of education
often serves as a paternalistic structure to domesticate students and to limit their conscientization,
training them to take their given positions within the existing social order (Freire, 1998).
In contrast, Freire positions a critical educator as one who does not confuse her or his
professional authority with the concept of authority of knowledge. A critical educator is one who
works toward mutual humanization and understands that they must become partners with their
students in the process of learning (Freire, 1970). Based on his ideas on learning and curriculum
planning, the student is considered as the center point of education and should be an active
participant in selecting and evaluating educational content.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

23
Student Voice
The student voice movement arose as a sort of backlash against conventional views about
the place of young people in schools and in society, who traditionally were excluded from
participatory dialogue about their education (Fielding, 2010; Thiessen & Cook-Sather, 2007).
Alison Cook-Sather (2006) has written extensively on the concept of student voice work and has
advocated for repositioning students in educational reform and research. Cook-Sather asserts that
students have unique perspectives on their educational experiences and that their insights deserve
responsive action from educators (2007). The educational community, then, should not make
assumptions about the interests and preferences of the student but should take into account the
vantage point of the students as stated in their own words.
Students deemed “at-risk” are often marginalized due to their lower status in schools and
often lack formal institutional power. These students are even less likely to be asked for input or
feedback on their curriculum and programs (Toshula & Nakkula, 2012). Research suggests that
when students are given a choice and asked for input into the design of their activities and
programs, motivation, engagement, as well as achievement, are likely to increase, especially for
marginalized students (Borjian & Padilla, 2010). Student voice work holds the potential for
understanding the perspectives of typically underachieving students and improving their
programs and learning.
Methodology
This study was concerned with understanding the perspectives of the study participants,
not the researcher’s; thus, qualitative methodology was the most appropriate tool for seeking
answers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative research is most appropriate for understanding
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

24
how humans interpret their own experiences. In a qualitative study, the researcher acts as the
primary instrument for data collection and analysis.
In this study, data was collected via 11 semi-structured interviews and a focus group with
adolescent students enrolled in an ethnically, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse
middle school in Southern California who were participating in the Language! Live program.
Self-selected student participants were chosen based on the following criteria: that they were
placed into the Language! Live program based on literacy achievement assessments indicating
that they were working significantly below grade level; that they were not classified as
Newcomers nor Emergent English Learners; and they were adolescent students. The students in
this study were drawn from two classrooms, one of which was an eighth-grade SDC class and
the other was a sixth-grade class comprised of both RSP students and regular education students
in need of intensive literacy intervention.
An interview guide consisting of questions and probes was used to structure the one-on-
one interviews. The questions and probes were posed to explore the students’ perspectives on the
intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live, in an effort to understand how their
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, were being fostered by participating in this
program. The subsequent focus group was comprised of four of the original interviewees and
was structured to include themes that began to emerge from the one-on-one interviews and
included fewer, more open-ended questions and probes.
Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic content
analysis method was employed to analyze interview and focus group transcript data using both
an inductive (emerging directly from student responses) and a deductive (using a priori codes)
approach to find common themes across the data set (Creswell, 2009). Since the program used
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

25
by the participants of the study, Language! Live, is rooted in part in self-determination theory,
key constructs of self-determination theory (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) were used
to generate interview questions, as well as a priori codes and themes for analyzing data.
Ethical considerations are critical to ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As such, several features were included in the study design to ensure
that the tenets of ethical research were maintained. Access and entry to the study site and
participants was gained through the appropriate gatekeepers, including the site principal and
district administration. IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval was sought and granted by the
University of Southern California before the commencement of the study. Informed and signed
consent was acquired from self-selected study participants and their parents. The researcher
ensured confidentiality throughout, as names of participants, schools, and locations were
changed to ensure anonymity.
Summary
Literacy is a vehicle for academic, social, and financial success in a global economy and
can also be viewed as a tool for emancipation for those who may be marginalized (Freire, 1970;
Saal & Sulentic Dowell, 2014). Because a lack of literacy attainment can create barriers to
opportunity and success, it is important to further study struggling adolescent literacy learners
and the intervention programs that are available to teach them. This study employed a critical
pedagogical perspective to privilege the voice of adolescent literacy learners through student
interviews and a focus group and employed self-determination theory as a framework for
understanding how their motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness were
fostered through their participation in the intensive literacy intervention program used to instruct
them, Language! Live. The results of this study can provide educators, curriculum developers,
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

26
and researchers insight into how best to design and implement literacy intervention programs
that satisfy students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness so that the educational
outcomes of struggling adolescent literacy learners may be improved.
Operational Definitions of Key Terms
Intensive Literacy Intervention Curriculum- a program specifically designed to meet the needs of
students working significantly below grade level standard in language arts
Struggling, At-Risk, or Marginalized Literacy Learner- any student in grade 4–12, regardless of
disability status, who may struggle with reading, writing, and/or the oral expression of ideas and
opinions; and who is typically working two or more years below grade level in language arts
(Jacobs, 2008)
Student Voice- the perspective and actions of young students within the context of learning and
education (Toshalis & Nokkula, 2012)

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

27
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the perspectives of struggling
adolescent readers and writers toward the intensive literacy intervention curriculum used to
accelerate their literacy growth, Language! Live, and to better understand how the program
fosters students’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Because
motivation and engagement are critical to the successful implementation of literacy intervention
programs and to the academic growth of students, it is important to better understand how
adolescent students conceptualize their engagement in the intensive literacy intervention
curriculum used to instruct them (Gilson et al., 2018). Students labeled “at-risk” and/or
“struggling” adolescent readers and writers are often relegated to lower status on literacy
hierarchies within schools, and their perspectives and feedback are not often taken into
consideration when developing, modifying, or implementing literacy intervention curriculum and
programs (Borjian & Padilla, 2010). This study privileged the student voice in an effort to
understand how aspects of a literacy intervention curriculum support adolescent learners’ needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the hope that this information can be used to
inform the modification, implementation, and development of curricular programs designed to
accelerate the literacy acquisition of this population of students. This study was significant
because there is a dearth of research and literature that accounts for the perspectives of struggling
adolescent literacy learners, especially those attending schools in diverse and multicultural
settings (Jun, Ramirez, Cumming, Cumming-Potvin, & MacCalllum, 2010).
This chapter provides an introduction to the scope, consequences, and nature of
adolescent illiteracy, as well as a review of relevant literature on the conceptual and theoretical
underpinnings of the study: self-determination theory, critical pedagogy, and student voice work
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

28
to better understand how best to support struggling adolescent readers and writers. This chapter
also provides an overview of the design of Language! Live, the intensive literacy intervention
program in which the students in this study were participating.
The Scope, Consequences, and Nature of Adolescent Illiteracy
For decades the predominant focus among literacy experts and researchers was on early
literacy in the primary grades, but more recently there has been growing concern that many
adolescent students are not prepared to meet the literacy challenges they will face in their
academic and personal lives. It can be said that there is reason for concern, as fewer than 40% of
adolescent students demonstrated proficiency on the most recent administration of the NAEP,
with approximately 28% unable to demonstrate even a basic level of grade-level literacy
attainment (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). More alarming perhaps, it is
estimated that approximately 21% of learning-disabled students are working at least five years
below grade level in language arts by the time they enter high school (National Center for
Special Education Research, 2015).
For older students, the consequences of not reading and writing well are often cumulative
and significant, and can impact their academic, social, and professional growth (Kamil et al.,
2008). In addition to underperformance in school, these students are more prone to socio-
emotional consequences, including decreased motivation and sense of self-efficacy (Wigfield &
Cambria, 2010). Long-term, the lack of literacy proficiency can act as a barrier to graduation
from high school and college, is associated with underemployment and unemployment, and can
make the management of one’s personal life problematic (Carnevale et al., 2012). Graff (2011)
posits that “illiteracy is stigma” (p. 24), implying that many who struggle to become fully literate
also cope with being stigmatized for being less productive and less worthy, as this label is
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

29
closely associated with being poor and marginalized in society (Harendita, 2016). Because of the
consequences of low literacy attainment, both academic and personal, that face struggling
adolescent literacy learners, it is important that the need for engaging and evidence-based
literacy interventions be addressed, and not merely left as the responsibility of elementary
teachers (Pitcher, Martinez, Diciembre, Fewster, & McCormick, 2010).
The reasons why many older students struggle with reading and writing are diverse and
complex. Some of these students have identified learning or behavioral disabilities, a lack of
fluency and/or familiarity with the English language, and some may not have received quality
literacy instruction in earlier grades (Salinger, 2011). Additionally, many students who might
have been considered “at-risk” of not adequately acquiring literacy skills and strategies may not
have been identified for literacy intervention services and programs in the early elementary
school years, then arrive in the upper grades in desperate need of literacy support (Speece et al.,
2010).
Many of these older struggling readers and writers have developed coping and
maladaptive behaviors over the years in order to “get by” in class and to distract from their lack
of literacy proficiency (Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009). Some of these behaviors include fake
reading, task avoidance, copying, and creating behavioral distractions. Struggling readers who
have experienced a history of academic failure due to their difficulties with literacies are more
likely to become resistant or reluctant readers who may withhold effort and disengage from the
learning process out of frustration or a sense of defeat (Lenters, 2006; Dierking, 2015). These
behaviors exemplified by many struggling adolescent literacy learners are consistent with Albert
Bandura’s social learning and social cognitive theories (1986), which suggest that one’s lack of
motivation is often the result of one’s self-efficacy related to a task or activity. It follows that, in
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

30
addition to struggling with specific literacy skills and strategies necessary to become fully
literate, by the time many of these students enter the upper and secondary grades, they also
struggle with motivation issues.
A lack of motivation and engagement among struggling adolescent literacy learners
further complicates the question of how best to accelerate the literacy acquisition of these
students and must be factored in to the conversation among educators and researchers. In a
practice brief issued by the Center on Instruction by the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and
Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin, instructional recommendations for
improving literacy outcomes for adolescents were organized into five important areas: word
study, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and motivation (Boardman, Vaughn, Wexler,
Murray, & Kosanovich, 2008). Due to the increased challenges of engaging and motivating
adolescent students, motivation was designated as a separate and distinct area of focus for
improving outcomes for older readers and writers.
What Works Clearinghouse, an investment of the Institute of Education Sciences within
the U.S. Department of Education, has also provided five key instructional components that are
recommended for improving literacy among adolescent students (Kamil et al., 2008). These
recommendations are grounded in research and include the following: provide explicit
instruction in vocabulary and usage of academic language, provide explicit and direct
comprehension strategy instruction, provide opportunities for extended and deep discussion of
text meaning and interpretation, make intensive interventions available for struggling literacy
learners, and increase student motivation and engagement. In support of their recommendation to
increase student motivation and engagement, the authors cite the importance of making literacy
activities more relevant to students’ interests, to understanding what adolescent students believe
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

31
to be most relevant and interesting, and to use this information to design instructional
experiences that are more engaging for students (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006; Kamil et al., 2008).
This study built upon this recommendation by attempting to understand student motivation and
engagement, but in the context of the struggling literacy learner’s experience as a participant in
an intensive literacy intervention program.
Literacy Intervention for Older Students
The literature suggest that it is not too late to improve literacy outcomes for adolescents
who struggle with literacy (Faggella-Luby & Deshler, 2008). Older students working
significantly below grade level in language arts are a heterogeneous group. While the nature of
their literacy issues may vary, most will require more intensive instructional literacy support.
There is evidence to suggest that adolescent students can make significant progress in literacy
attainment by receiving direct, explicit, and systematic instruction in targeted literacy skills and
strategies (Lovett, Lacerenza, De Palma, & Frijters, 2012). Struggling adolescent literacy
learners, those working significantly below grade level in language arts, will require greater
instructional intensity in literacy, which may be characterized by explicit modeling, guided
practice with corrective feedback, and independent practice (Faggella-Luby et al., 2009). Many
may also require explicit instruction in phonological awareness, decoding and encoding, and
sight-word recognition, skills that are more typically acquired during the primary grades (Reed &
Vaughn, 2010).
There currently exist many commercial programs designed to meet the specific needs of
struggling adolescent readers and writers. In 2015, the California Department of Education
formally adopted five literacy intervention programs, designated under the category of Program
4, that California public school districts may adopt and implement with struggling older readers.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

32
These programs are currently being implemented in districts throughout the state for students in
grades 4–12, including special education students participating in special day classes or resource
settings, as well as regular education students in need of literacy intervention. As outlined in the
California Department of Education Adoption Toolkit (2015), these programs are designed to
provide
[a]n accelerated, intensive intervention pathway that supports the needs of
students in grades 4–8 whose academic performance, including proficiency in
English language arts and literacy in reading and writing, is two or more years
below grade level. This program could be used as a temporary replacement core
where students are nonreaders in the first- or second-grade level as evidenced in a
broad set of measures…. The materials in this program are designed for students
to gain two grade levels for each year of instruction while providing a rich
curriculum supporting the five themes: meaning-making, language development,
effective expression, content knowledge, and foundational skills. (pp. 75-76)
Table 2.1 includes a listing of the programs that were adopted by the California Department of
Education in 2015 to serve as intensive literacy intervention for adolescent learners.

Table 2.1
Intensive Literacy Intervention Programs Adopted by the California Department of Education
Program Title Publisher
FLEX Literacy McGraw Hill School Education
Inside
National Geographic
Learning/Cengage
LANGUAGE! Live California Voyager Sopris Learning
CA Pearson iLit Pearson Education
California Read 180 Universal System HMH Intervention Solutions

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

33
Given the evidence of the potential of technology integration in the improvement of reading
achievement for students, especially those in need of foundational skill instruction provided in a
private setting, it is appropriate that each of the programs on the adoption list incorporates
technology in substantive ways (Torgesen et al., 2010).
Design of the Language! Live Program
Language! Live California is one of the programs identified on the California state
curriculum adoption list and is the program implemented with the students who were the focus of
this study. Language! Live is a blended, hybrid literacy intervention program that incorporates
two main components: Word Training and Text Training (Moats et al., n.d.). The program was
specifically designed for adolescent students in grades 4–12 who are performing significantly
below grade level in language arts and literacy, and the aim of the program is to accelerate
students’ literacy growth over approximately four semesters when implemented daily for
approximately 90 minutes. By participating daily in both Word Training, which focuses on
foundational skills, and Text Training, wherein the focus is on advanced skills and strategies,
including comprehension and writing, students are theoretically exposed to all of the critical
literacy strands needed to accelerate their growth to at least an eighth-grade level by completion
of the program (Moats et al., n.d.). It is recommended that the students be placed into the
program based on standardized measures of literacy. These measures are provided by the
program and include a Lexile exam, an assessment of encoding, or spelling ability, as well a test
of contextual reading fluency, and educators are provided with suggested entry points for each
student that provides optimally challenging literacy instruction based on their results.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

34
Word Training
The Word Training component of the program is delivered via a web-based platform
where students work independently to learn foundational literacy skills, including encoding and
decoding, at the basic, intermediate, or morphological level. The focus of the Word Training
component is primarily on explicit language instruction, including phonological awareness, a
broad skill that includes the awareness and manipulation of units of oral language, and word
recognition, including the reading and spelling of words and word parts (Moats, 2010; Moats et
al., n.d.). The design of the Word Training component of Language! Live was influenced by
research suggesting that computer-adapted technology instruction can be a powerful and more
precise tool for delivering instruction and providing feedback in the learning of foundational
skills, including phonemic awareness, phonics, and morphology (Torgeson et al., 2010).
Word Training takes place online, where students are expected to spend approximately
half of their instructional session (or 45–50 minutes) working independently at their own pace to
learn foundational literacy skills before being exposed to more advanced word study skill
instruction, if necessary (Moats et al., n.d.). In word study, instruction is systematic, incremental,
and cumulative and is delivered in part via video tutorials and skits that feature teenage actors
and actresses, as well as adult teachers (Moats, et al., n.d.). Additional learning experiences
include online reading practice, computer-adapted review, and practice of isolated skills,
recorded oral readings that can be reviewed by peers and teachers for feedback, and arcade-style
sight-word recognition games.
Text Training
The Text Training component of the program is designed to be taught by a teacher in a
small group setting wherein students learn and practice higher-level literacy skills and strategies
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

35
using more complex text, including close reading strategies, writing, grammar, listening, and
speaking. More specifically, Text Training includes close readings of age-appropriate text in
thematic units, vocabulary instruction, incremental instruction of grammar and syntax, and
written and oral expression and discussion relevant to the thematic units and readings (Moats et
al., n.d.). Text Training is meant to be delivered in-person, but includes online supplemental
features, such as the class wall on which students can engage in discussions about textual themes
and/or respond to teacher prompts, online practice activities to support practice of learned skills,
as well as a virtual library including interactive reading selections organized by Lexile levels
where students can read independently for pleasure.
Defining Engagement
The concept of engagement has emerged as a key contributor to the success of students in
school and beyond and increasing the motivation and engagement of adolescent literacy learners
is especially important given the noticeable and documented decline in interest, enthusiasm, and
intrinsic motivation for academic learning beginning in kindergarten and continuing through
high school (Boardman et al., 2008; Skinner, Marchand, Furrer, & Kinderman, 2008).
For the purpose of this research, I utilize the following definition of engagement provided
by Skinner and Pitzer (2012), who characterize engagement as the “constructive, enthusiastic,
willing, emotionally positive, and cognitively focused participation with learning activities in
school” (p. 22). The concept of engagement is further operationalized in this study by
incorporating a multidimensional model, including behavioral, cognitive, and emotional
domains, and is acknowledged to be influenced by contextual factors (Skinner et al., 2008;
Veiga, 2016).

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

36
Self-Determination Theory
According to the Language! Live program literature, the design of the Language! Live
program is grounded, in part, in self-determination theory, which can be used a framework for
understanding how motivation influences engagement (Moats et al., n.d.; Niemiec & Ryan,
2009). As self-determination theory is concerned with motivational processes, it is particularly
appropriate for understanding educational experiences and outcomes for students with learning
disabilities and challenges (Deci & Chandler, 1986).
Self-determination theory is a macrotheory of human motivation rooted in the field of
psychology that postulates that humans are innately curious and are driven toward growth and
fulfillment, and that humans have three universal psychological needs: the needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Autonomy can be thought of as having a
sense of agency or control over one’s learning. Competence can be referred to as a feeling of
confidence or “effectance” about one’s actions (Deci & Ryan, 2002, p. 7). It is a feeling that one
is able to the task at-hand. And, relatedness can be described as feeling a sense of being
connected to others; in educational contexts, this would most likely include one’s peers and
teachers (Niemec & Ryan, 2009). Self-Determination theory maintains that, in educational
settings wherein learners’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported, they
are more likely to constructively engage with the learning and be self-determined; however,
when these needs are not fostered, they are more likely to suffer from “amotivaton,” the lack of
motivation and/or intentionality (Deci & Ryan, 2015, p. 488).
Self-Determination theorists further suggest that both intrinsic motivation and
autonomous types of extrinsic motivation as essential to optimal engagement and learning
(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Self-Determination theory draws a distinction between autonomous
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

37
and controlled types of motivation and holds that intrinsic and autonomous motivation leads to
increased achievement and performance (Deci & Ryan, 2015). When a learner’s needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met, there is a greater likelihood that he or she will
be intrinsically motivated to engage in learning, meaning they will engage in learning for the
sake of learning and not necessarily for an external reward or to avoid consequences (Schunk,
Pintrich, & Meece, 2010). Deci and Ryan (2000) conceptualize one’s progress toward self-
determination as a continuum from amotivation and externally regulated extrinsic motivation,
wherein behavior is controlled by external factors to more integrated and intrinsic forms of
regulation wherein behavior is more autonomous and fueled by choice. Figure 2.1 below
provides a graphic representation of this continuum.

Figure 2.1. The self-determination continuum, Ryan and Deci (2000).

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

38
Ryan and Deci (2000) postulate that intrinsic motivation refers to behavior and choices
executed out of sheer enjoyment and/or interest, absent external impetus and controls. Although
intrinsic motivation may be considered to be the most beneficial form of motivation for learning,
not all educational or school activities and tasks are inherently fun or interesting for students
(Taylor et al., 2014). In most educational settings, students will also need to be to extrinsically
motivated. Ryan and Deci (2000) outline four types of extrinsic motivation, beginning with
external regulation, where behavior is externally controlled and is often fueled by punishments
and rewards. This is the least autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. The next type of
extrinsic motivation is introjected regulation, where behavior is often fueled by ego to avoid
shame or to gain recognition. Both of these types of regulation can be characterized as being
externally controlled and are therefore perceived as having an external locus of causality
(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
In contrast, the perceived locus of causality for both identified and integrated regulation
are thought to be internal because behavior emanates not from external controls, but from the
self; thus, both identified and integrated regulation are considered relatively autonomous forms
of motivation (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Identified regulation refers to an extrinsic form of
motivation where one engages in behavior because one finds value and or importance in an
activity or task (e.g., the desire to do well in class so that one can move on to the grade). The
most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation, where one has
synthesized identified regulations with other aspects of one’s self, values, and beliefs (e.g., one
chooses to study law so that he/she may help others in need). When one has integrated the value
of activities and believes that tasks satisfy their needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness, they are showing integrated regulation (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). When operating
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

39
from the point of integrated regulation, a student may still be extrinsically motivated, but they do
not feel forced to engage, rather their participation in activities is an act of volition because they
find value in them (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Although intrinsic motivation is thought to be theoretically different and distinguishable
from the most autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation, in educational practice the difference is
not particularly important, and it should remain the goal of educators to foster students’
movement toward both integrated and intrinsic motivation (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Central to
self-determination theory is the concept of internalization in which one progresses through a
continuum of self-regulation and perceived loci of causality toward the more autonomous forms
of regulation, identified and integrated (Ryan & Deci, 2009). Further, it postulates that contexts
that foster students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness facilitate the process of
internalization of externally motivated behaviors (Ryan, Deci, Grolnick, & La Guardia, 2006).
Thus, pedagogical practice that supports these innate student needs leads to more intrinsic
motivation and the more autonomous types of extrinsic motivation, (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
Supporting Autonomy
The need for autonomy can be defined as the desire to feel that one can facilitate one’s
behavior, that one has the ability to make choices and is not controlled, and that one can create
and actualize meaningful goals and values that are authentic and provide a sense of direction in
one’s life (Assor, 2012). In educational settings, autonomy-supportive environments can be
described as those that: provide students a greater scope for making and implementing decisions
with respect to exercises and activities and a sense of personal agency; allow time for self-paced
learning; nurture students’ inner motivational resources (vitalization of interest and enjoyment);
and ensure that the relevance of activities align with personally meaningful goals (Jiminez, Raya,
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

40
Lamb, &Vieira, 2007; Lam et al., 2012; Reeve, 2009; Veiga, 2016). Autonomy-supportive
classrooms, then, are those wherein students are afforded opportunities to take some initiative in
their learning and are provided instruction based on interest, personal goals, and sense of inquiry
while providing opportunities for them to enjoy a sense of agency and make learning choices
(Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010). The literature suggests not only that autonomous learners are more
successful learners, but that there is a positive relationship between autonomy support and
enjoyment and interest in learning (Albert, 2007; Niemec & Ryan, 2009).
In their 2010 study of 133 high school classrooms inclusive of 1,584 students, Jang,
Reeve, Deci, and their team of observers rated the instructional styles of participating ninth to
eleventh grade teachers and their students’ behavioral engagement and surveyed students on their
subjective engagement. Observations that took place were designed to capture behavioral or
objective engagement (on-task behaviors, attention, etc.), while student surveys were designed to
measure self-reported subjective engagement, “intentional learning, positive feelings, deep
information processing, and general proactivity to contribute their sense of voice to the ongoing
flow of instruction” (Jang, Reeve, and Deci, 2010, p. 596). Their findings suggest that teacher-
provided autonomy support, which included practices such as nurturing interest, enjoyment, and
challenge, providing choice, and identifying value and meaning, was positively associated with
both of these forms of engagement. Further, they posit that teacher-provided autonomy support
function as important predictors of student engagement. It is important, then, to ensure that
autonomy-supportive programs and practices are being implemented with students to maximize
the potential for student engagement and self-determined learning.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

41
Supporting a Sense of Competence
Intrinsic motivation, as well as the internalization of extrinsic motivation, is augmented
by feelings of competence, which can be supported in educational contexts to maximize student
engagement, motivation, and self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2009). Niemiec and Ryan (2009)
posit that students will only engage in and value tasks that they can actually comprehend and on
which they can achieve success. There are many ways that educators can support students’
feelings of competence, such as by providing learning activities that give students the optimal
level of challenge and by providing students with the tools, feedback, and modeling necessary to
promote success and a sense of efficacy (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). It is also important to note that
there are ways to diminish feelings of competence among students, as it has been found that a
focus on competition with peers and social comparison can be detrimental to students, especially
adolescent learners (Wand & Holcombe, 2010). Feedback to students must instead be less
evaluative and/or comparative, and more relevant to supporting students’ mastery of skills and
tasks (Wang & Holcombe, 2010).
In their 2010 study of 1,046 middle school ethnically diverse students and how their
perceptions of their school environments influence their academic achievement and engagement,
Wang and Holcombe found that students’ perceptions that their teachers promote mastery, versus
performance, goals were positively associated with adolescent student participation in school
activities. Conversely, they found that the promotion of performance goals and competitive
learning environments was negatively associated with participation and leads to lower academic
achievement. As a result of their findings, Wang and Holcombe contended that a focus on
competition and comparison may hinder feelings of competence among middle school students.
Consistent with previous research findings, Wang and Holcombe asserted that a student’s sense
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

42
of competence can be fostered instead by encouraging the development of personal mastery, by
recognizing effort, and by fostering an environment wherein they do not experience
embarrassment or fear of being compared to their classmates (Ryan & Patrick, 2001).
Supporting a Sense of Relatedness
To promote students’ movement toward self-determination, self-determination theory
maintains that in addition to the need for autonomy and competence, a sense of relatedness helps
in facilitating the internalization process (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Deci and Ryan (2009)
asserted that relatedness is enhanced when students feel as a sense “interpersonal affiliation,
authentic care and the sharing of enriching experiences” (p. 570). Vallerand, Pelletier, and
Koestner (2008, p. 258) have asserted, however, that “the need for relatedness has been less
studied in past research” in comparison to autonomy and competence, which may be due to the
fact that the earliest self-determination studies focused on intrinsic motivation, wherein
connections to others is not necessarily vital.
In their 2016 study of 1,084 ethnically diverse adolescent middle and high school
students across suburban and rural Virginia, Mikami, Ruzek, Hafen, Gregory, and Allen studied
the implications of students’ perceptions of relatedness with their classroom peers for their
learning for that particular class. More specifically, they examined associations between both
middle and high school adolescent students’ perceptions of relatedness with their classroom
peers and their behavioral engagement in learning in that classroom throughout a school year.
Student participants self-reported their behavioral engagement and perceptions of relatedness
with classroom peers in the given class at three points during the school year. And, at the end of
the school year, the standardized achievement test scores of consented participants were obtained
by researchers to determine potential associations between reporting of relatedness and academic
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

43
achievement. Based on their analysis of gathered data, the found that the participating middle
and high school students’ perceptions of relatedness with their class peers predicted greater
behavioral engagement in the course throughout the academic year, and that greater behavioral
engagement reported in the spring was associated with increases in students’ standardized
assessments scores in the given classes. They did not, however, find that that perceptions of
relatedness directly correlated with academic achievement, but suggest that relatedness might
indirectly influence students’ academic-related achievement via their effect on increasing
behavioral engagement (Mikami et al., 2016). The findings of this study underscore the
importance of fostering a sense of relatedness among classroom peers for academic learning in
secondary school classrooms and are consistent with previous findings suggesting that
adolescence may be the developmental period during which students are most affected by their
sense of connectedness with classroom-level peers (Rodkin and Ryan, 2012).
Promoting a sense of relatedness in the classroom is particularly beneficial for adolescent
learners and can be accomplished in several ways. Educators can actively foster a caring and
supportive classroom environment, free from social comparison, wherein students feel that they
can seek support from both teachers and peers alike. This type of social support wherein students
are encouraged to interact with others and discuss ideas has been reported to lead to increased
emotional and cognitive engagement and self-regulatory strategies (Lam et al., 2012; Wang &
Holcombe, 2010). Teachers can also express interest in students’ interests and preferences
because when students believe that their teachers are genuinely interested in them, they are more
likely to be engaged (Lam et al., 2012). Educators have many opportunities within the classroom
context to foster a sense of relatedness and doing so may be particularly beneficial for adolescent
learners in the journey toward becoming more self-determined learners.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

44
How the Language! Live Program may Foster Self-Determination
There are several features of the Language! Live program that may promote students’
sense of autonomy, relatedness, and competence. The online Word Training lessons are designed
to provide a personalized experience and are self-paced, which may promote self-directed
learning and a sense of autonomy. Additionally, to a certain degree, students are able to choose
the activities that they work on when working online (e.g., Word Training lesson, sight-word
games, assessments, etc.). The online student dashboard also allows students to create their own
avatars and profiles, offers opportunities to provide and receive peer feedback, and affords them
access to the class wall where they can participate in class discussions on relevant topics. These
features may work to foster a sense of belonging and relatedness in the classroom community.
On their student dashboards, students are also able to view updates on their progress and course
position, review their points, badges, and trophies earned for completed tasks, and access
targeted feedback on their work, all of which may help to provide a sense of competence. These
features of the program coupled with teacher-facilitated, guided instruction using age-appropriate
text and themes to engage learners in larger discussions about topics that may be relevant to
adolescent learners, have the potential to foster a curricular environment in which students’
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met.
The stated goal of the Language! Live program is to accelerate adolescent students’
literacy achievement by providing systematic instruction in “an environment where students will
be optimistic, engaged, and persistent” (Moats et al., n.d., p. 6). This study explored the
perspectives of adolescent students participating in Language! Live to better understand how
their motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness were being fostered during
their participation in this program. The feedback and input of participating students in this study
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

45
can help us to better understand how to improve their engagement in intensive literacy
intervention programs designed to accelerate their literacy growth and can be used to inform the
design, modification, and implementation of literacy intervention curriculum for adolescent
learners, as well as influence the training and support of teachers who support this population of
students.
Critical Pedagogy and Marginalized Student Populations
Borne from the seminal work of Paolo Freire, critical pedagogy is a perspective on
teaching and learning that counters the traditional “banking” model of education in which
students are viewed as empty vessels unto which teachers deposit or bestow knowledge and
information (Freire, 1970). In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), Freire asserted that the
banking model of education is dehumanizing as it negates learning as a process of inquiry and
engagement, and without inquiry and praxis one cannot truly be human. Freire (1970) described
the banking model as one in which the teacher knows everything, exclusively chooses the
content, and is the “subject” of the learning process (p. 54). In this model, the student, in
contrast, acts passively and meekly as the “object” whose ignorance ultimately justifies the
teacher’s existence (Freire, 1970, p. 54).
The banking model of education, then, serves as a paternalistic structure to domesticate
students and to limit conscientization, further training them to take their places within the
existing social order (Freire, 1998). Freire (1970) further contends that often educators, many of
whom may be well-intentioned, engage in this model of teaching and learning that reproduces
inequalities either knowingly or unknowingly, and refers to them as “bank-clerk teachers” (p.
54). In contrast, the critical or “humanist” educator is one who listens to, values, and
incorporates the perspective of the learner (Freire, 1970, p. 56). The critical educator does not
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

46
confuse her or his professional authority with the concept of authority of knowledge and
understands that to work toward mutual humanization, they must become partners with their
students in the learning process (Freire, 1970).
Students who are marginalized due to their academic status of “at-risk,” “remedial,” or
“struggling” are more likely to be engaged in the traditional banking model of education, where
the teacher holds all of the knowledge and power and the students remain relatively passive
(Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009). Implementing the banking model approach when teaching
adolescent learners who struggle with literacy acquisition can be even more detrimental, as it can
exacerbate students’ negative identity constructions as poor readers and/or writers (O'Brien,
Beach, & Scharber, 2007).
Critical Pedagogy as a Tool for Liberation
In contrast to the banking model of education, a critical pedagogical perspective is a
contradiction of this conventional power dynamic in the classroom that can serve to quiet and
marginalize student voices. Freire rejected purely mechanistic or technical conceptions of literacy
education, in particular, opting to advocate for educational practice based more upon authentic and
open dialogue between teachers and students and affirms the importance of students’ agency in the
process (Freire, 1998). In Freire’s approach, a more open and authentic dialogue should center upon
the student’s experience and leads not only to the acquisition of literacy skills but arguably more
importantly to their awareness of their right as humans to be agentive and to transform reality (Freire,
1998). From a Freirian perspective then, the concept of literacy acquisition means more than learning
to decode and encode the written word. Rather, according to Freire, the purpose of education, and
in particular literacy education, is ultimately to achieve critical awareness about the social
constructs of one’s world so that one can reflect and ultimately act upon it (Freire, 1998). In this
sense, a critical pedagogical perspective of literacy education can be a tool for liberation.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

47
In “Afterword: Ten Short Years- Acting on Freire’s Request,” Kincheloe (2008) reflects
upon how Paolo Freire positioned literacy as a tool for empowerment that has the potential to
allow the marginalized to shape their identities and to take action in the world. In this context,
literacy and education are viewed as political, as they can be transformative to those who are
minoritized, oppressed, and/or marginalized from individual empowerment and social change.
From a Freirian perspective, the process of learning, then, is not separable from “individual
empowerment,” and transformative change and social justice (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 164). Freire
positioned literacy education, in particular, as a tool for liberation, in the sense that literacy can
and should be acquired and used to change one’s life and society. Teaching can be viewed as a
political act, and teaching students to “read the word and the world” so that they are empowered
to “read their reality and write their lives” can be considered a humanizing, yet political,
endeavor (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 167).
According to Kincheloe (2008), though, critical pedagogy, like other critical theories, is
an emancipatory field of study that is not intended to remain static, but to continue to evolve in
an effort to understand diverse forms of oppression, including social class, gender, race, sexual,
colonial, and ability-related issues, and to empower those who might be marginalized to
transform their life conditions. A critical pedagogical perspective is one that views suffering and
oppression as socially constructed phenomena, and Kincheloe positions the field of education as
an important domain for combatting them. As such, Kincheloe (2008) asserted that the critical
pedagogical future lies in a commitment to social justice, theoretical innovation, and the
exploration of diverse perspectives in the evolution of this liberatory pedagogy.
This study seeks to privilege the voice of the adolescent learner who may be marginalized
due to her or his lack of literacy. It is important to design evidence-based literacy intervention
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

48
programs that address the skills and strategies that adolescent learners need to be fully literate
humans with a sense of agency. At the same time, it is critical that their voices and perspectives
be heard, understood, and used to inform the design and implementation of programs that can
enable students, including those who may be marginalized, to become critically literate by
acquiring knowledge of literacy that can be turned into action to challenge existing social order
(Lee, 2011). Because this study was, in part, designed to examine issues of access, equity, and
empowerment in intensive literacy education for adolescent students, critical pedagogical theory
is a useful lens to frame our thinking and purpose throughout this project.
Student Voice Work
The educational theories of critical pedagogy and student voice work intersect in that
central to both philosophies and ways of interacting with learners is the importance of privileging
the voice of the student. Student voice work can be viewed as an extension of the seminal work
of John Dewey (1916) and Ralph Tyler (1949; 1976), who studied, among other topics related
the democratization of education, the student’s perspective of the curriculum and the nature of
the learner. Dewey (1916) asserted that it is the responsibility of the school to create active and
engaged citizens and proposed a philosophy of education that is student-centered. Dewey (1916)
emphasized the importance of the interaction of learners with the curriculum and viewed the
teacher’s role as that of a facilitator. He rejected teaching practices that situate learners as passive
and argued for educators’ respectful engagement with students.
Ralph Tyler also championed the function of education as a democratizing force in
society and emphasized the role of the student as an active participant in his or her learning.
Tyler (1976) affirmed that in curriculum planning, consideration and attention must be provided
to the “interests, activities, problems, and concerns” of the learners, and that whenever
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

49
appropriate and possible, learners should actively participate in the planning and evaluation of
curricular programs (p. 65). He asserted that when selecting curricular objectives for students,
teachers should consider objectives that are of interest and/or are meaningful to them. By
repositioning students as partners in the planning, evaluation, and implementation of curriculum,
student voice work can be viewed as a vehicle for the democratization of education.
Important to the concept of student voice work is the commitment to the fostering of
agency for students and the design and implementation of policies and programs that put the
needs and interests of the students at the forefront (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012). Today, there
exist varied forms of student voice work that can be identified in educational research, but most
forms have in common the tenet that the student’s perspective on learning has merit, warrants the
attention of the educational community, and should be used to actively shape their experience
and schooling (Cook-Sather, 2007).
Alison Cook-Sather (2006) has written extensively on the topic of student voice work and
has served as an advocate for repositioning students in educational research and reform. She
asserts that students have unique perspectives on their educational experiences and that their
insight warrants the consideration and response of the educational community (Cook-Sather,
2007). Adults, then, should not make assumptions about the interests of the student but should
take into account students’ views and opinions as stated in their own words. For the most part,
however, strategies to solve curricular and educational issues tend to lack the perspectives of
students, especially those students who might be categorized as problematic, underachieving, or
struggling. There is evidence to suggest the importance of better understanding the perspectives
of typically underachieving students and the potential impact of listening to their voices on
improving teaching and learning.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

50
In her study of how curriculum, tracking, and teacher expectations limit secondary
students who have been labeled “remedial” or “at-risk” from achieving academic success,
Lauren Segedin (2012) surveyed and conducted interviews with high school students in a
Canadian school as an effort to privilege their voices on the topic. Her findings revealed that
participating students found the school curriculum to be irrelevant and/or unrelated to their lives.
Participant responses also revealed that “at-risk” students tended to blame themselves for their
lack of achievement. In fact, 80% of students surveyed and every interviewee blamed no one but
themselves for their underachievement in school (Segedin, 2012). In this study, student
participants also exhibited poor motivation, despite understanding that the choices they were
making might limit future life possibilities. In her analysis, Segedin also asserted that the concept
of meritocracy that is such a cornerstone of Western education contributes to many students’
poor self-concept and lack of success in school. She contended that students often internalize
values inherent in the school system, like the tenet of meritocracy, the idea that achievement and
success are based on aptitude and ability rather than social status. Instead of recognizing and
understanding the obstacles that may be inhibiting their success in school, they tend to blame
themselves, which serves to further their motivation and sense of agency (Segedin, 2012).
Segedin concludes her analysis and discussion by affirming the potential of valuing what
students know and celebrating this knowledge by building upon it to improve academic
outcomes for students labeled “at-risk” and “struggling.”
In their qualitative study of the presence and impact of pedagogic voice in an alternative,
or second chance, secondary school in a low-income neighborhood in Australia, Baroutsis,
McGregor & Mills (2016) found that implementing an approach to education that incorporates
authentic dialogue and negotiation with students can serve to reject deficit notions of
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

51
marginalized students and to better engage them in the learning process. While students at the
school did participate, their data focused predominantly on the actions and attitudes of teachers
to understand how democratic participation by students at the school may have been fostered by
the approaches taken by the staff. For example, they observed that teachers at the site actively
worked toward incorporating students’ interests in the curriculum. In fact, the school principal
likened their role as educators to that of an “educational archaeologist,” whose job it is to try to
“find stuff in their life” because “somewhere in their story, there’s stuff that we can validate and
respect and build on” (Baroutis et al., 2006, p. 134).
In their analysis of their findings, Baroutis et al. (2006) asserted that these student-
affirming practices employed at the school, such as incorporating choice and utilizing personal
interests in the curriculum, helped promote students’ ownership of their learning, as well as
increase student engagement and motivation. Most of the students enrolled at the school after all
other options had been exhausted, and many of those interviewed in the study expressed that
their experience at the school was the first time in a very long while that they felt heard and were
actively engaged in their own learning (Baroutis et al., 2006, p. 137). In their concluding
remarks, the authors of this study reaffirmed the potential of paying attention to student voice for
enabling teachers to better understand and be “surprised by the capabilities” of their students,
especially those who may be deemed “at-risk” or even unteachable by other schools and teachers
(Baroutis et al., 2006, p. 137).
The potential for student voice work as a tool for better understanding and responding to
the needs underperforming, “at-risk,” and/or marginalized students exists. There is a dearth of
research in which student voice work is leveraged as a tool for privileging the perspectives of the
adolescent learner. Many of the studies that focus on student or pedagogical voice have taken
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

52
place outside of the United States and have not specifically focused on the perspectives of the
adolescent learner who struggles with reading and/or writing. Because the focus of this study
was on understanding aspects of literacy intervention curriculum that motivate and engage the
struggling adolescent literacy learner who is often disengaged due to a history of academic
failure, student voice work is an appropriate tool. Listening to student voice is an important
research paradigm that should be applied to understanding adolescents’ resistance to reading and
writing (Nieto, 1994). Further, struggling readers often become disengaged readers, thus better
understanding student engagement from the student perspective is essential to better
understanding struggling adolescent literacy learners’ resistance to engaging in literacy activities
(Guthrie and Davis, 2003).
The Importance of Student Voice Work in Relation to Motivation and Engagement
Student engagement has consistently been found to be a predictor of achievement and
classroom behavior, especially for older students (Rodriguez & Conchas, 2009). The literature
suggest that students tend to devote energy to one task over others when they believe it to have
value and is of interest and are less likely to engage in avoidance behaviors when alienating
and/or disengaging experiences are minimized (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012). The Language! Live
program is grounded, in part, in self-determination theory which promotes the tenet that
“students become engaged in school-related activity when instructional activities are interesting,
relevant to their lives, and affirm their competencies” (Hardre & Reeve, 2003, p. 353). Based on
the principles of self-determination theory, activities that promote relatedness, autonomy, and
competence have the potential to foster volition, motivation, and engagement, which may
ultimately result in increased achievement and persistence in learning (Deci & Ryan, 2015).
Thus, student-centered approaches, such as incorporating student voice into the design and
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

53
implementation of curriculum, also have great potential to advance the literacy achievement of
students because they are more likely to increase behavioral engagement (Guthrie & McRae,
2011). Student voice work, in part because is it student-centered, has the potential to the increase
student motivation and engagement because it fosters a sense of agency among participants and
because the feedback provided can be used to create programs that are designed to include the
interests and preferences of adolescent youth. The results can also be used to facilitate
implementations of intensive literacy intervention programs that that foster autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012). This work, then, also has the potential
to improve literacy outcomes for students who may be marginalized due to their ethnicity, social
class, and/or lack of academic achievement.
In their mixed-methods study of high school science teachers and students in an Israeli
school, Hagay and Baram-Tsabari (2015) examined a teaching strategy for incorporating
students’ interests into the curriculum as a way to reduce the discrepancy between students’
interests and curricular demand and to enable student voice in shaping their learning. As part of
the study, teachers were asked to introduce the upcoming science topic to their students, to
collect students’ questions on the topic, and to incorporate them into the upcoming lessons. Their
findings suggest that the strategy of incorporating students’ questions and voices into the
curriculum can be effective for increasing students’ self-confidence and enhancing interest in
their lessons (Hagay & Baram-Tsabari, 2015). In their discussion, the authors of the study
suggest building on students’ voices, not only as a moral, but also as concrete and utilitarian way
to enrich the content of the existing curriculum. They also emphasized that the strategy was
flexible enough to accommodate different subject areas and teaching styles, and postulated that
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

54
“almost any teacher using almost any curriculum can rework it at some level to address his or her
students’ interests” (Hagay & Baram-Tsabari, 2015, p. 974).
Since motivation is now widely accepted as critical to the study of adolescent literacy and
holds promise for improving the effectiveness of literacy interventions for older students, it is
helpful to listen to the students themselves to better understand how their motivational needs are
being fostered during their participation in these programs (Herrera et al., 2016; Melekoglu,
2011). The feedback and insight that students provide have the potential of grounding the
creation, modification, and implementation of literacy intervention curriculum for older students.
It is also important to keep in mind that ultimately student voice work is intended to be
liberatory and transformative. Given the emphasis on standardized measures of achievement in
K-12 education in the United States, it is a challenge to keep at the forefront the emancipatory
intent of student voice work and to resist using data collected from student voice work to create
curricula and programs that ultimately replicate existing structural inequalities. We must resist
listening to students in a tokenistic way by consulting only those students whose voices echo the
norms and values of the dominant culture and of existing structures and systems (Bordieu, 1977).
Adolescents who are working significantly below grade level in language arts, whether they are
classified as special education students are not, are often further marginalized for their lack of
literacy attainment. Most do need evidence-based instruction in order to face the literacy
demands of modern society so that they can fully participate in modern society, but also so that
they have the potential to become agents of social change. By privileging their voices, we can
work toward engaging them in these processes, as well.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

55
Summary
For most, literacy is essential to professional and personal success in modern society. In today’s
society, literacy can be viewed as the ability to read, write, understand, interpret, and discuss a
diversity of texts across diverse contexts (Carnevale, Jayasundera, & Cheah, 2012). The data
suggest, however, that a large percentage of adolescent students in the U.S. are not prepared to
meet the literacy demands of the global knowledge-based economy (NCES, 2017). This fact is
disconcerting given that reading and writing form the foundation for most academic learning in
grades 4 and beyond (Tatum & Muhammad, 2012). For struggling or at-risk adolescent readers
and writers, typically those students in grades 4–12 who demonstrate a lack of proficiency in
language arts, the consequences of their lower status as not fully literate are even more profound.
For students at the lowest levels of literacy hierarchies within schools, whether they be special
education students or participating in regular education intervention programs, there is an
increased risk of dropping out of high school, as well as an increased risk of unemployment as
adults (Lovett et al., 2102).
Though the issue of adolescent literacy has received increased attention in past decades,
there are still areas in need of exploration to better understand how to design and implement
programs that will improve literacy outcomes for adolescents who struggle with reading and
writing (Jacob, 2008; Lovett et al., 2012). There is consensus among most educators and
researchers regarding the instructional practices that adolescent learners will require to improve
their literacy, including explicit instruction in vocabulary and reading comprehension,
opportunities for deep discussion of text meaning and interpretation, attention to increasing
motivation and engagement, as well as the providing of intensive literacy intervention support
for those who struggle with literacy (Kamil et al., 2008). Much is yet to be known, however,
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

56
about what motivates and engages struggling adolescent literacy learners and the intervention
programs that are available to teach them, and additional research is necessary on what is
currently taking place in secondary schools in the United States, but also in understanding the
most effective ways to motivate, engage, and support adolescents who are struggling with
literacy acquisition (Harmon et al., 2016). Further study on how best to motivate and engage the
struggling adolescent literacy learner, in particular, is needed and warranted given the dearth of
literature on this topic (Pitcher et al., 2010).
Given the fact that literacy intervention education has often operated from a deficit
model, wherein students are viewed as lacking skills in need of remediation from knowledgeable
persons in positions in authority, it is important to privilege the voice of the struggling adolescent
literacy learner to seek his/her perspective on which aspects of the curriculum used to teach them
that they find most and least motivating and engaging. By using the conceptual underpinnings of
critical pedagogy and student voice work to frame our understandings and ultimate purpose of
the study, we are placing students at the center of the discourse. Further, by contextualizing
students’ perspectives within the constructs of self-determination theory, we can better
understand how intensive literacy intervention programs can foster literacy learners’ needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This study sought to explore the perspectives of
struggling adolescent readers and writers in hopes of understanding how best to support their
motivational needs while participating in intensive literacy intervention instruction.
The act of consulting students who may be marginalized due to their literacy deficits is,
in and of itself, a liberatory endeavor in that it allows students to perform symbolic power by
using language to potentially shape their conditions (Bordieu, 1977). We must be cautious,
however, not to undergo this process in a way that is tokenistic, but instead to keep at the
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

57
forefront the belief that the democratic participation of traditionally marginalized learners can
help them to empower themselves, to shape their learning experiences, and to improve their
literacy so that they are able to better understand and become agents of change in the world.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

58
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the design of this study, including a description of the setting and
participants, instrumentation, and collection and analyses of data. The purpose of this study was
to explore the perspectives and attitudes of struggling adolescent readers and writers toward the
intensive literacy intervention curriculum used to accelerate their literacy growth, Language!
Live, and to determine the extent to which the program fostered their motivational needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Although adolescent literacy instruction has increasingly become a topic of inquiry in
recent decades, there remain many areas in need of exploration in order to better understand and
improve literacy instruction for adolescent students in need of intensive language arts
intervention (Herrera, Truckenmiller, & Foorman, 2016). One of the areas in need of exploration
is the students’ perspective on their experiences as learners of intensive literacy intervention
curriculum (Herrera et al., 2016; Wendt, 2013). Additional study of how to support the
motivation and engagement of adolescent students participating in intensive literacy intervention
may serve to inform the development and implementation of such programs in ways that better
serve to motivate and engage this population of students. By privileging the voice of these
students, the perspectives of students are placed at the center of the discourse of how best to
motivate and engage the struggling adolescent reader and writer. The information gained can be
used to inform the design, modification, and implementation of literacy intervention programs
designed for this population. As such, the research question for this study was as follows: How
does the intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live, foster struggling adolescent
learners’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness?

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

59
Design of the Study

This study employs a basic qualitative research design (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative
methodologies are the most appropriate tools for answering this question because the goal of this
study was to better understand students’ perspectives about their experiences and the curriculum
that is used to teach them. Qualitative methods, including interviews and focus groups, are useful
for gaining an in-depth understanding of a topic or issue and for understanding the human
experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe the characteristics
of qualitative study as a “focus on process, understanding, and meaning,” the placing of
researcher as the primary instrument for data collection and analysis, its inductive nature, and the
rich descriptiveness of the end product (p. 15).
In line with the more holistic framework inherent in qualitative study, one of the
intentions of this study was also to give voices to points of view of people who may be
marginalized in schools and in society (Bogden & Biklen, 2010). Central to this study was the
importance of privileging student voice, thus qualitative methodology using tools that allow for
direct representation of students themselves, interviews, and focus groups are most appropriate
(Bogden & Biklen, 2010).
One of the strengths of using a qualitative study design is that it allows the researcher to
simplify and manage data without diminishing complexity and context (Ochieng, 2009). One of
the disadvantages, however, is that the findings of this study are not necessarily generalizable to
the larger population with the degree of certainty that quantitative methods might provide, as the
findings of this study were not tested to determine whether they are statistically significant or
attributed to chance.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

60
Setting and Participants
The setting and participants of this study were chosen consistent with Patton’s
articulation of “purposeful sampling:”
The logic and power of purposeful sampling lie in selecting information-rich
cases for studying depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can
learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry,
thus the term purposeful sampling. Studying information-rich cases yields insights
and in-depth understanding rather than empirical generalizations. (Patton, 2002,
pp. 230)
Of the numerous purposeful sampling techniques available, this study utilized homogeneous
sampling because it is a technique that aims to achieve a sample whose units share very similar
characteristics (Patton, 2002). A homogeneous sampling, in this case struggling adolescent
readers and writers participating in an intensive literacy intervention program in a diverse
California school, was chosen because the research question that was addressed was specific to
the characteristics of this particular subgroup, which was explored in detail.
Site Selection
The researcher conducted the research for this study at Monte Vista Middle School, a
sixth- through eighth-grade public school of approximately 1,400 students in an exurb of the San
Bernardino-Riverside metropolis of Southern California. The site was chosen based on the
characteristic that it serves a diverse population of adolescent students and that it fully
implemented the intensive literacy intervention curriculum for students who struggle with
literacy, as identified on standardized assessments of literacy proficiency. The demographics of
Monte Vista Middle School reflect the ethnic and linguistic diversity of California public
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

61
schools, as 72% of the student population is Latino/a, 12.5% are African American, and 7% are
Caucasian (DataQuest, 2018). Seventy-nine percent of the students at Monte Vista Middle
School are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, meaning that they are eligible for free
or reduced-priced meals or have guardians who did not receive a high school diploma
(DataQuest, 2018). Fourteen percent of students at Monte Vista are classified as English
Learners (DataQuest, 2018).
The intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live was fully implemented at
Monte Vista, where there were five classes of intensive literacy intervention organized by grade
levels. The researcher conducted her research in two of these classes, one of which was Ms.
Brown’s eighth-grade class, a SDC setting, a self-contained special education class for students
which provided services to students with more intensive needs that cannot be met in a general
education program. Ms. Brown’s students participated in the Language! Live program for two
class periods (approximately 90 minutes) daily. The researcher interviewed a total of four eighth-
grade students from Ms. Brown’s class and conducted one focus group with all four of these
students.
The other class wherein the researcher conducted her data collection was Ms. Chall’s
sixth-grade class, which served both regular education students in need of literacy intervention,
as well as special education RSP students assigned to a resource setting, which is an environment
designed for students “whose needs have been identified in an individualized education program
and who are assigned to regular classroom teachers for a majority of a school day” (California
Education Code § 56362). Ms. Chall’s students also participated in the Language! Live program
for two class periods (approximately 90 minutes) daily. These students were assigned to Ms.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

62
Chall’s Language! Live class for two periods daily because of their identified literacy needs. The
researcher conducted interviews with eight students from Ms. Chall’s class.
Participants
Although the site was selected based on the aforementioned criteria, the individual
classes, Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Chall’s, were selected by the school principal after the researcher
had informed him of the criteria for selecting participants: classes should be fully implementing
Language! Live as a comprehensive intervention program (2 class periods of approximately 90
minutes); students in participating classes must be in grades 6 through 8 and deemed eligible for
literacy intervention based on standardized measures (Lexile assessment, etc.), whether they
have IEPs or not; students must not be Newcomers to the English language nor Emerging
English Learners (EL level one or two). Newcomers and Emerging English Learners were
excluded from this study because none of the programs adopted by the California Department of
Education to serve as a Program Type 4, an intensive literacy intervention, were required to
provide specialized instruction for English Language Development nor were they aligned to the
California English Language Development standards (CDE, 2015). Newcomers and Emerging
English Learners are better served by a Program Type 2 (English Language Arts/English
Language Development) or a Program Type 5 (Specialized English Development) according to
the guidelines put forth by the California Department of Education (2015).
Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Chall’s classroom compositions met these descriptors, and both
teachers volunteered to participate. Students in both classes were placed into the program based
on standardized measures of literacy, including a Lexile exam, an assessment of encoding, or
spelling ability, as well a test of contextual reading fluency, and began instruction at optimally
challenging entry points based on their results.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

63
After receiving approval from the district and the IRB, the researcher communicated with
Ms. Brown via telephone and email and provided a description of the study. In December of
2018, the researcher visited her classroom to describe the study to her students and to provide my
contact information and an envelope of assent forms in both English and Spanish. The researcher
met with Ms. Chall’s class in January of 2019 after they returned from winter break. During the
researcher’s initial speeches to potential student participants, she informed them that each
volunteer would receive a $30 gift card in return for his or her participation. In total, the
researcher received four signed assent forms from Ms. Brown’s class and eight from Ms. Chall’s.
After the reseracher collected the signed assent forms, she began the process of data collection.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Data for this study were collected from participants via 11 semistructured one-on-one
interviews with one focus group. One of the benefits of using a semistructured model of
interviewing is that they are focused enough to address the topics to be explored, yet flexible
based upon the direction of participants’ responses. Interviews and focus groups, in particular,
are appropriate data collection tools for this study because they allow youth participants to give
voice to their own interpretations and perspectives as opposed to relying on the researcher’s adult
interpretation of their experiences.
Semi-structured Interviews
The interviews took place at the school site in pop-out rooms near the students’
classrooms. The location of the interviews was chosen to maximize the comfort of students.
Before interviews began, the researcher reminded the students of their rights, including their
right to end the interview at any time. During the semi-structured interviews, the researcher used
a prepared semi-structured interview guide consisting of structured, as well as more open-ended
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

64
questions in a one-on-one setting (interviewer and respondent) during single sittings with each
participant of 14–28 minutes in length. The semi-structured interview guide included a schematic
presentation of questions and topics that were explored to answer the research question that
guided this study:
How does the intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live, foster struggling
adolescent learners’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness?
The use of interview guides helps to maximize time with respondents and allows the researcher
to more systematically explore the perspectives of student respondents. The usage of interview
guides also aides the researcher in staying focused while allowing for further exploration of
individual student responses (Patton, 2002). While the interview guide was designed to provide a
degree of structure to the interviews, the researcher had the flexibility to conduct additional
probing and exploring of topics in greater depth when appropriate (Patton, 2002).
The questions, topics, and probes that comprised the interview guide included elements
of the overarching research question and a number of associated questions organized around
subtopics, including specific aspects of the curriculum/program (e.g., technology, unit themes,
types of activities, social media components, games, video tutorials) and constructs explored in
Chapter Two of this study. According to the program literature, the Language! Live program is
grounded in part in self-determination theory, a macrotheory of human motivation that maintains
that satisfaction of the universal needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy promotes the
“optimal motivational traits and states of autonomous motivation and intrinsic aspirations,”
which in turn promotes engagement and learning for students (Deci & Ryan, 2015, p. 486; Moats
et al., n.d.). As such, many of the questions for both the interview guide and the focus group
were deductive in that their purpose, in part, was to determine the extent to which students
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

65
perceived that their needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy were being supported in
the context of the program and its implementation.
The interviews were recorded and commenced by requesting oral permission to record
and more structured questions meant to establish rapport with the student. This was followed by
a conversation consisting of topics and questions designed to elicit their ideas and opinions about
components of the Language! Live program, including several questions rooted in the extant
literature on self-determination theory. This interview format allowed the researcher to respond
to the emerging worldview of the interviewee and was less likely to lead participants toward
preconceived choices and responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview guide was
modified slightly between interviews to allow for further exploration into themes that emerged
from preceding interview data (Meriam & Tisdell, 2016). All interviews were recorded (with the
participants’ and their parents’ permission) and transcribed to capture the interview data more
accurately and effectively (Creswell & Clark, 2011). The interview guide used by the researcher
included the original questions and probes posed to students during the one-on-one interviews, as
well as connections to the extant literature on self-determination theory. The interview guide can
be found in Appendix C.
During the interviews, the researcher provided Language! Live workbooks and a laptop
that displayed a student dashboard for students to be able to more easily recall features of the
program and to point to features if needed. In later interviews (interviews #5–#12), the researcher
brought post-it notes and asked interviewees to tell her the words they would use to describe
when they felt really engaged and/or interested. The researcher then posted the words on the
table in front of them and asked them to describe a time while participating in the program when
they felt these words/descriptions/emotions.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

66
Focus Group
In addition to the 11 one-on-one semi-structured interviews, the researcher conducted one
focus group session that lasted 28 minutes and included the four original interviewees from Ms.
Brown’s eighth-grade SDC class. Due to time constraints, a single focus group was conducted
with only Ms. Brown’s students. The focus group session took place in a private pop-out room
next to Ms. Brown’s classroom. The purpose of the focus group session was to allow for an
additional avenue for exploring student voice via an interactive discussion through which data
could be generated that might not have been generated during the individual interviews (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, themes that emerged from the one-on-one interviews could then
be further explored during the focus group session, as they could then be crafted into discussion
prompts.
A unique characteristic of focus group research is the interactive discussion which leads
to different types of data not that may not be accessible via one-on-one interviews (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). During the focus group discussion, students were able to share their perspectives,
listen to the perspectives of other participants, and possibly refine their own views. During the
focus group, students were encouraged to interact with each other and not just the
researcher/moderator so that a deeper complexity of perspectives and attitudes might come to
light (Hennink, 2013). When focus groups are conducted with an existing group of peers, the
interaction and dialogue in the focus groups tend to be more indicative of those occurring in the
natural setting, in this case, the school and classroom (Albrecht, Johnson, & Walther, 1993).
The focus group session was recorded and transcribed to facilitate the analysis of narratives.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

67
Data Analysis
In qualitative research, the process of analyzing data can be described as the
“classification and interpretation of linguistic (or visual) materials to make statements about
implicit and explicit dimensions and structures of meaning-making” (Flick, 2014, p. 5). For this
study, the researcher began to informally analyze data as an ongoing process between each
interview and focus group so that interview and focus group questions could be modified as
patterns and themes emerge from the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
At the completion of the interviews and focus group, and once all data had been
collected, formal data analysis occurred consistent with Creswell’s (2009) six recommended
steps for thematic content analysis: becoming familiar with collected data, coding text, searching
for themes with patterns of meaning, reviewing themes to make sure they are consistent with
transcripts and data, defining and naming themes, and the creation of a narrative or write-up.
The researcher also drew upon Schreir’s (2012) outline and her recommendations for
conducting qualitative content analysis as a method for generating meaning from the data
through a process of coding and identifying themes in a systematic way. Schreier (2012)
provided strategies and steps for building a coding frame that are helpful for novice researchers.
The researcher employed some of Shreier’s (2012) strategies, including assigning pieces of
collected data to categories of a frame that was informed by theory germane to this study.
Organizing and Preparing the Data for Analysis
Once interviews and the focus group were completed, the researcher had the recordings
transcribed via the RevTrack application. She then read through the written transcriptions to
ensure that transcriptions were accurate and matched the content of the audio recordings. The
researcher immediately changed the names of participants, assigning them pseudonyms and
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

68
reference codes (e.g., Luis Student 1a), and preparing each transcript for analysis by numbering
the lines. The researcher also typed up any notes that she wrote both during and after the focus
group and interviews. To help manage the data, the researcher uploaded the transcripts and
memos to Dedoose, a web-based data management system designed for researchers. In addition
to housing data, Dedoose has additional functionality that allows researchers to use the
embedded tools to compare and analyze data, capture excerpts, create memos, etc.
Reading Through the Data
After preparing and uploading the data to Dedoose, the researcher conducted a first pass
of the data, reading through all of the transcripts and notes to get a general sense of meaning
(Creswell, 2014). The researcher took notes in the margins to document general reactions,
commonalities, and possible direction.
Coding
Creswell (2014) asserted that there are several approaches to coding, including
developing codes based solely on emergent information, using predetermined codes based on the
literature, and using a combination of both of these approaches. The researcher chose to employ
a combination of both approaches, using both a deductive and inductive approach. Schreier
(2012) maintained that when conducting qualitative content analysis, it is possible to utilize both
data-driven and theory-driven analysis. The process of thematic coding in this study was both
deductive (based on a priori codes and themes rooted in self-determination theory) and inductive
(themes emerged directly from participant responses) coding approaches.
The researcher used a thematic approach to select a priori codes based on tenets of self-
determination theory: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2009). The
researcher read the transcripts for a second time in Dedoose and color-coded bits of data,
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

69
meaningful chunks that might include words, phrases, or paragraphs, based on whether they
illustrated conceptualizations of autonomy, competence, and/or relatedness. Before conducting
this process of open coding, the researcher revisited the literature on self-determination theory
for clarification and examples. For clarification during this process, the researcher employed
operational definitions for each of the categories (autonomy, competence, relatedness).
Using the Coding Process to Generate Categories and Themes
Identifying patterns that will become the themes and categories, abstractions derived from
the data, constitutes the fourth step of analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher began
with open coding, overlaying the three categories of autonomy, competence, and relatedness onto
the transcriptions of data using a color-coding process in Dedoose. She then copied the excerpts
from Dedoose into Word documents and organized them by the three predetermined
themes/categories. (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). As part of the process of axial coding, the researcher
reread the excerpts and searched for connections using in vivo codes, or the participants’ own
words, from the transcripts, and identified codes that were most prevalent, salient, and/or
illustrative of theoretical conceptualizations (Creswell, 2014). During this process, the researcher
again revisited the literature to help in refining codes and compared bits of data to other bits of
data and her initial codes as a process of constant comparison (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher continued to search for schematic relationships, and the content and definition of
themes/categories that arose during this process continued to change and be refined as data and
codes were compared and categorized as part of the process of selective coding (Strausss & Corbin,
1990). The categories of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were derived from the literature
on self-determination theory, but the themes that emerged as a result of coding emerged directly
from the data collected (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

70
Advancing the Description and Themes to Narrative Form
After the researcher coded, analyzed, and reflected upon the findings, she drafted a
discussion of the six themes that emerged with descriptive analyzes which serves as the content
of Chapter Four of this paper.
Interpreting the Findings
In Chapter Five, the researcher provides an interpretation of the findings framed in part
by the extant literature, as well as implications for practice and future research.
Enhancing the Trustworthiness of this Study
Although there currently exists a theoretical debate in the research community regarding
the appropriate criteria for assessing and discussing the concepts of validity and reliability in
qualitative research, there are suggested strategies for enhancing trustworthiness that were
employed in this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Internal Validity or Credibility
Internal validity can be thought of as ensuring that the research findings are congruent
with reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). One strategy for increasing internal validity that was
employed in this study was triangulation, the usage of varying methods or sources of data as a
“check” against each other (Maxwell, 2013, p. 102). Both the one-on-one interviews and the
focus group was used to collect data in this study, each method maintaining its own strengths and
limitations. Eleven interviews were conducted with students participating in different contexts
and classes, ensuring that multiple perspectives were represented. The researcher also took notes
during the interviews and the focus group and used transcriptions of her notes as part of the data
analysis process. Using multiple means of data collection helps to reduce the risk that
conclusions drawn from the data will reflect the biases of a single methodology (Maxwell, 2013).
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

71
Reliability or Consistency
The notion of reliability, or the extent to which research findings can be replicated, is
contested among many qualitative researchers in the social sciences due in part to the fact that
human behavior is never static (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Instead,
Lincoln and Guba (1985) first conceptualized reliability in a qualitative study more fittingly as
dependability and consistency, meaning that readers of a study should infer that the results make
sense and are consistent with the data presented. Strategies that can be utilized to enhance
consistency and dependability in qualitative study include triangulation, peer review, and
inclusion of an audit trail (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Schereir (2012) contended that checking
for coding consistency is an additional method for ensuring reliability and consistency. As such,
after coding the entirety of the data, the researcher took a break and returned after a few days to
recode the text. After doing so, she found that her coding scheme was quite similar to that of her
earlier passes, with few exceptions. During the coding process, the researcher also kept a
handwritten journal detailing the steps she took to analyze the data, along with insights,
reflections, and questions. The researcher attempted to be as transparent as possible about the
process she used when detailing her steps for analysis in this section and when reporting her
findings in Chapter Four (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
External Validity or Transferability
The concept of external validity, or generalizability, in the context of a qualitative study
is often framed instead as “transferability” or “extrapolation” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). In this sense, it is the reader of the study must decide the extent
to which the findings of the study are applicable to her or his specific context. To enhance the
transferability of the findings of this study, the researcher included a detailed description of the
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

72
context of the study, including setting, participants, implementation parameters so that readers
may “compare the fit with their situations” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 256).
Limitations
Due to time constraints, a limited number of students were interviewed and participated
in the focus group. Because of this, the results of this study cannot be generalized across the
population of students participating in this program nor in similar programs. The researcher,
however, does hope that the findings provide insight on the issue of enhancing the motivation
and engagement struggling adolescent literacy learners.
Summary
This chapter described the methods and procedures for this qualitative study. The usage
of semi-structured one-on-one interviews and a focus group aligns with the purpose and
theoretical underpinnings of basic qualitative research, which is to employ a critical perspective
to better understand how adolescent students themselves describe their experiences participating
in intensive literacy intervention and how their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
were supported by the program being used, Language! Live. Thematic content analysis
methodology was used to analyze data collected from the interviews and focus group and was
coded in part deductively based on a priori codes related to self-determination theory: autonomy,
relatedness, and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2009), as well as inductively using in vivo codes
emerging directly from the participants’ responses. A presentation of the findings from this data
and a subsequent analysis will be provided in Chapter Four. Chapter Five will present a
discussion of the findings and implications of this research.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

73
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Motivation and engagement are essential to the effective implementation of intensive
literacy intervention programs for adolescent learners (Kamil et al., 2008; Gilson et al., 2018).
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the perspectives of struggling adolescent
readers and writers participating in an intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live,
and to describe how the program fosters students’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence,
and relatedness.
Adolescent literacy instruction has increasingly become a topic of inquiry in recent
decades; however, there still exist many areas in need of exploration to better understand and
improve outcomes for adolescent learners in need of intensive language arts intervention
instruction (Herrera et al., 2016). One such area is understanding the adolescent students’
perspective on their experiences as learners of intensive literacy intervention curriculum in,
specifically about their motivation and engagement (Gilson et al., 2018). Struggling adolescent
readers and writers who have a history of underachievement and frustration with their lack of
literacy attainment are especially prone to disengagement and motivational issues (Avermann,
2001; Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009). However, the voices and perspectives of this population
may be excluded from the discourses on how best to improve their educational experiences
because of their positioning in schools as remedial and/or special education students (Martin &
Beese, 2017). This study was designed to place students’ voices at the center of the discourse by
utilizing interviews and a focus group to allow these students to describe their experiences in
their own words. Self-determination theory was employed as a framework for understanding
how the participating students’ motivational needs were fostered through their participation in
the Language! Live program. Specifically, this study involved collecting data through eleven
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

74
one-on-one, semi-structured interviews and a single focus group session with adolescent middle
school students currently participating in the Language! Live program to answer the following
research question: How does the intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live, foster
struggling adolescent learners’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness?
This chapter provides a brief description of the context of the study and the methodology
utilized to analyze data, a recapitulation of the theoretical framework, as well as a description of
the Language! Live program. This chapter also includes a detailed presentation of the findings of
this investigation. The findings are reported as themes that emerged as the product of thematic
content analysis and are representative of both a deductive and an inductive analytic approach.
Design of the Language! Live Program
Language! Live is one of the five programs approved by the California Department of
Education (2015) to serve as intensive literacy intervention for students working two or more
years below grade level in language arts and is the program being implemented with the students
who were the focus of this study. The Language! Live program was designed to provide
individualized, explicit, and systematic literacy instruction to adolescents performing
significantly below grade level in language arts to promote at least a two-year gain in literacy
over approximately two years (or four semesters) of daily lessons of approximately 90 minutes
each. These lessons can be implemented in alternative ways, however, including 45 minutes
daily, etc. (Moats et al., n.d.). The program was designed to remediate gaps in students’
foundational literacy skills, including phonological awareness; analysis of words by sound-
symbol correspondence, syllable, and morpheme; reading fluency; vocabulary; grammar; reading
comprehension; and written expression (Moats et al., n.d.). The program offers the following
battery of exams that can be used to place students at optimally challenging entry points within
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

75
the program: Progress Assessment of Reading (a Lexile-based assessment), Test of Silent
Contextual Reading Fluency, and Test of Written Spelling. The placement guidelines for middle
school students entering the program range from 0 to 985 Lexile (Cambium, 2018). It is a
blended and hybrid program that includes two main instructional components: Word Training
and Text Training (Moats et al., n.d.). Below is a brief description of each of these components.
Word Training
The Word Training component of the program is delivered via a web-based platform
where students work independently. Each student has a personalized dashboard that allows him
or her to access content, including the following features: Word Training Unit Lessons (with
accompanying video tutorials, independent practice, and assessments) that provide instruction
and practice on foundational literacy skills including phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling, and
fluency; sight word games; Text Training practice activities and assessments (when assigned by
the classroom teacher); Readingscape (online library of Lexile-based independent reading
opportunities); class wall (online class discussion board); Scorecard (database of scores and item
analysis of all completed activities and assessments); Peer Review (allows students to provide
each other feedback on their recordings of sounds, words, and passages); personal profiles and
avatars; a library of all Word Training tutorials and videos; the Sound Library (providing frontal
and sagital views of points of articulation of phonemes); and eBooks (including online editions
of their Text Training books and full-length novels of some of the text selections read in Text
Training). Teachers do have the ability to assign practice activities and assessments that support
Text Training, but students are never forced to work on a specific activity online. Students can
select from the aforementioned activities; however, teachers may choose to orally direct them to
make specific choices. While working online, can earn points and achievements for completing
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

76
activities and tasks and are provided with certificates upon successful completion of a Word
Training unit.
Text Training
The Text Training component of the program delivered in teacher-directed small-group
setting in which students are provided instruction on advanced literacy skills (Cambium, 2018).
More specifically, Text Training includes close readings of text organized into thematic units, as
well as instruction in vocabulary, grammar and syntax, and written expression (Moats et al.,
n.d.). The scope and sequence of the Text Training units are not parallel to the scope and
sequence of the Word Training units; and although Text Training is taught in person, the teacher
has the ability to assign supplemental Text Training practice activities and assessments online
via the students’ dashboards.
Theoretical Framework
To explore how Language! Live fosters the motivational needs of struggling adolescent
literacy learners’, the researcher used Ryan and Deci’s (2009) self-determination theory in the
context of student learning to understand how students’ motivational needs were being met. The
goal of the researcher was not to extend this theory, but to employ it as a framework for
understanding motivation and engagement in the context of student learning.
Self-determination theory maintains that, in educational settings where students’ needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported, they are more likely to constructively
engage with learning and be self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2009). The need for autonomy can
be defined as needing a sense of agency or control over one’s learning. The need for competence
can be thought of as a wanting a sense of “effectance” about one’s actions (Deci & Ryan, 2002,
p. 7). Finally, the need for relatedness can be defined as feeling a sense of being connected to
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

77
others; in educational contexts, this might include one’s peers and/or teachers (Niemiec & Ryan,
2009).
When these three universal and innate needs are satisfied, students are more likely to be
intrinsically motivated (Deci & Ryan, 2009). While intrinsic motivation may be considered to be
the most beneficial form of motivation for student learning, not all school-related activities are
inherently exciting or interesting for students; thus, in most education-related contexts, students
may need to be extrinsically motivated (Taylor et al., 2014). Self-Determination theory describes
a process called internalization that can be facilitated by educators to move students through a
motivational continuum of self-regulation toward more autonomous forms of extrinsically
motivated behaviors toward what is known as integrated regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2009). Figure
4.1 below presents a graphic representation of this continuum. When operating from a place of
integrated regulation, learners may still be extrinsically motivated, but their participation in
activities is volitional because they find value in them (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

Figure 4.1. The Self-Determination continuum, Ryan and Deci (2000).

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

78
There are several theoretical differences between intrinsic motivation and integrated
regulation; however, in educational practice the difference is not particularly relevant, and it
should remain the objective of educators to foster students’ movement toward both integrated
and intrinsic motivation (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). According to self-determination theory, this
can be facilitated by a pedagogical practice that fosters students’ needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Because struggling adolescent literacy
learners are especially prone to amotivation, disaffection, and engagement issues, self-
determination theory was chosen as a framework for better understanding how their motivational
needs are fostered through their participation in literacy intervention (Gilson et al., 2018).
Although he three motivational needs outlined in self-determination theory were used to
focus this study and the analysis of data, the students’ descriptions of their own experiences were
primary in generating the resultant themes that explain how their motivational needs are fostered.
Methodology
Setting, Participants, and Data Collection
Setting and participants. The purposeful sampling of participants in this study included
11 adolescent students participating in the intensive literacy intervention program, Language!
Live, at Monte Vista Middle School. Monte Vista Middle School is a diverse public school of
1,400 students in the San Bernardino-Riverside metropolis of Southern California in which 79%
of the student population is considered socioeconomically disadvantaged (DataQuest, 2018). The
findings for this qualitative study developed through data collected from 11 semistructured one-
on-one interviews and one focus group consisting of four of the original interviewees. The
interviewees volunteered to participate and were ultimately chosen based on the criteria that they
were a) adolescent students currently participating in a comprehensive intensive literacy
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

79
intervention program because of their identified literacy needs (working two or more years
below grade level per standardized measures and that they were not identified as Emerging
English Learners.)
As with all of the intensive literacy intervention programs adopted by the California
Department of Education, Language! Live is designed for students in grades 4 and above who
are working significantly below grade level per standardized literacy assessments. Typically,
students participating in this and other intensive literacy intervention programs are those who
meet this criterion, whether they are regular education students in need of literacy intervention or
students with Individual Education Programs. All of the students who participated in this study
were selected, in part, because they were working two or more years below grade level per
standardized literacy assessments. They were selected from among two classes from Monte Vista
school: Ms. Brown’s eighth-grade SDC class and Ms. Chall’s sixth-grade class comprised of
regular education students in need of literacy intervention and RSP students.
Four of the 11 interviewees were chosen from Ms. Brown’s eighth-grade SDC class, a
self-contained special education class for students that provides services to students with more
intensive needs that cannot be serviced in a general education program or setting. The other eight
interviewees were chosen from Ms. Chall’s sixth-grade class that serves both regular education
students in need of literacy intervention and RSP students assigned to a resource setting, an
environment designed for students “whose needs have been identified in an individualized
education program and who are assigned to regular classroom teachers for a majority of a school
day” (California Education Code § 56362).
All students in this study, whether chosen from Ms. Chall’s or Ms. Brown’s class,
participated in the Language! Live intensive literacy intervention program for two class periods
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

80
(90 minutes) daily in similarly-structured implementations, wherein they spent approximately
one class period working independently online in Word Training (i.e., foundational skill
instruction) and the other half in small groups with the teacher in Text Training (i.e., advanced
literacy skills including writing, grammar, vocabulary, and comprehension). Students were
placed into the program based on standardized measures of literacy, including the Progress
Assessment of Reading Lexile exam, the Test of Written Spelling, and the Test of Silent
Contextual Reading Fluency, assessments provided by the program’s publisher, and students
began instruction at program-recommended entry points based on their results.
For this study, the researcher selected interviews and focus groups as data collection tools
for this study because they allow youth participants to give voice to their own interpretations and
perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). The semistructured interviews were
conducted using an interview guide and probes designed to explore the student experience and to
elicit students’ conceptualizations of their sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness while
participating in the Language! Live program. During the focus group, similar probes were used
to encourage students to exchange their opinions and ideas with each other. Data were collected
during a total of 11 semistructured interviews and one focus group. The focus group was
comprised of all four of the original eighth-grade interviewees who volunteered to continue
participating in the study after their one-on-one interviews. The focus group discussion lasted for
approximately 20 minutes. The lengths of the individual interviews varied. A description of
interview participants, including lengths of one-on-one interviews (rounded up to the nearest
minute) and participation in the focus group is depicted in Table 4.1. A sampling of the original
interview questions posed during the one-on-one interviews is provided in Chapter Four of this
study.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

81
Table 4.1
Description of Participants and Lengths of Interviews
Name (Pseudonym) Grade
Level
Sex Length of
Interview (in
Minutes)
Participated in
Focus Group
Session
Lorenzo 8 Male 28 Yes
Priscilla 8 Female 20 Yes
Rachelle 8 Female 21 Yes
Hugo 8 Male 19 Yes
Albert 6 Male 17
Jasmine 6 Female 15
Mia 6 Female 15
Alfonso 6 Male 14
Lenny 6 Male 14
Brenda 6 Female 16
Saul 6 Male 14

Data Coding
Transcriptions of interviews and the focus group, as well as notes taken during the
sessions, were uploaded to the data management system, Dedoose. The analysis of collected data
was consistent with Creswell’s (2014) framework of thematic content analysis and included both
a deductive and an inductive approach. After conducting a first pass on the data within Dedoose
to gain a general sense of meaning, the researcher used a color-coding process to overaly three
general categories onto the data: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The researcher
employed a thematic approach in selecting these a priori codes based on the literature on self-
determination theory in the context of student learning which identifies autonomy, competence,
and relatedness as crucial elements of both intrinsic motivation and the internalization process in
which one progresses through the motivational continuum of self-regulation toward more
autonomous forms of regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2009).
The data were then further refined through numerous cycles of coding. The researcher
first extracted the color-coded excerpts into Word documents, organized according to the a priori
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

82
codes/categories, then reread the excerpts several times searching for themes and/or clusters of
data related to each of the three predetermined codes/categories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
During this process of axial coding, the researcher used in vivo coding, selecting participants’
quotations that represented their conceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and the
themes initially emerged. The researcher read and reread transcript excerpts and identified codes
that were most prevalent, salient, and/or significantly illustrative of students’ conceptualizations
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Creswell, 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Throughout this process, the researcher compared bits of data to other bits of data and her initial
codes, as well as to theoretical constructs of self-determination theory, as a method of constant
comparison (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After several rounds of searching for schematic
relationships or selective coding, the content and definitions of themes that emerged continued to
change and be refined as data and codes were compared and categorized (Strauss & Corbin,
1990).
The themes that evolved as a result of this process were chosen based on their
significance, prevalence, salience, and dominance (Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017).
Several initial themes were not brought forward because the majority of student respondents did
not provide evidence or descriptions of their importance or existence or because they could be
consolidated into a more dominant theme.
The themes that emerged as a result of the researcher’s process of thematic coding
analysis remain organized by the category of need. Under the category of autonomy, two themes
emerged: choice and self-paced learning. The category of competence included the themes
feeling “able” and feedback and recognition with a focus on effort and/or improvement. The
category of relatedness includes social support and discussion of ideas. Table 4.2 provides a
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

83
summary of these resultant themes in relation to corresponding need, a description of each theme
as it relates to the extant literature, as well as participant quotes that illustrate ways in which
students in this study conceptualize each construct. In the remainder of this chapter, the
researcher describes her findings, organized and contextualized by each related need, in relation
to these themes.
Table 4.2
Qualitative Findings Summary Table
Need Theme Description/Link to
Literature
Participant Quotes
Autonomy Choice

“Allowing students to choose
their activities increases their
perception of having control
over their learning, thus
enhancing their sense of
autonomy and promoting
engagement (Evan & Boucher,
2015).”

“This one is better than [the
other program] because you
can play games and you have
more choices about what you
want to do.”

“I like when you get able to
choose, because… you have
a lot of options and
everything. You can learn
more stuff from it.”

Self-Paced
Learning
Allowing students the time
they need to explore and
manipulate their learning
materials, to retrieve prior
knowledge, and to process
corrective feedback has been
identified as an autonomy-
supportive practice (Reeve,
2009).
“I don’t feel like I’m rushed.
It’s in the middle because
you can go fast if you want
to, or you can go slow….
There’s no point in going
fast.”

“I feel like I’m going at my
own pace.”

Competence Feeling Able When students feel able to
meet the challenges of their
work, they are more likely to
internalize external goals and
to engage in activities
(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
"The whole reading is pretty
easy. The words. Like some
words that we've never seen
or never heard of. They’re
hard; but it's like, I like it
'cause it's challenging."

“The Unit Goals… they’re
hard, but not too hard and it
feels good when I pass ‘em.”
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

84

Feedback and
Recognition
with a Focus
on Effort
and/or
Improvement
Feedback and recognition that
emphasizes learners’
effectance and provides
relevant information needed to
complete tasks, as opposed to
being evaluative or promoting
comparison and competition,
help to foster students’ sense
of competence (Deci & Ryan,
2015).

“I like how you get to say the
words and you get to record
your own voice and hear it.
And then they tell you if you
are doing it right.”

“If you get it wrong, it tells
you right away. And if I spell
the word right, it'll show a
check mark, which is green. I
know when it's correct or
non-correct. I’m learning it.”
Relatedness Social Support When a student feels that he or
she can access support in their
learning from their peers and
teacher, feelings of relatedness
are enhanced (Niemiec &
Ryan, 2009).
“In groups we sometimes
have fun and the other kids
help us if we mess up.”

“Sometimes when I need
help, I ask my friend next to
me.”
Discussion of
Ideas
Classrooms environments in
which communication is
promoted and students
perceive that their teachers
encourage discussion of ideas
enhance feelings of
relatedness among learners
(Wang & Holcombe, 2010).
“In a group because we can
all write different kinds of
things down, and we can use
those answers to put inside of
one. And then we can all
combine it, and then we can
have people's different
answers instead of only one
person's answer, so we won't
make it boring.”

Findings
One of the central assumptions in this study was that motivation and engagement are key
constructs in understanding how to enhance learning outcomes for struggling adolescent literacy
learners (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006; Kamil et al., 2008). This study draws upon self-
determination theory to better understand how to increase motivation and engagement among
adolescent learners participating in literacy intervention programs. Self-Determination theory
maintains that in educational settings, fostering innate needs for autonomy, competence, and
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

85
relatedness enhances their intrinsic motivation and promotes internalization of extrinsically
motivated behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 2015). In the interviews and focus group with adolescent
literacy learners participating in the Language! Live intensive literacy intervention program, the
researcher asked the students questions and provided discussion prompts designed to elicit the
students’ conceptualizations of how the program may be fostering their motivational needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. A sampling of the questions and probes used during the
interviews is provided in Appendix C.
Based on the researcher’s analysis of these discussions, the findings from the themes
suggest that there are key components in the Language! Live program that may foster the
motivational needs of students. Using a blended instructional model wherein students spend half
of their literacy block working independently online on foundational skills and the other half in
small groups with the teacher learning advanced literacy skills, Language! Live promotes
students’ autonomy by providing choice and allowing for self-paced learning. By providing
scaffolded and explicit instruction at students’ zone of proximal development that allows
students to feel able, and by offering feedback and recognition based on effort, the program
fosters their senses of competence. By providing a context that allows for social support and by
promoting discussion, Language! Live fosters students’ sense of relatedness. Below is a
description of these themes, supported by excerpts that capture students’ voices in their own
words, to illustrate how this program fosters students’ innate motivational needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness.
How Language! Live May Foster Autonomy
Choice. “I like being able to choose what I want to work on.” -Brenda
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

86
The element of choice plays an important role in fostering students’ motivation and
engagement in learning (Jiminez-Raya et al., 2007). Providing students with meaningful and
optimally challenging academic choices that reflect their interests, goals, and values contributes
to students’ intrinsic and autonomous motivation and fosters their sense of free will, which is a
requisite component of autonomy (Evans & Boucher, 2015; Jiminez-Raya et al., 2007).
All (11 of 11) of the participants in this study stated that, when working online in Word
Training, they are regularly able to choose their activities, using words like “most,” “all,” and
“every’ to describe how often they are able to do so. The Language! Live online platform is
designed so that students click on or choose from a variety of options on their dashboards,
including sight-word games, Word Training lessons, independent reading, writing on the class
wall, modifying their avatars, and taking teacher-assigned assessments. Teachers can orally
direct students to make certain choices but cannot functionally force them via the online
platform. Lorenzo noted that “Ms. Brown lets us pick what we want to work on. Some days I
work on the sight-word games and some days I like to watch the videos and stuff.” According to
Albert, “When you log on, you have a lot of options and everything. You can learn more stuff
from it. You can pick sight-word games or the blue Word Training one or other things.” By
providing students with a variety of options that are optimally challenging, the Language! Live
program fosters their ability to take initiative in their learning, which is crucial to promoting
autonomy (Jiminez-Raya et al., 2007).
During the focus group session with the eighth-grade students, all of whom were in the
same seventh grade language arts class the previous year, Rachelle brought up the topic of
another literacy intervention program in which they had participated in seventh grade. When
comparing the two, Rachelle said that “this one [Language! Live] is more fun because you get
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

87
more choices about what you want to do.” When asked if they agree or disagree with her
statement, all three of the other focus group participants emphatically agreed. While students in
both the sixth- and eighth-grade classes said that they do have choices while working online
when asked how the Language! Live program could be improved to make it more motivating to
students like them, many expressed the need to include even more choices and activities. An
eighth-grade student, Hugo, mentioned that it should “have more choices, just more things to
choose, like more games and books,” while another student stated that it should have “more
things for your avatar, like more pets and stuff.” During the focus group session, Saul said that
he would actually prefer to have the choice not to work online every day, stating that “it would
be better if some days we could pick if we want to do the online part and other days where we
could work on something else.” And when asked what the most boring part of the online
component is, Saul also stated, “that we have to be on it every day.” Student responses in regard
to the element of choice reflected enjoyment of and desire for having a greater scope for making
decisions concerning their online exercises and activities. Allowing students to choose their
activities enhances their sense of autonomy and promotes engagement because it strengthens
their perceptions of having control over their learning (Evan & Boucher, 2015).
The act of choosing, or exercising free will, can be highly motivating in and of itself;
however, what learners find to be especially motivating is not solely the ability to make choices,
but the extent to which the available tasks and activities spark their curiosity and relate to their
interests, needs, and personal goals (Evan & Boucher, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2008). When asked
which activity they most often choose when logged on to the online component of the program,
one sixth-grade student stated, “I pick the sight-word games because I need to learn those.”
During the focus group session, Rachelle, an eighth-grade student, said that she preferred to
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

88
“work on the units” because they “help her do better on the tests.” Rachelle further elaborated
that if they “get to a higher Lexile level, we get to an outside class,” referring to being
mainstreamed into a non-intensive language arts program as being in an “outside class.” She also
expressed that she wanted to get her “reading up” for next year because she is concerned about
whether or not she will “be ok in high school.” Rachelle perceived her choice to spend the bulk
of her time working through the Word Training units to be personally meaningful and in line
with her goal of mainstreaming to a grade-level language arts class and being prepared for high
school. However, not all of the students stated that their choices were reflective of deeper goals.
There were some students who said they would choose activities like sight-word games because
they “get to earn points and build robots,” “it is the most fun,” or “the most easy.” In order to
foster autonomy and growth, choice should be promoted through the clarification of students’
values and personal goals (Evan & Boucher, 2015). Helping students to define their learning
goals allows them to be agentive, to take initiative in their learning, and to make more informed
decisions when provided choices in academic activities and materials (Ryan & Deci, 2008).
When responding to interview questions regarding their ability to make choices when
working online, 10 of the 11 interviewed students reacted positively and expressed that they
indeed “liked” or preferred the ability to choose their activities. Only one student, Lorenzo, said
that he would rather “be told” which activity to do when working online. Their positive feelings
toward their ability to choose their tasks speaks to the importance of the element of choice in
relation to the emotional domain of engagement, as positive emotions are a possible driver of
students’ effortful involvement in learning (Skinner et al., 2008). In response to questions
inquiring “why” they picked certain activities, students responded, “Because it’s more fun,” and
used phrases such as “I get to” and “I like to.” Students’ feelings about learning tasks are
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

89
reflective of their intrinsic motivation, and allowing students to engage in preferred tasks that
spark their interest and curiosity can enhance their emotional engagement (Lam et al., 2012).
When students are having fun, they are more emotionally engaged, which can lead to more on-
task behaviors and a decrease in disaffection (Lam et al., 2012; Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Most
of the students in this study referred to specific activities, such as sight-word games, as “fun,”
but did not come to a consensus regarding the most interesting or fun activity. Many students
stated that there are activities that they “[didn’t] like” or found boring as well. When asked what
their least favorite part of the Language! Live program was, Jazmine responded, “The videos,
they just get boring,” and Rachelle said, “When we have to do writing online. I hate typing.”
A student’s interest in learning material and activities is a precondition for intrinsic
motivation and the process of internalization of extrinsically motivated behaviors (Krapp, 2002;
Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Thus, a learner’s engagement and motivation to learn is predicated
upon his or her affective response to the curriculum and teaching. In this study, students
expressed differing opinions regarding the activities that interested them and which ones they
disliked and/or found boring, which highlighted the importance of providing learners with
choices that appeal to a wide range of student interests.
Self-paced learning. “I don't feel like I'm rushed. It's in the middle because you can go
fast if you want to, or you can go slow, because there's still gonna be more and more lessons.
There's no point in going fast. I go as fast as I need to go.” -Mia
Learning takes time. As not all learners learn at the same rate, students need time to
explore and manipulate their learning materials, to retrieve prior knowledge, and to process
corrective feedback (Reeve, 2009). As such, students benefit from programs and contexts that
allow them the time they need for self-paced learning, which has been identified to be an
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

90
autonomy-supportive instructional practice (Reeve, 2009). The online Word Training component
of the program is designed so that students progress through the units at their own pace and in a
private environment. When asked about whether they are able to “go at their own pace” or “go as
fast or as slow as they wanted” when working online, all (11 of 11) of the students in this study
responded that they were able to go at their own pace. When asked how they “felt about going at
their own pace,” all 11 participants said that that they preferred to be able to go at their own pace
when working online. Rachelle stated, “I usually go slow.” When asked how she feels about her
pacing, she replied,
It feels relaxing, calming, because I just learn new things for me. And sometimes, for me,
I rush through things, but my mom tells me if I rush through things then I won't be able to
learn it. So, I have to slow down: and then after, I learn it more and understand it.
Rachelle’s comment also underscores the potential of self-paced learning in reducing anxiety for
students who may need more time to understand course material (Edwards & Rule, 2013).
Students’ comments indicate that they prefer the ability and autonomy to work faster or
slower and some students expressed frustration about online activities that impose time
restrictions or do not allow them to “skip through” things they “already know.” Jazmine said,
“Sometimes when I go on the lessons, I already know it. There’s videos. There’s about two
videos before the lesson and I can’t click through. It gets annoying.” Some students, like Albert,
said a general sense of displeasure about having to do “things” they already know “over and
over.” Some students also expressed frustration regarding being “timed” during online
assessments. Luis said, “I wish I had more time to spend on the [unit] goals ‘cuz they’re timed. I
don’t have enough time.” Similarly, Jazmine explained,
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

91
And I get frustrated because the timer tries to make me go fast and that’s when I miss it.
Like, if I see the timer, I’ll try to speed up because I don’t want to go under my level.
And it gets me mad because I start screaming to the computer saying like, ‘What the
hell?’ Because it literally has a timer. It’s like, I think two minutes. I’m not sure. And I’m
trying to read it and it’s like five seconds left and I try to read it so fast that I mess up the
words.
Luis’ and Jazmine’s expressed frustration toward “being timed” on the assessments aligns with
the Self-Determination theoretical perspective that views controlling structures, such as external
pressures and time limits, as negatively affecting both intrinsic motivation and internalization of
external regulation (Gaudreau, 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2009).
Reeve (2009) described autonomy-supportive environments, in part, as those that afford
flexibility and allow students to work in their own way, without the imposition of controls and/or
deadlines. Some students in this study said that when working online, they have the ability to
replay tutorial videos when needed, and a few expressed that they often do rewatch these videos
when they “don’t understand.” When asked what happens when he doesn’t understand
something when working online, Hugo stated, “if I don’t understand the first time, I replay it [the
video].” The ability to review lessons when needed promotes autonomy by emphasizing
ownership, personal responsibility, and awareness; and without the pressure of external
deadlines, students have the flexibility to exercise agency over their learning behaviors (Ryan &
Deci, 2009).
How Language! Live may Foster Competence
Feeling able. “I get it right and it makes me feel confident.” -Rachelle
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

92
Central to the concept of fostering competence among students is the notion that they will
only engage in and value tasks they can truly understand and are able to accomplish (Niemiec &
Ryan, 2009). When students feel able to meet the challenges of their work, they are more likely
to internalize external goals and to engage in activities (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Learning
contexts that support students’ feelings of being able to successfully complete tasks and achieve
goals, then, are conducive to fostering their sense of competence.
When reflecting upon their experiences working online in Word Training and in small
groups with the teacher in Text Training, the students expressed a sense of being able to do most
of the work they encountered. When asked if they feel that that they can “do” or “be successful
on” the work and activities presented to them when working online and when working with the
teacher in small-group Text Training, all (11 of 11) students responded affirmatively, although
some added that may “need help,” “another try,” or “a second chance” at times.
When asked what he thought about the difficulty of the reading done in small-group Text
Training, Alfonso answered, "The whole reading is pretty easy. The words. Like some words
that we've never seen or never heard of. They’re hard; but it's like, I like it 'cause it's
challenging." And when asked about his feelings about the online Word Training unit
assessments called Unit Goals, Albert responded, "They’re hard, but not too hard,” and “It feels
good when I pass ‘em.” Students in this study report feeling a sense of accomplishment and
success when passing online assessments or “Goals” and improving their overall performance.
Luis shared his feelings about his feelings about the online unit assessments: “Oh I can do this.
Like I'm successful.” When students feel successful in their learning, their competence is
enhanced (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Hugo expressed pride when talking about his progress:
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

93
“When I do the reading tests, I get more higher scores. I used to get low scores. They’re better
now.”
By providing students with optimally challenging tasks that they are able to do and in a
way that allows them to test and expand their learning capabilities progressively, Language! Live
may be actively fostering their sense of competence (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). This may be due
to the fact that students are placed into the program based on a series of literacy assessments at
entry points that provide instruction at their zone of proximal development, thus allowing them to
“concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within their range of competence,”
which maximizes their potential for success (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976, p. 90). Students take
the online unit assessments after having progressed sequentially through the unit content and
having participated in review sessions beforehand. If they do not initially pass the assessments,
they are provided with an additional review before retaking the end-of-unit assessments.
One way to promote feelings of success and efficacy is to provide students with the
appropriate tools and feedback to scaffold their learning in ways that facilitate accomplishment
and growth (Jang et al., 2010; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). When working online in Word Training,
many students reported feeling supported in their learning. When comparing Language! Live to
another literacy intervention program during the focus group session, Rachelle said that in the
other program, “They just throw stuff at you, but here you read it and then you go step by step.”
Lorenzo chimed in after Rachelle, saying, “There was just a lot of reading…. Yeah, that my
brain can't handle.”
The online Word Training component of Language! Live is designed to provide explicit
modeling of skills and context-related tutorials or “skits,” followed by independent practice with
immediate corrective feedback. Students have the ability to replay tutorials and/or instructions
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

94
when working online and are able to go back and replay tutorials from previous units. There is
also a Sound Library included on their dashboards that allows them to view people pronouncing
phonemes from both frontal and sagittal view. Some of the students in this study reported
utilizing these features of the program when they feel they need support or “didn’t understand
the first time.” Lorenzo said, “Sometimes if I don’t understand I go back and play the directions
again” and “When I stop focusing, I go back and replay the videos again.” The literature suggests
that engagement is enhanced when students are provided with explicit explanations of
expectations and instructions, guided support, and the provision of positive corrective feedback;
as such, these features of the Language! Live program that provide these supports may be
enhancing students’ overall feelings of competence (Jang et al., 2010; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
When asked about the online video tutorials in Language! Live, Rachelle said, “I like
how the teachers in the video say it with their mouths so that way I can learn how to say it, and I
won't say it incorrectly.” And, when asked what her favorite aspect of the program is, Rachelle
said, “I like the way they explain things.” Providing scaffolding and explicit modeling allows
students to feel more supported in their learning, especially those deemed at-risk and can lead to
increased feelings of competence (Jang et al. 2010). When was asked what occurs when they get
an item incorrect when working online, Priscilla shared the following example:
Say if I spelled "cat" or something and I spelled it wrong without putting a letter, then it'll
put a red box and then I have to redo it. And then a lady in the background, she tells
"cat," and then after, she says "t," like splits it up, so that way I can understand it and
spell it right.
By providing step-by-step instruction within the students’ zone of proximal development, as well
as tutorial videos with explicit modeling that can be replayed by students, the Language! Live
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

95
program may be creating conditions for students to successfully complete activities and tasks.
Students’ responses indicate that they are able to tackle appropriately-challenging tasks,
particularly when working independently online; and, when students feel able to meet the
challenges of their work, their feelings of competence are enhanced (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
Feedback and recognition.
Feedback. “I like how you get to say the words and you get to record your own voice and
hear it. And then they tell you if you are doing it right.” -Mia
Feedback and recognition that emphasizes learners’ effectance and provides relevant
information needed to complete tasks, as opposed to being evaluative or promoting comparison
and competition, help to foster students’ sense of competence (Deci & Ryan, 2015). All (11 of
11) students in this study said that they do receive feedback and/or redirection when working
online and were able to describe ways in which they receive feedback when working online and
what happens when they “get something wrong” and “how they know they got it right.” And,
most (10 of 11) students responded affirmatively when asked if the feedback was “helpful” or
useful. Brenda shared the following anecdote:
Yeah, like if you're doing the ones where you have to pick words, if you get it right it
turns green and if you get it wrong it turns to X. And if you get it wrong again, it turns X.
It gives you like three tries basically and hints until I get it right.
Many other students, like Mia, echoed Brenda’s explanation of how they are provided immediate
corrective feedback when engaging in independent practice activities online. Mia explained:
If you get it wrong, it tells you right away. And if I spell the word right, it'll show a check
mark, which is green. I know when it's correct or non-correct. I’m learning it. 'Cause life
is all about mistakes.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

96
The feedback provided during the online component of the program is designed to guide students
toward the correct responses by providing hints, modeling, repetition, and multiple opportunities
for success. Mia continued to share that “you get a second chance” because “you get to do it over
again. Learn it, and then do it over again.”
Many students also expressed that they “like” being recorded and “hearing their voices
back.” Brenda said, “I need to get better with reading, like how many words I can read and
reading without making mistakes. This helps me. I like to read and record it and hear myself
reading.” When working online, students can be recorded reading words, phrases, and passages.
Those recordings are immediately played back for students so that they can self-assess their
accuracy and/or fluency. Alfonso shared that when he hears himself reading, he knows that he
“did it right.”
When students complete a lesson, activity, or assessment online, they are immediately
provided with their results, including an item analysis of their responses. Priscilla described a
time when she felt proud:
Because I completed the level two. I just tried hard on the Word Training every time. I
sometimes even noticed that I got less than 80 to 90, I tried so harder. I started getting 80
or 90% because I was working so hard.
Competence is enhanced when feedback is provided in an autonomy-supporting way, meaning
that it is specific, meaningful, and delivered neutrally, promptly and privately (Mouratidis, Lens,
& Vansteenkiste, 2010; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). The online component of the Language! Live
program provides students a private learning environment in which they are provided instruction,
followed by independent practice with corrective feedback that is task-specific and designed to
guide students to the correct responses. When they complete assignments and assessments, they
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

97
are able to immediately view their results, which they can revisit using the Scorecard function on
their online dashboards. These elements of the instructional design of the Language! Live are
some of how this program is also fosters students’ overall sense of competence.
Ten out of the of 11 students in this study also responded affirmatively when asked if
they receive feedback from their teacher when working in Text Training groups using words,
such as “often” or “sometimes” to describe the frequency. Sometimes this feedback is oral and
shared with the group. When asked how they are provided with feedback when working in Text
Training, Lorenzo said,
Sometimes I say a word and she actually likes it. Or I say the sentence and then she likes
it, so she put it in the thing, the book. She uses it like an example because it’s right and
shows everyone.
And, sometimes the teacher provides feedback in written form. Rachelle shared how she most
often receives feedback during Text Training: “I go back and check my book and if it's wrong
my teacher checks and writes that it's wrong.” The Text Training component of the program is
designed to be implemented in small groups to allow for a higher ratio of teacher-student
interaction. Smaller group sizes permit the teacher to be responsive to student needs. It is not
always possible or recommended in this setting, however, to provide immediate and personalized
feedback to students. Although most students do report getting feedback during group work, they
used terms like “sometimes” to describe the frequency. Because immediate and specific
feedback fosters students’ sense of competence, the online component may inherently be more
competence-enhancing than the in-person small-group component of Language! Live. When
asked when they feel the most successful in the program, most students referred to times when
they are working online because they “got it right” or “passed.” Lorenzo said that he feels more
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

98
successful when working online. When asked why, he said, “Because it corrects my mistakes
faster so I can learn it.”
Recognition. “I’m happy because I completed level two and almost filled my
achievements.” -Priscilla
Recognition and praise that is effort- and improvement-based help to foster students’
perceptions of competence because of its emphasis on what students have learned and
accomplished (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). All (11 of 11) students in this study, at some point in
their interviews or during the focus group, expressed positive sentiments when describing their
accomplishments, “achievements,” and/or recognition for their progress, using words like
“proud,” “happy.” This finding was determined mostly based on responses to the following
interview questions: “When do you feel the most successful?” and “What is your favorite part of
the program,” but was also determined based on other responses and discussions that occurred
during the interviews and focus group.
When asked when they feel the most successful, Jazmine said, “When I pass a Unit
Goal,” and Lorenzo said, “When I move to a higher unit.” When working online, students can
earn achievements, such as badges and points based on their effort and improvement in the
program. When students successfully complete a Word Training unit, they earn a certificate and
are provided with enhancements for their online avatars, like accessories and pets. As they work
through the sight-word games, they can build robots as they successfully progress up the levels.
Students in this study expressed that they “like” to earn achievements and feel a sense of
accomplishment when they “level up” and earn them. When asked what their favorite aspect of
the program was, Albert stated, “I like sight-word games because you can get to new levels.
They're fun. You go through levels. You have robots. You have to get a lot of robots and defeat
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

99
the boss.” And, Hugo stated, "When I get my hundred points and the pet, I feel proud." During
the focus group session, students compared the Language! Live program to a previous literacy
intervention program that was used to teach them, "In [the other program] you just get on and
start doing the words. You don't gain nothing new, you just do your work. You don't get any
achievements or anything.”
When students perceive that their efforts and progress are recognized, they are more
likely to experience feelings of confidence and competence (Wang & Holcombe, 2001). Students
are recognized for their personal achievements and mastery of content, as opposed to their
performance in relation to peers while working online in Language! Live. Although students
expressed enjoyment toward earning achievements, points, and “pets” for their avatars, these
items are in recognition of their work, effort, and attainment of goals, and are effective
opportunities for students to celebrate success. When expressing how she feels when she finishes
Word Training units, Jasmine shared,
I feel good about completing them. Every time we complete a unit we get to unlock
something for the avatar. Because I really want, right now I really want the flamingos. I
can pick a lot of things because I finished a lot of units.
By providing recognition with a focus on personal growth, effort, and improvement, as opposed
to versus comparison and competition, in a private online environment, the Language! Live
program may be actively promoting students’ perceptions of competence. This may be
particularly impactful for adolescent students because at this stage of development, they are more
sensitive of their competencies being compared to those of their classmates and peers (Midgley,
1993).
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

100
Some students in this study expressed that they sometimes speak with their peers after
class about how far along they are in Word Training and/or how many points they have. When
asked if he other talks to other students about their online course position, Hugo said, “Mm-
hmm, I mean after class I tell them what unit are they, how many points they have. Some are like
in the tops. Some are like probably two units ahead or something like that.” When asked if it
bothers him if his classmates are further along, Hugo replied, “Nah, no.” When asked what he
would change about the Language! Live program, another student, Albert, expressed the desire
to have the ability to see his classmates’ scores, saying, “I’d make sure we can see our
classmates’ grades…. I’m just interested.” Although some of the students in this study expressed
the desire to know how their classmates are doing and/or how far they have progressed in the
program, this desire appears to stem from sheer curiosity or interest, as opposed to stemming
from an imposed environment of competition. Students may be curious and inquire about the
relative progress of their peers, but these actions are purely volitional and incumbent upon their
friends’ and peers’ conditional sharing of personal information.
When working online in the Language! Live program, students are recognized for their
effort, progress, and mastery of goals, as opposed to their performance in relation to their peers.
The students in this study were placed at varying entry points within the program and are
progressing at their own pace and without being compared to their peers’ course positions and
progress. Adolescent students, in particular, benefit from classroom contexts, such as these, that
focus on personal growth instead of social comparison and competition. Learning environments
in which adolescent students are not fearful of being embarrassed in front of their peers due to
perceptions of inferior performance and are necessary for nurturing their confidence, and by
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

101
providing effort-paced recognition free of social comparison, the Language! Live program may
by actively fostering their sense of competence (Wang & Holcombe, 2010).
How Language! Live may Foster Relatedness
Social support. “In groups we sometimes have fun and the other kids help us if we mess
up.” -Saul
Self-Determination theory maintains that satisfaction of the need for relatedness, which
reaches its peaks at adolescence and facilitates the process of internalizing and integrating the
perceived locus of causality of their extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2009). By fostering a
sense of relatedness in educational contexts, then, educators can facilitate the process of self-
determination for students. One way to promote a sense of relatedness among learners is by
providing a setting in which students are able to access social supports, and the students in this
study expressed several ways in which they can access the support of their teacher and peers,
although most of their descriptions included instances that occur during small-group Text
Training. In response to the question, “Who do you go to when you need help,” all (11 of 11)
students said that they go to “the teacher,” a “friend,” their “classmates,” or someone in their
group.
Language! Live is a blended program, and the students in this study spend half of the 90-
minute (two consecutive class periods) literacy block working independently on computers in
Word Training, and the other 45 minutes or so in Text Training working in small groups with the
teacher and students in their leveled group. There do exist online opportunities for interaction
with peers, including a “class wall” discussion board and the ability to view each other’s avatars
and profiles; however, the only opportunity for accessing peer support online is the peer-review
function, which allows them to earn points for providing each other feedback on their recordings
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

102
of sounds, words, and phrases. When asked how they receive assistance or support when
working online, none (0 of 11) of the students in this study mentioned utilizing this feature.
During the interviews and focus group, the students reported significantly more instances and
opportunities for accessing social support when working with the teacher and other students in
small groups during the Text Training component.
Describing his experience working in Text Training groups, Lenny said, “I like the group
because they can help me with words that I don’t understand, don’t know how to say it.” When
asked what they do when they need assistance or support when working in groups, Albert said
that he goes to “the people in my group. If you don't know the answer, then they can help us and
everything,” and Jazmine said, “I like the group because if you say a word wrong, they can help
you.” “Asking a friend” was a common response to this question, as Rachelle said, “I usually ask
a friend. We work together on it.”
It may be that the in-person Text Training component is more conducive to fostering a
sense of relatedness because it is designed for both teacher-directed and collaborative work. In
Text Training, students are seated together in small groups working on the same concept or task.
This is a more natural setting for peer interaction. During Word Training, however, they work
independently online, usually with headsets on. Saul said that he actually prefers working in
groups. He explained, “because sometimes when I need help, I ask my friend next to me,” as
opposed to when he is working in Word Training because online “we’re not allowed to talk.”
Saul elaborated on his preference for working with others: “because I'm not the kid that likes to
just work by themselves.”
Some students in this study expressed that they prefer their time working alone online in
Word Training, while others shared their preference for working in groups with peers. By
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

103
allowing students to spend half of their time working online without distractions and half of their
time working in groups with their peers, the Language! Live program is able to provide a balance
of settings that allows for their needs to be met in differing ways. In this study, the students’ need
for relatedness seems to be met in part by their participation in Text Training groups wherein
they are able to more readily and frequently access social support when they need “help” or
benefit from “working with a friend.” Providing social support for learners is positively
associated with academic engagement in learning (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). By including
cooperative work activities and a structure for collaboration during the Text Training component,
Language! Live may be fostering a sense of relatedness for the adolescent literacy learners
participating in this program.
Discussion of ideas. “I like to listen to other people's answers because it's new to me to
listen to other people's ideas. But usually I like to listen to other people's answers to see what's
going on inside their brain and what they're trying to process.” -Rachelle
When teachers encourage and foster active discussion of ideas, students are reported to be
more engaged in learning activities and to experience increased feelings of relatedness with both
their peers and the teacher (Lam, 2014). The students in this study described their experiences
engaging in discussion with the teacher and their classmates while participating in the Language!
Live program while working in both the online and small-group components. All (11 of 11)
students reported participating in the discussions during the Text Training component of the
program to some degree, whether it be “often,” “sometimes,” or “when I feel like it.” However,
few (3 of 11) respondents reported engaging in discussion or communicating with others while
working online. Rachelle shared the following anecdote about her experience working in Text
Training:
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

104
In a group because we can all write different kinds of things down, and we can use those
answers to put inside of one. And then we can all combine it, and then we can have
people's different answers instead of only one person's answer, so we won't make it
boring.
Classroom contexts in which active and positive contribution to discussion is promoted are more
conducive to enhancing students’ perceptions of social belonging and relatedness, which leads to
increased engagement with course material, even for students participating in remedial track
classes (Hamm, Farmer, Lambert, & Gravelle, 2014). This is especially true for adolescent
students, whose developmental needs for social connectedness are at their peak.
The Language! Live program includes features and structures that are designed to
promote classroom discussion among students and with the teacher. The Text Training
component of the program is organized around provocative, yet age-appropriate thematic units,
like Censorship, Mental Health, and Nelson Mandela’s Struggle for Justice in South Africa, that
are meant to intrigue adolescent learners and spark discussion. The structure of the Text Training
lessons and activities are designed to provide opportunities to share ideas with each other and
with the teacher. Priscilla shared the following anecdote about her group’s discussion of a story
by Langston Hughes that was read during a Text Training unit on the Harlem Renaissance:
I liked the one we just read, I think it was “Thank You, Ma’am.” I think mostly everyone
liked that one…. Sometimes we don’t like the same ones, but this one taught you
something, like how to be or something.
The thematic structure of the Text Training units that center around provocative and/or high
interest text, as well as the teacher-directed discussion prompts meant to foster student discussion
and co-construction of knowledge, provide a platform for deep discussion and engagement.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

105
When learners are more interested and engaged in the topic, they are more likely to participate in
group discussions and make comments one another’s ideas (Mikami, 2016). This type of
engagement allows students to feel included by their peers, thus increasing feelings of
relatedness.
The online Word Training component of the program also includes a feature, called the
“class wall,” which is an online discussion board. It is designed in a way that allows the teacher
to post prompts, which are provided in the curriculum, to elicit discussion and/or sharing of
ideas, which are usually related to topics explored during small-group Text Training instruction.
The students can post to the board and reply to each other’s comments; however, they are not
permitted to direct message one another. The classroom teacher has the option of providing
points for participation if he or she deems fit. Only three of the 11 students in this study reported
that they use this feature in their classes. When asked how they communicate with others when
working online, Lorenzo said, “The class wall sometimes,” and, “Sometimes the teacher gives us
assignments. Like what is your best story and we can see what the other people wrote.” In
response to this question, Priscilla said, “Yeah, sometimes I write on the wall,” and Rachelle
shared this anecdote:
Yeah. Ms. Brown, she posts to class wall, and she basically says ... If she said, "What do
we want for Christmas?" we all get to go through each other's stuff and we all see what
we want for Christmas or something. I like reading those because they're funny.
The majority of students in this study report using the class wall feature. When asked if he ever
uses the wall, Hugo replied, “Mm-hmm (negative),” and Mia said, “Yeah, I tried to reply to my
friend, but I’m not sure if it went through.” It seems as though some of the students in this study
were not fully aware of the class wall function and/or how to properly use it. When asked if there
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

106
was any way to communicate with his classmates while working online, Albert responded,
“Pretty sure there’s…I don’t know. I haven’t checked yet, but I’m pretty sure you can send
messages to the teacher or something.” And, when asked if he ever sends messages, Albert
responded, “No, I don’t think so.” While working independently online, students progressed
through content at their own pace; the online class wall feature is designed to allow for class
discussion in this space. It is incumbent upon the teacher, however, to post and reply to
discussion prompts in order for this feature to be fully maximized.
A sense of connectedness or relatedness to teachers and classmates is associated with
increased motivation and engagement, particularly emotional engagement, in learning (Wang &
Holcombe, 2010). One way to enhance students’ sense of relatedness is to promote and structure
opportunities for student interaction and to encourage students to discuss ideas with each other.
Language! Live may be fostering students’ sense of relatedness by providing provocative, yet
age-appropriate, thematic Text Training instruction designed to elicit discussion and co-
construction of knowledge among peers. And, by providing a class wall feature, the program has
created a platform for online discussion in a space where students otherwise work independently.
These features may allow for more opportunities for peer discussion, thus enhancing their overall
sense of relatedness.
Summary
This study explored the adolescent learners’ experience participating in the intensive
literacy intervention program, Language! Live and sought to describe how this program is
fostering their innate and universal needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This study
included thematic content analysis of 11 semistructured interview transcripts, one transcription
of a single focus group session, as well as anecdotal notes taken by the researcher during
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

107
interview and focus group sessions. Through a process of both deductive and inductive analysis,
including constant comparison, the researcher arrived at six themes describing how the
Language! Live program may be fostering students’ inner motivational needs. The researcher
found that the program may be fostering the students’ autonomy by providing choice and by
creating an environment for self-paced learning. The researcher found that it may be fostering
students’ sense of competence by enabling them to feel able to meet the challenges of their work
and by offering feedback and recognition with a focus on effort and/or improvement. The
researcher’s findings suggest that Language! Live may be fostering students’ needs for
relatedness by providing structures for social support and discussion of ideas. Chapter V
includes a discussion of these findings, as well as implications for educational practice and future
research.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

108
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Struggling adolescent literacy learners deserve high quality, asset-oriented, and
thoughtfully-designed literacy instruction that is motivating and engaging. The purpose of this
qualitative study was to explore the perspectives of struggling adolescent readers and writers to
better understand and describe how their motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness are met through their participation in an intensive literacy intervention program,
Language! Live. Many struggling adolescent readers and writers have a history of disaffection
and frustration with their lack of literacy attainment and are especially prone to disengagement
and motivational issues (Solis et al., 2014). Remedial literacy instruction for adolescent students,
though, has traditionally operated from a deficit model perspective; and despite the fact that they
are the primary stakeholders in their education, students typically have the least influence and
control in the design and implementation of the programs used to remediate them (Borjian &
Padilla 2010; Saal & Sulentic Dowell, 2014). Their voices and perspectives may be excluded
from the discourse related to how best to improve their curricular experiences because of their
positioning in schools as remedial and/or special education students (Saal & Sulentic Dowell,
2014).
There are five programs adopted by the California Department of Education to serve as
intensive literacy intervention pathways for older students who struggle with literacy acquisition.
Language! Live is one of the adopted programs. This study sought to understand the experiences
of struggling adolescent literacy learners participating in this program by conducting interviews
and a focus group enabling students to describe their experiences in their own words. Self-
determination theory was employed as a framework for understanding how the students’
motivational needs are fostered.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

109
Self-Determination theory is a macrotheory of human motivation that maintains that in
educational settings, the respect of students’ innate motivational needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness enhances their motivation and increases their engagement in school-
related activities (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). From a Self-Determination theoretical perspective,
when lessons and activities are structured in ways that support students’ needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness, they are more likely to effectively engage in learning activities
(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Deci & Ryan, 2015). Because not all school-related tasks are
intrinsically motivating for students, understanding how to promote more autonomous and
volitional forms of extrinsic motivation through a process called internalization is important for
those interested in increasing the motivation, engagement, and achievement of all learners, but
especially those most at-risk of disengagement and/or disaffection (Wang & Holcombe, 2010;
Deci & Ryan, 2015). Internalization can be understood in terms of a “continuum of autonomy,”
in which the more fully a student values an activity or objective, the more likely it is that an
accompanying behavior will be executed autonomously (Deci & Ryan, 2015, p. 488).
Educators and curriculum developers are in unique positions that allow them to create and design
programs and environments to support intrinsic motivation and the internalization process for
students, including struggling adolescent literacy learners. The results of this study can be used
to better understand how to promote students’ academic engagement by fostering their
motivational needs.
This final chapter includes a discussion of the researcher’s findings in regard to the
original research question that guided the study:
How does the intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live, foster struggling
adolescent learners’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness?
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

110
This chapter also provides a discussion of implications for practice and recommendations for
future research on this topic. The findings are organized by themes that are the result of thematic
content analysis of the transcriptions of original interviews, focus group, and notes taken by the
researcher during the interviews and focus group session (Creswell, 2015). Each of the themes is
organized by motivational need (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) in the context of self-
determination theory (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
Methodology
In this qualitative study, data was collected via 11 semistructured interviews and a focus
group with adolescent students enrolled in an ethnically, linguistically, and socioeconomically
diverse middle school in the San Bernardino-Riverside metropolis of Southern California who
were participating in the Language! Live program. Self-selected student participants were chosen
based on the following criteria: they were placed into the Language! Live program based on
standardized assessments indicating that they were working significantly below grade level in the
language arts, they were not classified as a Newcomers nor Emergent English Learners, and they
were adolescents. The subjects of this study were drawn from two classes, one of which was an
eighth-grade SDC class and the other was a sixth-grade class comprised of both RSP students
and regular education students in need of intensive literacy intervention.
The one-on-one interviews were structured using an interview guide consisting of
questions and probes designed to explore the students’ perspectives on the intensive literacy
intervention program, Language! Live, in an effort to better understand how their needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness, were being fostered by participating in this program.
The focus group was comprised of four of the original interviewees and included fewer, more
open-ended questions and probes.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

111
The interviews and the focus group were recorded and transcribed verbatim using the
RevTrak application. A thematic content analysis method was employed to analyze interview
and focus group data using both an inductive (emerging directly from student responses) and a
deductive (using a priori codes) approach to find common themes across the data (Creswell,
2009). Key constructs of self-determination theory were used to develop interview questions and
probes, as well as a priori codes and categories for analyzing data.
Discussion of Findings
Through their interviews and a focus group session, the sixth- and eighth-grade subjects
of this study provided additional insight into how the Language! Live intensive literacy
intervention program may be promoting engagement by supporting their motivational needs. As
an organizational feature, the discussion of findings will be presented by themes or answers to
how each of these motivational needs may be fostered by the Language! Live program. The
findings suggest that this program may be fostering students’ needs for:
• autonomy by providing choice and self-paced learning;
• competence by structuring learning context that enables students to feel able to
meet the challenges of their work and by proving feedback and recognition with
a focus on effort and/or improvement; and
• relatedness by incorporating opportunities for social support and discussion of
ideas.
Autonomy
Autonomy can be defined as the need and desire to be agentive in directing one’s own
behavior and reflects the experience that engagement is volitional (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Through
their interviews and focus group session, the student participants revealed how their need for
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

112
autonomy may be fostered by their participation in the Language! Live program, and based on
their responses and discussions, two themes emerged: choice and self-paced learning.
Choice. All of the students in this study said that while working in the independent,
online component of the Language! Live program, they are afforded opportunities to exercise
choice. Students shared that “usually,” and “on most days” they are able to choose from a variety
of online options, including “playing sight-word games,” “doing a Word Training lesson,” doing
independent reading, writing on the class wall, modifying their avatar, or “taking a test.” Further,
when describing why they make particular choices when working online, students used words
and phrases, such as “I like” and “most fun” to explain their choices. This suggests that when
students are able to choose from a variety of activities that they find interesting, their affective
response or emotional engagement is enhanced. Affective engagement promotes intrinsic
motivation and the internalization process (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). This finding underscores
the importance of providing students with a wide variety of optimally challenging activities to
choose from because when students perceive that they are exercising free will and having “fun,”
their sense of autonomy increases (Conklin, 2014). This finding also aligns with findings from
previous studies that show the element of instructionally relevant choice to have a powerful
motivating effect on students and is associated with more positive school experiences (Patall,
Cooper, & Robinson, 2008; Ryan et al., 2006).
It must also be noted that the element of choice in and of itself is not effective unless
learners develop the ability to choose which activities and tasks support their needs, are most
meaningful, and help them to achieve their personal goals (Jiménez Raya et al., 2007). Some, but
not all, of the participants expressed that while working online, their choices reflect their
academic needs and personal goals, such as “getting better at sight words,” and getting their
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

113
“reading up” so that they can be “ready for high school.” This finding underscores the
importance of educators’ promotion of choice through the clarification of goals and awareness,
so that when confronted with a plethora of options, students can make choices that meet their
personal literacy needs and academic goals (Jiménez Raya et al., 2007).
When asked whether they were able to make choices while working with the teacher and
small groups in the Text Training component of the Language! Live program, the students
indicated that they are generally unable to make choices in this context because “the teacher tells
us what to do.” While participating in this blended language arts intervention program, the
students predominantly enjoy the element of choice while working in the online component, as
opposed to the Text Training small-group component. Because the element of choice has been
shown to be a strong motivator for students, it may be important to consider how the choice can
be incorporated in the teacher-directed component of this program and other intensive literacy
intervention programs that follow a similar blended technology model. Because the Text
Training component of Language! Live is teacher-directed and done as a group, teachers may
need to find creative ways to support students’ perceptions of choice in this context (e.g.,
allowing students to choose supplemental readings that support unit themes, providing options
for how students may complete assignments, etc.).
Self-Paced learning. All of the students in this study expressed that when they are
working online, they have the ability to work through units and activities at their own pace, and
that they “can go fast if you want to, or you can go slow.” Most students conveyed that they
enjoyed the ability to go at their own pace when working online and some expressed that they
felt it to be “relaxing” and that they are “not rushed.” The only exception to this was when they
were asked about the end-of-unit online assessments which are timed; several students did
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

114
express their desire to “have more time” on these assessments because they “feel rushed” while
taking them. The Word Training component of the Language! Live program is designed to be
self-paced and includes many features that allow students to go back and review video tutorials
and directions. All of the tutorial videos are also housed in an online library so that they can be
replayed at later dates, as well. There is a Sound Library which permits students to watch
pronunciations of phonemes, if needed, providing both frontal and sagittal views as models for
clarification.
Providing students with the ability to work at their own pace and to review lessons,
tutorials, and directions when needed, promotes autonomy by emphasizing ownership, personal
responsibility, and awareness. Without the external pressure of deadlines, learners have the
flexibility to exercise agency over their behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2009). Allowing students time
for self-paced learning enhances their sense of autonomy. In order for students to feel prepared
for assessments it is important to ensure that they are taught to self-monitor and take advantages
of opportunities to review lesson tutorials and access online resources and tools when needed.
This finding underscores the importance of supporting autonomy by allowing for self-paced
learning and aligns with previous research suggesting that self-paced learning has the potential to
reduce anxiety for students who may need additional time to learn and process course material
(Edwards & Rule, 2013). It is also important to consider the need for educators to ensure that
their students are aware of all available online resources (e.g., ability to replay tutorials, replay
directions, access archived content) and are able to self-monitor when working online so that
they can take advantage of the tools that have been made available to them (Reeve, 2009).

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

115
Competence
Competence can be thought of as the need and desire to feel effective in one’s endeavors
and a belief that one has the ability to successful in mastering challenges (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
In their responses and discussions, the participants shared their conceptualizations of competence
in the context of working in the Language! Live program. Two themes emerged to help explain
how their need for competence was being fostered by their participation in the program: feeling
able and feedback and recognition with a focus on effort and/or improvement.
Feeling able. Overwhelmingly, the student participants expressed that they are able to
meet the challenges of their work, both while working independently online (Word Training) and
while working in small groups with the teacher (Text Training). They used words and phrases,
such as “Oh, I can do this” and “hard, but not too hard” to describe the activities, assessments,
and lessons encountered in the program. This finding aligns with the extant literature that
suggests that when students believe that they are able to successfully complete activities and
achieve goals, their sense of competence is enhanced and they are more likely to engage in their
learning (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). By placing students at appropriate entry points into the
program, Language! Live is able to provide instruction within a student’s zone of proximal
development so that they are able to work on skills and tasks that are within their range of ability
and competence (Vygotsky, 1978; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).
While working independently online in Language! Live, students are able to access tools
for support, such as the library of video tutorials, and are provided with explicit modeling,
immediate corrective feedback, and scaffolding. As students stated, “Here you read it and then
you go step by step,” and “They show you with their mouths how to say it.” And, when working
with the teacher in Text Training groups, students are exposed to more advanced literacy skills
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

116
that they may not be able to master on their own but are able to tackle with the guidance and
support of a teacher and supportive peers. This finding highlights the importance of ensuring that
instruction and activities are within a student’s zone of proximal development and of providing
explicit modeling and supportive resources for them, especially when they are working
independently (Vygotsky, 1978). When students feel supported in their learning and able to
successfully meet the academic challenges they encounter, they are more likely to experience a
sense of competence and be persistent in their learning (Jang et al., 2010).
When implementing a blended language arts intervention program, such as Language!
Live, it may be important for teachers to not only place students at appropriate entry points, but
to actively review and assess learners’ course positions once program instruction begins to
ensure that each student’s placement is accurate and truly provides instruction at their zone of
proximal development. Additionally, when working in teacher-directed contexts, such as small-
group Text Training, there may be more opportunities to monitor students’ success and response
to instruction on a daily basis. These opportunities to continually reassess students’ placement
and progress may not be as apparent when considering students’ activity in the online
components because these lessons and tasks are not teacher-directed. However, teachers should
make consistent and frequent attempts to review students’ online activity, progress, and course
positions and intervene when necessary to ensure that they are optimally-challenged when
working independently online.
Feedback and recognition.
Feedback. Students in this study said that while working online, they are frequently
provided with feedback. They shared that after reading words and passages, they “get to hear
their voices back” to see how they did and that after receiving feedback they “usually get a
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

117
second chance.” When working online, students receive explicit feedback that supports their
improvement in literacy in a private online setting. This may be especially important for
struggling adolescent learners, as they may be working significantly below grade level on
foundational skills. An older learner who is working on phonemic awareness or sound-symbol
correspondence may not be as receptive to feedback in a whole group setting. In a private online
environment, adolescent students may be less self-conscious about their literacy status and open
to feedback that supports their progress (Moats et al., n.d.) This finding underscores the
importance of explicit and immediate feedback that is specific, focuses on students’
improvement, and is delivered neutrally privately in enhancing the competence of students and
may be particularly salient for adolescent literacy learners who may need explicit, immediate,
and corrective feedback on skills that may be significantly below their grade level expectations
(Mouratidis et al., 2010).
Recognition. Students also expressed feelings of pride regarding completing online units,
“earning points,” and “leveling up.” Although students described feelings of enjoyment and
excitement about earning achievements, points, and “things for their avatars,” these items are
provided in recognition of their effort and completion of goals, as opposed to their performance
in relation to peers. Recognition that is provided for students’ effort and improvement, as
opposed to their intelligence and/or performance in relation to peers, promotes engagement and
is competence-enhancing (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). This finding underscores the importance
of recognizing students’ effort and progress toward individual goals and may be particularly
impactful for struggling adolescent literacy learners, who may be more prone to social
comparison and feelings of embarrassment about their perceived lack of performance (Wang &
Holcombe, 2010).
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

118
Relatedness
Self-Determination theory maintains that although autonomy and competence are
essential nutriments for intrinsic motivation, the need for relatedness facilitates the process of
internalization of extrinsically motivated behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 2009). The need for
relatedness may be especially important for adolescent learners because they have reached a time
in their development when peer relations take on significant importance (Wang & Holcombe,
2010). Relatedness can be described as the need and desire to feel connected to others (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). As a result of the researcher’s analysis of students’ conceptualizations of
relatedness, two themes emerged to help explain how the Language! Live program may foster
this need: social support and discussion of ideas.
Social Support
The student participants described more instances of and opportunities for accessing
support from peers and their teacher when working in their Text Training small groups as
opposed to when working independently in Word Training. It is during this in-person part of the
blended program that they expressed the ability to “get help from a friend,” or “work on
something together,” and students generally “liked” or enjoyed being able to access this type of
social support.
When describing their experience working online in Word Training, students expressed
that they typically do not attempt to gain help from their peers or the teacher, because as one
student stated, they are “not allowed to talk.” There is a feature of the online Word Training
component, called peer feedback, which allows students to provide each other feedback on their
recordings of sounds, words, and text readings; however, not one student mentioned usage of this
feature.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

119
When a student feels that he or she can access support in their learning from their peers
and teacher, feelings of relatedness are enhanced (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Because of the
inherent structure of the Text Training component of the Language! Live program that includes
in-person small-group lessons and activities, there exist more opportunities for social support
during this component of the program. Although the online Word Training component includes
the peer feedback feature, students were generally unaware of its importance or existence. This
finding highlights the importance of the teacher in ensuring that students are aware of features
that enable them to access social supports when working independently so that they may take
advantage of them.
Discussion of Ideas
All of the interviewees described their participation, to some degree, in class discussions
during the Text Training component of the Language! Live program. Students provided
anecdotes about sharing ideas and opinions about their readings and the topics they explore
together as a group. Classrooms environments in which communication is promoted and students
perceive that their teachers encourage discussion of ideas enhance feelings of relatedness among
learners (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). By structuring the Text Training component of the program
around topics designed to appeal to adolescent learners in a format that provides for ample
discussion of ideas, the Language! Live program may be fostering students’ sense of relatedness.
Few students (three) reported instances of class discussion occurring when working
online in the Word Training component of the program. There does exist an online feature called
class wall that is designed to allow for class discussions around relevant topics, including
readings and skills addressed during Text Training. It is incumbent upon the classroom teacher to
initiate the discussions and/or post probing questions to the class online. Though students in this
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

120
study are able to participate in discussion while working in small-group Text Training, they are
not doing so while working online. This finding highlights the importance of teachers actively
promoting and fostering classroom discussion of ideas, even via online platforms, so that while
students are working independently online, they can still have their needs for relatedness met.
Classroom discussions among students including struggling adolescent literacy learners, can
occur in person and online, but in either context, should be carefully and deliberately fostered
and promoted by the classroom teacher.
Implications for Practice and Future Research
Ryan and Deci (2000; 2009) theorized that in educational settings where students’
motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are nurtured, they are more likely
to constructively engage in academic activities and be more self-determined in their learning.
By using Ryan and Deci’s self-determination theoretical framework (2009) for understanding
how motivation influences engagement, this study provides additional understanding of how
intensive literacy intervention programs can support the motivational needs of struggling
adolescent literacy learners. The information gained from this study provides insight into the
perspectives of struggling adolescent literacy learners participating in an intensive literacy
intervention program and describes how their motivational needs were being fostered during
their participation. Although the students in this study described their experience in a specific
program, Language! Live, their insight can help educators and curriculum developers better
understand how to foster and support the needs of adolescent students participating in similar
intensive literacy intervention programs and contexts. Ultimately, this study adds to the body of
knowledge on enhancing the motivation and engagement of struggling adolescent literacy
learners.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

121
Implications for Practice
This study has several practical implications for teachers and those who are in a position
to design curriculum and/or programs for struggling adolescent literacy learners. Many of the
implications that follow include examples of implementation that may be applicable to educators
of Language! Live, as well as to those using other literacy intervention programs. Based on the
findings and themes that emerged from this study, the following are implications for educators of
and anyone in a position to create contexts and programs for struggling adolescent literacy
learners.
Foster autonomy. Educators can nurture students’ motivational needs for autonomy by
providing choice when possible and appropriate. Teachers should also be reminded of the
importance of ensuring that students are made fully aware of their learning goals and specific
areas of need, as well as tools and resources available to them. Doing so may aide students in
making informed and meaningful choices when presented with a plethora of instructional
choices.
Additional examples of ways that educators can provide choice for struggling adolescent
literacy learners that may be applicable to teachers in a wide range of settings might include the
following:
• provide a wide array of Lexile-based reading material that is appropriate for
students at all reading levels so that they can make reading choices based on
interest and readability,
• enable students to choose the items they would like to complete when working
on worksheets or independent practice activities,
• allow students to choose the order in which they complete assignments,
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

122
• when revising or editing writing assignments, allow students to choose the area
of focus for revision and/or editing (e.g., organization, conventions), and
• allow students to choose how they present their knowledge and/or projects (e.g.,
essay, mixed media, slide presentation).
Teachers can also foster students’ autonomy by providing for self-paced learning
whenever possible and appropriate. The advent of technology-based learning platforms has
increased possibilities for self-paced literacy learning; however, there are ways that teachers can
implement self-paced learning practices in a variety of settings. Examples of ways that teachers
can allow for self-paced learning that can be implemented in a broad range of settings include the
following:
• provide checklists for students when completing projects and/or writing
assignments and conduct teacher check-ins when students complete steps in the
checklist or writing process, and
• administer pretests to determine areas of focus for individual students. Allow
students who have demonstrated proficiency on pretests to progress more quickly
through skill instruction and to advance when ready.
Foster competence. Foster learners’ sense of competence by ensuring that they are
appropriately placed into literacy intervention programs so that they may feel able to meet the
challenges of their work. Verify and review student placement continually and if necessary,
make changes to placement to ensure that they are provided optimally challenging instructional
activities.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

123
Examples of teaching practices that may enhance struggling adolescent literacy learners’
feelings of “ableness” that can be implemented in in a wide range of classroom settings include
the following:
• administer comprehensive assessments of literacy to screen students so that
students’ specific areas of need (e.g., decoding, vocabulary, fluency, written
expression) can be addressed through targeted instruction, and
• administer formative assessments regularly to monitor students’ progress so that
instruction and program placement can be adjusted, if necessary.
Students’ sense of competence can also be fostered by providing specific, meaningful, private,
and timely instructional feedback. Educators should offer recognition in response to students’
effort and improvement, rather than their performance in relation to peers.
Foster a sense of relatedness. Educators can enhance students’ feelings of relatedness
by providing classroom structures that provide ample opportunity for students to access social
support in the form of assistance from peers and/or teacher. When implementing online programs
with students, it is imperative that teachers ensure that students know how to access support
when needed. Examples of ways that educators can better ensure that students have access to
social support include the following:
• encourage a collaborative, supportive classroom environment wherein students
feel safe, valued, and included. Employ strategies that allow students to get to
know you and each other so that they may feel comfortable asking for help when
needed, and
• assign learning partners based on personality and compatibility versus ability that
students can lean on for support.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

124
Educators can also foster students’ sense of relatedness by allowing for and promoting
discussion of ideas centered around meaningful topics and themes, both in person and using
online platforms. Examples of ways that educators can foster discussion amongst students
include the following:
• provide students with low-stakes opportunities to reflect upon and discuss content and
themes,
• attempt to limit your participation in group discussions and to respond to every student’s
comment,
• encourage students to generate their own ideas and to listen to and respond to each other,
and
• use online platforms to foster and extend discussions. Some students may be more willing
to contribute to online discussions.
Implications for Future Research
Given the importance of considering motivation and engagement to the design and
implementation of effective intensive literacy intervention programs for adolescents, it is
important for researchers to carefully consider how students’ motivational needs can best be met
when participating in these types of programs (Kamil et al., 2008; Lovett et al., 2012). The goal
of this study was not to extend self-determination theory, but to use it as a framework for
understanding and describing how the motivational needs of adolescent learners were being met
through their participation in the intensive literacy intervention program, Language! Live. While
this study was not meant to generalize across the population, it does add insight into the
experiences of struggling adolescent literacy learners and how their motivation and engagement
may be enhanced. Future research to improve the motivation and engagement of struggling
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

125
adolescent literacy learners should take into account the learner’s perspective on his or her
experience participating in other intensive literacy intervention programs and should employ a
qualitative methodology that places students’ voices at the center of the discourse.
Conclusion
The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the perspectives of struggling adolescent
readers and writers toward the intensive literacy intervention curriculum used to accelerate their
literacy growth, Language! Live and to describe how the program fosters the students’
motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Motivation and engagement are
essential to the effective implementation of intensive literacy intervention programs for
adolescent learners. By applying Ryan and Deci’s (2009) self-determination theoretical
framework to understand how motivation influences engagement, this study described how a
specific literacy program may be supporting the motivational needs of the struggling literacy
learners who participated in this research. The researcher gained an understanding of how the
Language! Live program may be fostering
• autonomy by providing the element of choice and allowing for self-paced
learning;
• a sense of competence by providing tools, resources, and appropriate entry points
that ensure that students feel able to meet the challenges of their work and receive
feedback and recognition based on effort and/or improvement; and
• a sense of relatedness by providing structures that allow students to access social
support and provide for discussion of ideas.
With an understanding of how motivational needs can be fostered for learners
participating in intensive literacy intervention programs, this research provides information that
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

126
can be used by educators and curriculum developers to improve the educational experiences of
struggling adolescent literacy learners. Struggling adolescent readers and writers deserve high
quality, asset-oriented literacy instruction that prepares them for the challenges that will confront
them academically and/or personally. Ultimately, the information gained in this study can aide
educators in transforming the identities of struggling adolescent literacy learners from
nonreaders or poor readers to capable, confident, and self-determined readers and writers.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

127
References
Albert, R. L. (2007). The impact of self-efficacy and autonomous learning on teacher burnout.
Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.
Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Reading adolescents' reading identities: Looking back to see ahead.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 676–690.
Anderson, K. T., Stewart, O. G. & Kachorsky, D. (2017). Seeing academically marginalized
students' multimodal designs from a position of strength. Written Communication, 34(2),
104-134.
Assor, A. (2012). Allowing choice and nurturing an inner compass: Educational practices
supporting students’ need for autonomy. In Christenson S., Reschly A., Wylie C. (Eds.),
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 421-439). Boston, MA: Springer.
Balfanz, R., Mac Iver, D. J., & Byrnes, V. (2006). The implementation and impact of evidence-
based mathematics reforms in high poverty middle schools: Multi-school, multi-year
studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 33-64.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading Next- A vision for action and research in middle
and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Murray, C. S., & Kosanovich, M. (2008).
Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief. Portsmouth, NH:
RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

128
Borjian, A., & Padilla, A. (2010). Voices from Mexico: How American teachers can meet the
needs of Mexican immigrant students. The Urban Review, 42(4), 316-328.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education. Educational
Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.
Brozo, W. G. (2000). Hiding out in secondary classrooms: Coping strategies. In D.W. Moore, D.
E. Alvermann, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Struggling adolescent readers: A collection of
teaching strategies (pp. 51-56). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
California Department of Education. (2015). 2015 English language Arts/English Language
Development Instructional Materials Adoption (K-8). Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/im/
California Department of Education. (2016). California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress Results. Retrieved from http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2016/
California Education Code § 56362. Retrieved on January 2, 2019,
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§i
onNum=56362
Calhoon, M. B., & Petscher Y. (2013). Individual and group sensitivity to remedial reading
program design: Examining reading gains across three middle school reading projects.
Reading and Writing, 26(4), 565-592.
Calhoon, M. B., Sandow, A., & Hunter, C. V. (2010). Reorganizing the instructional reading
components: Could there be a better way to design remedial reading programs to
maximize middle school students with reading disabilities’ response to treatment? Annals
of Dyslexia, 60, 57-85.
Cambium. (2018). Language! Live training manual. Author.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

129
Carnevale, A. P., Jayasundera, T., & Cheah, B. (2012). The college advantage: Weathering the
economic storm. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Georgetown Public Policy
Institute, Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from
http://cew.georgetown.edu/collegeadvantage
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The effectiveness of education technology for enhancing
reading achievement: A meta-analysis. Best Evidence Encyclopedia, Johns Hopkins
University School of Education’s Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education and the
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
www.bestevidence.org
Conklin, H. G., (2014). Toward more joyful learning: Integrating play into frameworks of middle
grades teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1227-1255.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: "Student voice" in educational research
and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390.
Cook-Sather, A. (2007). Resisting the impositional potential of student voice work: Lessons for
liberatory educational research from poststructuralist feminist critiques of critical
pedagogy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 389-403.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods
approaches. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DataQuest. (2018). 2017-2018 enrollment report. Retrieved from
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

130
Deci, E. L., & Chandler, C. L. (1987). The importance of motivation for the future of the LD
field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(10), 587-94.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. New York, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Self-determination theory: A consideration of human
motivation universals. In P. J.Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
personality psychology (pp. 441-456). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). Self-Determination theory. In International Encyclopedia of
the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (pp. 486-491). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Bryan, D., & Reed, D. (2012). Effective instruction for
middle school students with reading difficulties: The reading teacher’s sourcebook.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Dierking, R. (2015). Using nooks to hook reluctant readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 58(5), 407-416.
Edwards, C., & Rule, A. (2013). Attitudes of middle school students: Learning online compared
to face to face. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32(1), 49-
66.
Elish-Piper, L. & Tatum, A. W. (2006). Addressing the literacy needs of adolescent students:
Listening to their voices. New England Reading Association Journal, 42(1), p. 6.
Evans, M., & Boucher, A. (2015). Optimizing the power of choice: Supporting student autonomy
to foster motivation and engagement in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 87-
91.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

131
Faggella-Luby, M. N., Ware, S. M., Capozzoli, A. (2009). Reviewing adolescent literacy reports:
Key components and critical questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 453-475.
Fielding, M. (2010). The radical potential of student voice: Creating spaces for restless
encounters. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 2(1), 61-73.
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data
analysis (pp. 3-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Franzak, J. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on marginalized adolescent readers, literacy
theory, and policy implications. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 209-248.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York,
NY: Herder and Herder.
Freire, P. (1998). Cultural action and conscientization. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 499-
521.
Gee, J. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). Abingdon
Oxon, England: Routledge.
Gaudreau, J. (2016). Adolescents’ motivational support in school: A self-determination theory
perspective. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, (7)2, 27-36.
Gilson, C., Beach, K., & Cleaver, S. (2018). Reading motivation of adolescent struggling readers
receiving general education support. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(6), 505-522.
Giroux, H. (1992). Literacy, pedagogy, and the politics of difference. College Literature, 19(1),
1-11. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25111937
Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2004). Take back higher education. Hampshire, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

132
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future (A Study of schooling in the
United States). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book.
Graff, H. J. (2011). Literacy myths, legacies, and lessons: New studies on literacy. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Greenleaf, C. & Hinchman, K. (2009). Reimagining our inexperienced adolescent readers: From
struggling, striving, marginalized, and reluctant to thriving. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, 53(1), 4-13.
Guthrie, J., & Davis, M. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an
engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 59-85.
Guthrie, J. T., & McRae, A. (2011). Reading engagement among African American and
European American students. In S. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to
say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp.115-142). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Lambert, K. and Gravelle, M. (2014). Enhancing peer cultures of
academic effort and achievement in early adolescence: Promotive effects of the SEALS
intervention. Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 216-228.
Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in,
versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 347-356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.95.2.347
Harendita, M. E. (2016). New literacies: Some implications for language teachers. LLT Journal:
A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 17(1), 9-14.
Haynes, Mariana. (2011). The federal role in confronting the crisis in adolescent literacy.
Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 76(8), 10-15.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

133
Herrera, S., Truckenmiller, A. J., and Foorman, B. R. (2016). Summary of 20 years of research
on the effectiveness of adolescent literacy programs and practices. (REL 2016-178).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Higgins Averill, A. & Rinaldi, C. (2013, October). Research brief: Multi-tier System of Supports
(MTSS). Retrieved from
https://www.urbancollaborative.org/files/mtss_brief_final.modified_0.pdf
Jacobs, Vicki A. (2008). Adolescent literacy: Putting the crisis in context. Harvard Educational
Review, 78(1), 7-39.
Jang, H., Reeve, J. & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not
autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588-600.
Jiménez Raya, M., Lamb, T. & Vieira, F. (2007). Pedagogy for autonomy in language education
in Europe: Towards a framework for learner and teacher development. Dublin, Ireland:
Authentik.
Jun, S., Ramirez, G., Cumming, A., Paré, A., Cumming-Potvin, W., & MacCallum, J. (2010).
Tutoring adolescents in literacy: A meta-analysis. McGill Journal of Education, 45(2),
219-238.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008).
Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice
guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

134
Kavanagh, S. S. & Rainey, E. (2017). Learning to support adolescent literacy: Teacher educator
pedagogy and novice teacher take up in secondary English language arts teacher
preparation. American Educational Research Journal. Advanced online publication.
DOI: 10.3102/0002831217710423
Kim, J., Hemphill, L., Troyer, M., Thomson, J., Jones, S., Larusso, M., & Donovan, S. (2017).
Engaging struggling adolescent readers to improve reading skills. Reading Research
Quarterly, 52(3), 357-382.
Kincheloe, J. (2008). Afterward: Ten short years-acting on Freire's requests. Journal of Thought,
43(1/2), 163-171,175.
Klauda Lutz, K. & Guthrie, J. T. (2014). Comparing relations of motivation, engagement, and
achievement among struggling and advanced adolescent readers. Reading and Writing,
28(2). 239-269.
Kokić, I. B., & Novosel, V. (2014). The ball is in your court: Information literacy self-efficacy
and information literacy competence relation. In European Conference on Information
Literacy (pp. 512-520). Springer, Cham.
Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical
considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383-409.
Lam, S.F., Wong, B. P. H., Yang, H., & Liu, Y. (2012). Understanding student engagement with
a contextual model. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of
research on student engagement (pp. 403-419). New York, NY: Springer Science.
Lee, J., Griggs, W. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2007). Nation’s report card: Reading (NCES 2007-
496). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

135
Lenters, Kimberly. (2006). Resistance, struggle, and the adolescent reader: Resistant readers risk
becoming struggling readers. To engage resistant readers, teachers should allow students
more choice and respect their out-of-school literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 50(2), 136-146.
Lesaux, N. (2012). Reading and reading instruction for children from low-income and non-
English-speaking households. The Future of Children, 22(2), 73-88.
Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., De Palma, M., & Frijters, J. C. (2012). Evaluating the efficacy of
remediation for struggling readers in high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2),
151-169.
Lovett, M. W., Barron, R. W., & Frijters, J. C. (2013). Word identification difficulties in children
and adolescents with reading disabilities: Intervention research findings. In H. L.
Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed.,
pp. 329-360). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Martin, J. L. & Beese, J. A. (2017). Talking back at school: Using the literacy classroom as a site
for resistance to the school-to-prison pipeline and recognition of students labeled '“at-
risk.” Urban Education, (52)10, 1204-1232.
Melekoglu, M. (2011). Impact of motivation to read on reading gains for struggling readers with
and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(4), 248-261.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. and Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research. (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

136
Midgley, C. (1993). Motivation and middle level schools. In P. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivation in the adolescent years. (Vol. 8, pp.
217-294). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Mikami, A. Y., Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A. & Allen, J. (2016). Perceptions of relatedness with
classroom peers promote adolescents’ behavioral engagement and achievement in
secondary school. Journal of Youth Adolescence 46(11), 2341-2354.
Moats, L. (2014). What teachers don't know and why they aren't learning it: Addressing the need
for content and pedagogy in teacher education. Australian Journal of Learning
Difficulties, 19(2), 75-91.
Moats, L. (2015). Many children left behind? The Common Core and students with reading
difficulties. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 41(2), 19-23.
Moats, L., Macpherson, J., Weiser, B. (n.d.). Language! Live Research Foundation. Retrieved
from http://www.voyagersopris.com/docs/default-source/literacy/language-live/ll-
research-foundation-2017-web.pdf?sfvrsn=b7171ecf_2
Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E. & Moore, D. W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent
literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 43(5), 400-410.
Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). How you provide corrective feedback
makes a difference: the motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supporting
way. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32, 619-637.
Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Sevcik, R. A., Steinbach, K. A., Frijters, J. C., &
Shapiro, M. B. (2012). Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

137
disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 99-127.
Music, E. (2012). Chalk talks- Teaching literacy in order to turn the page on recidivism. Journal
of Law and Education, 41(4), 723-730.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). National Assessment of Educational Progress:
NAEP Reading Report Card. Retrieved from
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017
National Center for Special Education Research. (2015). Investment in Reading Research from
Kindergarten through High School. Retrieved from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/Reading_2015.pdf
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom:
Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in
Education, 7, 133-144.
Nieto, S. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational
Review, 64, 392-426.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 161, 1-
13.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation
and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin,
134(2), 270.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

138
Pitcher, S., Martinez, G., Dicembre, E., Fewster, D., & McCormick, M. (2010). The literacy
needs of adolescents in their own words. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(8),
636-645.
Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Sickmund, M. (2011). Juvenile Court Statistics 2008. Pittsburgh,
PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how
they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175.
Rodkin, P. C. & Ryan, A. M. (2012). Child and adolescent peer relations in educational context.
In Harris, K. R. Graham, S. Urdan, T. Graham, S. Royer, J. M., Zeidner, M. (Eds.), APA
educational psychology handbook (Vol. 2). Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association, p. 363-389.
Rodriguez, L. F., & Conchas, G. Q. (2009). Preventing truancy and dropout among urban middle
school youth: Understanding community-based action from the student's perspective.
Education and Urban Society, 41(2), 216-247.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 28, 437-460.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Grolnick, W. S., & LaGuardia, J. G. (2006). The significance of
autonomy and autonomy support in psychological development and psychopathology. In
D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and methods
(2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 795-849). New York: Wiley.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

139
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 of
Motivation at School (pp. 171-196). New York, NY: Routledge.
Saal, K. L. & Sulentic Dowell, M. (2014). A literacy lesson from an adult “burgeoning” reader.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 135-145.
Salinger, T. (2011). Addressing the “crisis” in adolescent literacy. American Institutes for
Research. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/slcp/finalcrisis.pdf
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2010). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in
the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 765–781.
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping
and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 21-44). New York, NY: Springer
Science + Business Media.
Snow, C. E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: What do we
know and where do we go from here? New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New
York.
Solis, M., Miciak, J., Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J., Al Otaiba, S., Wagner, R., & Miller, B. (2014).
Why intensive interventions matter: Longitudinal studies of adolescents with reading
disabilities and poor reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(4), 218-
229.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

140
Speece D. L., Ritchey K. D., Silverman R. D., Schatschneider C., Walker C., Andrusik K.
(2010). Identifying children in middle childhood who are at risk for reading problems.
School Psychology Review. 39, 258-276.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Tatum, A., & Muhammad, G. (2012). African American males and literacy development in
contexts that are characteristically urban. Urban Education, 47(2), 434-463.
Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., & Koestner, R.
(2014). A Self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over
time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
39(4), 342-358.
Thiessen, D. & Cook-Sather, A. (2007). International Handbook of Student Experience in
Elementary and Secondary School. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P. (2010). Computer-
assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia:
Outcomes from two instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 40-56. doi:
10.1007/s11881-009-0032-y
Toshalis, E, & Nakkula, M. J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Education
Digest, 78(1), 29-35.
Tze, V. M. C., Klassen, R., & Daniels, L. M. (2014). Patterns of boredom and its relationship
with perceived autonomy support and engagement. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 39(3), 175-187.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

141
Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students
with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 244–256.
Veiga, F. H. (2016). Assessing student engagement in school: Development and validation of a
four-dimensional scale. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 813-819.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wendt, J. L. (2013). Combating the crisis in adolescent literacy: Exploring literacy in the
secondary classroom. American Secondary Education, 41(2), 38-48.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes.
Developmental Review, 30(1), 1-35.
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

142
Appendix A
Recruiting Script

1. My name is Melanie Cox.

2. We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more about
what students like you think about the language arts curriculum you are learning.

3. If you decide to be in this study, you will be asked to participate in two interviews in which
you will share your opinions and thoughts about your experiences in the program. One
interview will be one-on-one with me. The other will be in a group with your classmates.

4. By agreeing to participate, you may be providing information that can help improve literacy
programs for all students like you.

5. In appreciation for your participation and time, you will be given a $30 gift card at the
completion of the interview.

7. Please talk this over with your parents before you decide whether or not to take part in this
study. We will also ask your parents to give their permission for you to take part in this
study. But even if your parents say “yes” you can still decide not to do this.

8. If you don’t want to be in this study, you don’t have to. You may stop being in this study any
time. Remember, being in this study is up to you and no one will be upset if you don’t want
to take part in this study or even if you change your mind later and want to stop.

9. You can ask any questions that you have about the study. If you have a question later that
you didn’t think of now, you can call me at 909.844.7373 or email me at melanibc@usc.edu,
or you can ask me next time.

10. Putting your name at the bottom means that you have decided to be in this study. You and
your parents will be given a copy of this form after you have signed it.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

143
Appendix B
Parental Assent Form

PARENTAL PERMISSION FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

The Student Perspective on Literacy Curriculum

Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by Melanie Cox at the University
of Southern California because your child is participating in the Language! Live program. You
and child’s participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions
about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate.

Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. Your child will also be asked
his/her permission. Your child can decline to participate, even if you agree to allow participation.
You and/or your child may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you and/or
your child decide to participate, you will both be asked to sign this form. You will be given a
copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand what students find to be the most and least interesting
parts of the literacy program that they are learning in an effort to learn what aspects of literacy
curriculum serve to motivate and engage the adolescent learner.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you and your child agree to participate, your child will be asked to participate in a 15 to 20-
minute interview in which he/she will share his/her opinions about the different parts of the
literacy program. Your child may also be asked to participate in a focus group, which is a group
interview, in which he/she and his/her classmates may speak in more detail about their opinions
about the program.

The interview and focus group will take place at your child’s school. The interview and focus
group will be audio-recorded, unless your child prefers not to be audio-recorded.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks related to your participation.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SOCIETY
Your child’s opinions and ideas can help to improve literacy programs and make them more
interesting and engaging for adolescent students.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
In appreciation of his/her participation in this study, your child will be compensated with a $30
gift card. She/he does not have to answer all questions in order to receive the card. The card will
be given to him/her at the completion of the interview/focus group.

THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

144

CONFIDENTIALITY
Neither your or your child’s name nor the name of the school will be used in the study and
subsequent written publications. Pseudonyms (fake names) will be used instead.

Only the members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data.

The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects.

The data will be stored on the researcher’s password-protected computer and will be accessed by
the principal researcher only. The data will be kept for three years after completion of the study,

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You and your child can choose to be in this study or not. If your child volunteers to be in the study,
he/she may withdraw at any time without any consequences. He/she may also refuse to answer
any questions he/she does not want to answer and still remain in the study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the researcher,
Melanie Cox-Alegria, at 909.844.7373 or melanibc@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF PARENT(S)/LEGALLY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to allow my child to participate in
this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS

□ I agree to having my child audio-recorded

□ I do not want my child to be audio-recorded

Name of Student Participant

Name of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative

Signature of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Date
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

145
Appendix C
Interview Guide
Interview Question Type of Question
(Patton, 2002)
Connection to Theoretical
Framework/Literature
Can you tell me about
your overall experience
using the Language! Live
program?
Opinion/Value A learner’s interest in
curriculum and learning
activities is a precondition
for intrinsic motivation and
the process of internalization
of extrinsically motivated
behaviors (Krapp, 2002;
Wang & Holcombe, 2010).
Which are your favorite
parts of the program?

Which are you least
favorite?
Opinion/Value A student’s interest in
learning material and
activities is a precondition
for intrinsic motivation and
the process of internalization
of extrinsically motivated
behaviors (Krapp, 2002;
Wang & Holcombe, 2010).

Students’ perceptions of their
autonomy, competence and
relatedness influence their
engagement in learning
(Reeve, 2012; Ryan & Deci,
2000).

Interview Question Type of Question
(Patton, 2002;
Creswell, 2009)
Connection to Theoretical
Framework/Literature
When working
independently in Word
Training, which activities
do you like the most?
Opinion/Value When learners perceive an
activity to important, useful,
and/or of interest, they are
more likely engage in
academic activities (Eccles,
2005).

A student’s interest in
learning material and
activities is a precondition
for intrinsic motivation and
the process of internalization
of extrinsically motivated
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

146
behaviors (Krapp, 2002;
Wang & Holcombe, 2010).

How often are you able to
choose the tasks you get
to work on?
- Tell me about that.
(Would you prefer
to be able to
choose what you
work on every
day?)
Experience

- Ideal Position
Motivation and engagement
are related to a student’s
ability to make choices in
their learning (Jiménez Raya
et al., 2007).

Self-Determination theory
maintains that in educational
settings that foster the need
for autonomy, learners are
more likely to be motivated
to learn and engage in
academic-related tasks (Deci
& Ryan, 2002; Niemec &
Ryan, 2009).
When you are able to
choose your activity
online, which activity do
you like to choose?
Experience/Behavior

Motivation and engagement
are related to a student’s
ability to make choices in
their learning (Jiménez Raya
et al., 2007).

When learners perceive an
activity to important, useful,
and/or of interest, they are
more likely engage in
academic activities (Eccles,
2005).

Are you able to go at your
own pace?
- How do you feel
about that?

Experience/Behavior

- Feeling
In educational settings that
foster the needs for
autonomy, competence, and
relatedness, learners are
more likely to be motivated
to learn and engage in
academic-related tasks (Deci
& Ryan, 2002; Niemec &
Ryan, 2009).

Do you ever get bored
when working online?
When does that happen?

Feeling Classroom boredom is
associated with negative
changes in effort regulation
and there is an inverse
association between
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

147
Are you ever excited to
work online? When does
that happen?
students’ perceived
autonomy support and
feelings of boredom in the
classroom. (Tze, Klassen, &
Daniels, 2014).

How do you receive
feedback when working
online?
- If yes, how helpful
is the feedback in
letting you know
how well you are
doing?
Experience

- Opinion/Value
Providing students with
appropriate feedback helps to
promote feelings of
competence (Niemiec &
Ryan, 2009).

When students’ motivational
needs for competence are
met, they are they more
likely to be engaged in their
learning (Deci & Ryan,
2002; Niemec & Ryan,
2009).
How challenging are the
online lessons and
activities? Unit goals?

Do you feel like you can
be successful with the
online activities?
Interpretive Students’ feelings of
competence are enhanced
when they are able to meet
the expectations of their
work (Niemiec & Ryan,
2009).

When students’ motivational
needs for competence are
met, they are they more
likely to be engaged in their
learning (Deci & Ryan,
2002; Niemec & Ryan,
2009).
When working online,
when do you feel the most
successful?

How do you get help
when you need it?

Feeling When students’ motivational
needs for competence are
met, they are they more
likely to be engaged in their
learning (Deci & Ryan,
2002; Niemec & Ryan,
2009).
When working online,
how do you communicate
with your teacher and
classmates?

Experience/Behavior When students’ motivational
needs for relatedness are
met, they are they more
likely to be motivated and
engaged in learning (Deci &
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

148
Ryan, 2002; Niemec &
Ryan, 2009).

How do you feel about
working by yourself? Do
you prefer to work alone
or with classmates?
Feeling When students’ motivational
needs for relatedness are
met, they are they more
likely to be motivated and
engaged in learning (Deci &
Ryan, 2002; Niemec &
Ryan, 2009).

Interview Question Type of Question
(Patton, 2002)
Connection to Theoretical
Framework/Literature
When working on Text
Training in groups with
the teacher and other
students, which activities
do you like the most?
Opinion/Value A student’s interest in
learning material and
activities is a precondition
for intrinsic motivation and
the process of internalization
of extrinsically motivated
behaviors (Krapp, 2002;
Wang & Holcombe, 2010).

When learners perceive an
activity to important, useful,
and/or of interest, they are
more likely engage in their
learning (Eccles, 2005).

How often are you able to
choose what you want to
work on?
Experience/Behavior Motivation and engagement
are related to a student’s
ability to make choices in
their learning (Jiménez Raya
et al., 2007).

Which stories/texts are the
most interesting to you?

How often do you
continue reading these
stories on your own time
(at home/independent
time)?
Opinion/Value A student’s interest in
learning material and
activities is a precondition
for intrinsic motivation and
the process of internalization
of extrinsically motivated
behaviors (Krapp, 2002;
Wang & Holcombe, 2010).

If it were up to you, what
kinds of stories/text would
Ideal Position When learners perceive an
activity to important, useful,
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

149
be included in the
program (Text Training)?
and/or of interest, they are
more likely engage in their
learning (Eccles, 2005).

How do you get feedback
on your work?

How helpful is the
feedback?
Opinion/Value Providing students with
appropriate feedback helps to
promote feelings of
competence (Niemiec &
Ryan, 2009).

When working in Text
Training, when do you
feel the most successful?
How challenging are the
Text Training lessons?
Do you feel that you can
be successful in Text
Training?

Feeling Students’ feelings of
competence are enhanced
when they are able to meet
the expectations of their
work (Niemiec & Ryan,
2009).

Who do you go to when
you need some help on the
lessons?
Experience/Behavior When students’ motivational
needs for relatedness are
met, they are they more
likely to be motivated and
engaged in learning (Deci &
Ryan, 2002; Niemec &
Ryan, 2009).
How do you feel about
group discussions (like to
contribute, etc.)?
Feeling When students’ motivational
needs for relatedness are
met, they are they more
likely to be motivated and
engaged in learning (Deci &
Ryan, 2002; Niemec &
Ryan, 2009).

Would you prefer to learn
comprehension and
writing skills
independently or do you
prefer to learn in groups?
Tell me more about this.
Ideal Position When students’ motivational
needs for relatedness are
met, they are they more
likely to be motivated and
engaged in learning (Deci &
Ryan, 2002; Niemec &
Ryan, 2009).

Interview Question Type of Question
(Patton, 2002)
Connection to Theoretical
Framework/Literature
THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE

150
So, overall which parts of
the Language Live
program do you like the
best? The least?

Opinion/Value When learners perceive an
activity to be interesting,
important, and/or useful,
they will be more likely
engage in their learning.
Eccles, J. S. (2005).

If you could change
anything about the
program, what would you
change to make it more
motivating to you and
kids like you?
Ideal Position When learners perceive an
activity to be interesting,
important, and/or useful,
they will be more likely
engage in their learning.
Eccles, J. S. (2005).

Can you describe a time
when you felt really
engaged/interested in
what you were doing and
you didn’t want to stop?
Feeling When learners perceive an
activity to be interesting,
important, and/or useful,
they will be more likely
engage in their learning.
Eccles, J. S. (2005).

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Struggling adolescent readers and writers who have a history of underachievement and frustration with their lack of literacy attainment are especially prone to disengagement and motivational issues (Gilson et al., 2018

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Play, read, learn: building young Black males literacy skills through an activity-based intervention

PDF

The role of critical literacy and the school-to-prison pipeline: what was learned from the life histories and literacy experiences of formerly incarcerated young Latino males

PDF

Closing academic achievement gap between economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged students: an improvement study

PDF

The nature of a literacy-based tutoring program for at-risk youth: mentorship, professional development, and implementation

PDF

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study

PDF

Transforming hardships into hope for juvenile justice-involved youth: a promising practice case study

PDF

An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development

PDF

A qualitative study of educators’ attitudes towards blended learning institutional adoption

PDF

Antecedent to acclimation: the mediating influence of acculturation on international student adaptation

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Literacy across the disciplines

PDF

Developing a culture of teacher collaboration in middle school

PDF

Key leverage points for improving educational outcomes of black male students: Response to intervention as an effective strategy to support students in general education: An evaluation study

PDF

Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students

PDF

The cyclic lack of female engineers in computer science: an evaluation study

PDF

Exploring the development of micro-credentials for preparation for job attainment: an innovation study

PDF

The resiliency of African American adolescent females in the face of trauma exposure

PDF

Labor displacement: a gap analysis an evaluation study addressing professional development in a small business environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Cox, Melanie Brandy (author)

Core Title The adolescent learner's perspective on intensive literacy intervention curriculum

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/18/2019

Defense Date 04/15/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adolescent literacy intervention,intensive literacy intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,struggling adolescent readers

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Manzone, Jessica (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email coxmeb@yahoo.com,melanibc@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-176806

Unique identifier UC11660523

Identifier etd-CoxMelanie-7500.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-176806 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CoxMelanie-7500.pdf

Dmrecord 176806

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Cox, Melanie Brandy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA