Hybrid Schooling and Reading Acquisition: Motivational, Well-Being, and Achievement Profiles in Second Grade

Abstract

COVID-19 led to substantial changes in early literacy instruction. Although emerging evidence documents its effects on children’s reading achievement, much less is known about how these changes relate to young children’s reading motivation and school-related well-being. This study compared two cohorts of second graders (N = 287) from the same four low-SES schools, all assessed at the beginning of second grade. A pre-COVID-19 cohort, whose first-grade instruction was delivered entirely face-to-face, was compared with a during-COVID-19 cohort whose first-grade reading instruction took place amid extended distance learning with intermittent, restricted in-person schooling. Cohorts were compared on reading motivation, school-related well-being (covitality), and reading achievement (word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension). Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to compare cohorts (pre- vs. during COVID-19) and reader groups (typical vs. poor readers), with gender, class, and school entered as control variables. In motivation, self-concept was higher during COVID-19, and typical readers reported higher motivation than their peers. In well-being, covitality was higher during COVID-19 at the total score and across gratitude, optimism, zest, and persistence; a cohort by group interaction for persistence indicated higher scores for typical readers during COVID-19. In achievement, phonological decoding and orthographic word identification were lower during COVID-19; typical readers scored higher than poor readers on all achievement outcomes. Together, these findings suggest that the educational setting shapes motivation and well-being alongside achievement, and that distance learning is not uniformly detrimental, as it coincided with higher covitality and reading self-concept at school reentry.

1. Introduction

Educational changes in recent years created learning conditions that differed from pre-pandemic norms. School systems implemented distance online learning alongside modified in-person arrangements to maintain continuity for young learners (Karp & McGowan, 2020; Reimers & Schleicher, 2020). Several studies have reported lower reading achievement among cohorts that learned to read during this period compared with previous years (Barnett & Jung, 2021; Betthäuser et al., 2023), yet emotional and motivational aspects central to reading acquisition have received less attention (OECD, 2017), particularly among novice readers (Hammerstein et al., 2021; Kuhfeld et al., 2022; Tomasik et al., 2021). The present study considers both achievement and the emotional–motivational aspects of learning to read under different instructional settings established during this period.

Motivation to read and school-related well-being are particularly important in the early stages of literacy development. Both are shaped by classroom experiences and interactions with peers and teachers, and both are associated with longer-term engagement with reading. Within the expectancy–value tradition, children’s self-beliefs and task values are proximal drivers of motivation and achievement (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield et al., 2006; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000), and situated extensions emphasize sensitivity to educational setting and activities design (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). From a strengths-based perspective, school-related well-being is conceptualized as covitality, a higher-order cluster of gratitude, optimism, zest, and persistence that supports adaptive engagement (Furlong et al., 2013, 2014). Taken together, these frameworks suggest that features associated with distance or modified in-person settings may influence children’s motivation and covitality when a greater share of instruction occurs online, potentially altering socio-emotional profiles alongside achievement. This consideration is especially salient for students from disadvantaged family backgrounds, who often have limited at-home adult support needed for distance-learning participation (Betthäuser et al., 2023; Kogan & Lavertu, 2021).

In the context of reading acquisition, learning to read in an alphabetic orthography is developmentally demanding for most children and unfolds over several school years. Second grade therefore represents a pivotal point at which many children begin to consolidate and extend basic reading skills grounded in the alphabetic principle, which are essential for developing reading accuracy and fluency and, in turn, reading comprehension. Understanding how the instructional setting relates to children’s motivation and school-related well-being at this point, alongside reading outcomes, remains a critical need in the literature. The present cohort comparison examines second-grade students from low-SES (socioeconomic status) backgrounds, assessed at the same developmental point but educated under different instructional settings.

1.1. Literature Review

Developmental models of reading acquisition have primarily focused on cognitive and linguistic processes, with less attention given to motivational or socio-emotional factors that may influence how children engage with reading (e.g., Chall, 1983; Ehri, 1995; Frith, 1986). Similarly, cognitive frameworks such as the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Tunmer, 2020) emphasize the contribution of decoding and language comprehension but do not address the motivational and emotional aspects that may shape children’s day-to-day involvement in literacy activities. Early attempts to incorporate motivation into accounts of reading development include the Engagement Model of Reading (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000), which links expectancy–value beliefs and interest with active participation in reading. More recently, the Active View of Reading (AVR) (Duke & Cartwright, 2021) expands earlier approaches by describing reading as an active, self-regulated process that includes motivational and engagement-related factors alongside cognitive skills. These perspectives point to the importance of motivational processes for early reading acquisition and imply that other emotional experiences, such as students’ school-related well-being, may also influence how children engage with literacy activities.

Because motivational and emotional processes develop within children’s everyday environments, they are shaped by the literacy opportunities afforded at home and school (Conlon et al., 2006). Reading motivation refers to the beliefs, values, and goals that sustain engagement with text (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000), and these beliefs are informed by children’s prior experiences, their expectations of success, and the value they attach to reading activities. Drawing on expectancy–value theory (EVT) (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield et al., 2006), motivation is viewed as developing through reading experiences that inform students’ self-perceptions as readers and their expectations of success on reading tasks. These competence beliefs co-occur with the value students attribute to reading activities (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield et al., 2006). As suggested by self-determination theory, the extent to which learning environments support students’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000) further contributes to the development of these motivational beliefs. Autonomy-supportive practices, structured opportunities for success, and positive teacher–student relationships are associated with higher intrinsic motivation for academic activities, including reading. Together, expectancy–value and self-determination approaches suggest that such motivational beliefs are associated with reading engagement and achievement (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Guthrie et al., 2007; Malloy et al., 2013; Schiefele et al., 2012). In line with these accounts, reading motivation is treated here as sensitive to context, shaped by daily classroom interactions and the design of literacy activities. Situated accounts of expectancy–value and self-determination perspectives emphasize developmental, social-cognitive, and contextual features of educational settings that influence motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). This contextual perspective is relevant for cohorts educated under hybrid (partly distance) versus in-person settings, where features of the instructional environment may shape motivation and school-related well-being.

1.2. School-Related Well-Being as Covitality

As reading acquisition takes place in the school context, school-related well-being is another essential emotional factor, given its correlation with school engagement (Wilkins et al., 2015) and academic performance (De Caroli & Sagone, 2014; Govorova et al., 2020; Low et al., 2016; Mega et al., 2014; Yan et al., 2017). School-related well-being, even when framed within strengths-based perspectives, spans a broad set of constructs that describe how students perceive and experience school. Prior work in school well-being included research that focused on single attributes such as mindfulness, gratitude, or life satisfaction (Renshaw et al., 2015). Yet an individual’s well-being rarely hinges on one or two discrete traits (Naples & Tuckwiller, 2021). More comprehensive perspectives view children’s well-being as the product of several interacting factors and systems of support (Furlong et al., 2014). Rather than treating attributes in isolation, this approach focuses on clusters of strengths that work together and can be represented as higher-order factors, giving a more coherent picture of students’ well-being in school.

In their study, Furlong et al. (2013) introduced covitality as a higher order configuration of school-based psychological assets. In the primary grades, covitality is typically defined by four assets: gratitude, zest, optimism, and persistence. Gratitude reflects students’ appreciation of benefits and opportunities at school. Zest reflects energetic engagement with tasks. Optimism refers to positive expectations about school experiences. Persistence denotes sustained effort on challenging work. Covitality-related assets have been linked with belonging (Castro-Kemp et al., 2020), school engagement (Wilkins et al., 2015), and life satisfaction (Telef, 2016). Evidence also indicates that these assets cohere into a single construct among young students (Furlong et al., 2014; Naples & Tuckwiller, 2021).

Covitality is also relevant for early reading acquisition. Research with young learners shows that children who report higher levels of optimism, persistence, and positive engagement with school tend to participate more readily in learning activities, manage frustration more effectively, and sustain effort on academic tasks (Govorova et al., 2020; Low et al., 2016; Tian et al., 2015, 2016). Evidence from studies conducted in Hebrew-speaking primary classrooms similarly indicates that socio-emotional strengths are associated with children’s willingness to engage with literacy tasks and persevere during early reading practice (Vaknin-Nusbaum & Tuckwiller, 2022). In the early stages of reading development, emotional assets such as optimism and persistence can help young learners remain engaged, cope with errors, and continue practicing. From this perspective, covitality operates as a contextual resource that supports the broader learning ecology within which foundational reading skills are practiced and consolidated (Furlong et al., 2014). Together, these findings suggest that socio-emotional resources contribute to the behavioral and emotional conditions that enable participation, perseverance, and learning in early literacy contexts.

1.3. Distance Online Learning and Technology Use in Early Years

Children’s emotional orientations toward reading are shaped by the activities and social interactions they experience around reading (Bates et al., 2016; Conlon et al., 2006; Gambrell, 2015; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2020). Because reading motivation and achievement depend on the broader educational context and emotional climate in which children are learning, such activities can also support children’s sense of school-related well-being (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018; Lombardi et al., 2019; Rathmann et al., 2018). A complementary literature indicates that digital media and technology-integrated activities can support early language and literacy development in structured implementations (Blok et al., 2002; Støle et al., 2018; Verhoeven et al., 2020; Zipke, 2017), drawing on young children’s interest in devices to enhance engagement (L. Lee & Tu, 2016; Mayer, 2015; Verdugo & Belmonte, 2007; Yang & Wu, 2012). Hybrid methods that merge in-person and online learning are discussed as feasible organizational models in early education and often operate effectively in small-group formats (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Nicholson & Ng, 2006; Owston et al., 2013; Simmons et al., 2008; Verhoeven et al., 2020). These observations motivate examination of how distance versus in-person settings may differentially shape motivation, covitality, and early reading outcomes.

Distance participation in the early years typically requires adult scaffolding at home and access to appropriate devices and stable internet. Parents reported increased time demands and stress, sometimes alongside unfamiliarity with digital platforms (Canales-Romero & Hachfeld, 2022; Kalil et al., 2020; S. J. Lee et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2023; Stites et al., 2021). These demands are compounded by socioeconomic conditions. Families with fewer resources reported greater difficulty supporting at-home learning, and children from low-SES backgrounds face elevated baseline risk for language–literacy delays (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Betthäuser et al., 2023; Kogan & Lavertu, 2021; Wolf, 2008). This evidence supports a focused comparison of distance and in-person settings in relation to motivation, covitality, and early reading outcomes among children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

1.4. Links Among Reading Motivation, School Well-Being, and Achievement

Reading motivation and school-related well-being (covitality) are positively interrelated with reading achievement. Studies link school well-being with school satisfaction and academic outcomes (De Caroli & Sagone, 2016; Govorova et al., 2020; Løhre et al., 2010; Mega et al., 2014) and connect reading motivation with reading achievement (Guthrie & Klauda, 2016; Morgan et al., 2008; Wigfield, 1997). Readers with difficulties tend to report lower motivation and less positive school experiences, reinforcing the relevance of socio-emotional factors for learning (Korhonen et al., 2014; McGeown et al., 2015; Torppa et al., 2020). This pattern is also evident in second grade. Higher motivation co-occurs with higher covitality, and both are positively correlated with word- and text-level reading performance (Vaknin-Nusbaum & Tuckwiller, 2022). Both reading motivation and school-related well-being are shaped by day-to-day classroom interactions and reading experiences, and they appear especially sensitive to changes in educational arrangements in the early years (motivation: Bates et al., 2016; Chapman et al., 2000; Gambrell, 2015; Marinak et al., 2015; Nevo et al., 2019; well-being: Løhre et al., 2010; Quirk et al., 2017; Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018). This limited evidence base underscores the value of examining socio-emotional resources (motivation and covitality) alongside basic reading skills across distance and in-person instructional settings in second grade.

1.5. Current Study

Most recent studies conducted during the pandemic in early grades centered on achievement differences across cohorts, with meta-analytic and large-scale reports documenting learning slowdowns (Betthäuser et al., 2023; Hammerstein et al., 2021; Kuhfeld et al., 2022; Tomasik et al., 2021). Far less empirical work has examined reading motivation and school-related well-being (covitality), even though these dimensions play a central role in children’s engagement and longer-term reading development (OECD, 2017). Moreover, within current cognitive models of reading, such as the AVR model (Duke & Cartwright, 2021), motivational and socio-emotional experiences are recognized as contributing to how children engage with text. Despite this, very few studies have examined how instructional disruptions may differentially shape these components, leaving an important gap in understanding how young learners experience reading during periods of educational instability.

Moreover, little is known in this regard about students from low-SES backgrounds, who often have less parental support for home learning (Canales-Romero & Hachfeld, 2022; Kalil et al., 2020; Kogan & Lavertu, 2021; S. J. Lee et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2023; Stites et al., 2021). For these learners, hybrid instructional arrangements may have unique implications, potentially influencing motivational beliefs and socio-emotional assets in ways not captured by achievement-only studies. It is also important to distinguish typical readers from poor readers, as readers with difficulties may experience motivation (Nevo et al., 2020; Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018) and well-being (Torppa et al., 2020; Vaknin-Nusbaum & Tuckwiller, 2022) differently from their peers.

This study uses a cross-cohort comparison in the same four schools to test differences between two independent cohorts of second graders assessed at the same developmental point. One cohort completed first grade with continuous in-person instruction, whereas the other learned to read when distance learning alternated with limited, intermittent in-school sessions (a hybrid instructional setting). Schools operated fully remotely for approximately 82 days and in mixed-mode for about 128 days between March 2020 and February 2021, where mixed mode refers to partial in-person attendance (shortened days and small groups) combined with distance learning (State Comptroller and Ombudsman of Israel, 2021). The study addressed the following research questions:

(1)

What are the differences in reading motivation, school-related well-being (covitality), and reading achievement of novice readers under business-as-usual face-to-face instruction (before COVID-19) versus hybrid instruction (during COVID-19)?

(2)

What are the differences between typical readers and poor readers (according to their word-level reading) in reading motivation, school-related well-being, and reading achievement?

(3)

What are the interaction effects between educational setting (business-as-usual face-to-face vs. hybrid) and reader group (typical vs. poor readers) on reading motivation, school-related well-being, and reading achievement?

2. Method

2.1. Study Design

This study employed a cross-sectional cohort-comparison design. Two independent cohorts of second-grade students from the same four low-SES schools were assessed at the beginning of second grade. One cohort completed first grade under continuous face-to-face instruction (before COVID-19), whereas the other cohort learned to read under a hybrid instructional setting that combined distance online learning with intermittent, restricted in-person schooling (during COVID-19). Cohorts were not randomly assigned but were determined by school year, reflecting naturally occurring variation in instructional modality.

2.2. Participants

The sample included 287 native Hebrew-speaking second graders (135 boys and 152 girls), aged 7 to 8 years. Data were collected at the beginning of the school year during regular language arts lessons, with the homeroom teacher present. Two independent cohorts were assessed: one before the COVID-19 pandemic (2019; n = 136; 66 boys, 70 girls; M = 7.47, SD = 0.36) and one during the pandemic (2021; n = 151; 69 boys, 82 girls; M = 7.50, SD = 0.32). All four participating schools were located in a northern Israeli town characterized by low SES. Schools were recruited in collaboration with the local education authority using purposive sampling. We focused on primary schools within the same low-SES municipality because prior work indicates that children from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are at elevated risk for language–literacy delays and may be disproportionately affected by disruptions to in-person instruction and by limited at-home support for distance learning (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Betthäuser et al., 2023; Kogan & Lavertu, 2021; Wolf, 2008). Within the participating schools, all second-grade classes were included in both cohorts. Some schools had one second-grade class, and others had two, resulting in seven classes per cohort. Notably, the same four schools participated in both data collection waves, and the assessment procedures and tools were held constant across cohorts.

The town ranked 88th of 255 municipalities on overall SES (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2021). According to the state’s Nurture Decile Index, 11 of 12 Hebrew-speaking schools in the city were rated between deciles 7 and 9, with the schools in this study falling within deciles 8–9 (Meida La’am, 2017). The index weights academic achievement (20%), family SES (40%), school infrastructure and resources (20%), and parental involvement and community support (20%) (State Comptroller of Israel, 2023; Yellink, 2023), with scores ranging from 1 (higher SES; less need for supplemental support) to 10 (lower SES; greater need for assistance) (Meida La’am, 2017; State Comptroller of Israel, 2023; Yellink, 2023). In addition, according to the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education (RAMA, 2024), which uses a three-level socioeconomic scale (low, medium, high), the schools participating in this study are classified in the low socioeconomic category. Students were zoned to schools by residential address. All classes retained the same teacher and peer group from the start of first grade through the end of second grade.

2.3. Assessments

All assessments were delivered at the beginning of second grade (October–November, 2019 and 2021).

2.3.1. Questionnaires

To assess students’ reading motivation and school-related well-being, we employed two previously validated instruments that have been adapted for and used in Hebrew-speaking samples of novice readers. Both the MMRP (Me and My Reading Profile) (Nevo & Vaknin-Nusbaum, 2018, 2020; Nevo et al., 2020; Vaknin-Nusbaum, 2025; Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018) and SEHS-P (Social Emotional Health Survey–Primary) (Vaknin-Nusbaum & Tuckwiller, 2022) have demonstrated acceptable reliability in similar contexts. In those studies, Cronbach’s alpha for MMRP subscales ranged from 0.60 to 0.78, and from 0.67 to 0.82 for SEHS-P subscales, supporting their suitability for use with young Hebrew-speaking children.

Students’ reading motivation was assessed with the Me and My Reading Profile (MMRP; Marinak et al., 2015), a multiple-choice instrument with twenty items grounded in EVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Designed for children from kindergarten through second grade, the MMRP indexes self-perceived competence as a reader, the value placed on reading, and willingness to participate in and talk about literacy activities.

The questionnaire includes three subscales: self-concept as a reader (five items assessing perceived reading competence), value of reading (ten items assessing enjoyment and importance of reading), and literacy out loud (five items assessing comfort with social aspects of reading). Prior work indicates that literacy out loud reflects performance-oriented aspects of early reading motivation (Marinak et al., 2015). Items use a three-response Likert scale ordered from most positive to least positive; students indicate their choice by circling a response. Each item and its three ordered options were read aloud by the teacher. After two practice items to familiarize students with the format, children proceeded through the questionnaire. Animal icons rather than numbers accompanied each item to aid navigation, and the teacher guided students by pointing to the relevant icon while reading each prompt. Scoring followed the manual: responses were coded 1–3 (higher values indicate more positive motivation), and subscale and overall scores were computed as item means. In the original validation, internal consistency was α = 0.83 for the full scale, with subscale alphas ranging from 0.70 to 0.81 (Marinak et al., 2015). In the current study, internal consistency was α = 0.77 for the full scale; self-concept α = 0.58, value of reading α = 0.66, and literacy out loud α = 0.44.

Student Covitality Assessment. Students’ school-based well-being was measured using the Social Emotional Health Survey–Primary (SEHS-P; Furlong et al., 2013), a tool that has been adapted and validated for use with primary grade students (Wang et al., 2018). The full SEHS-P includes five subscales: gratitude, optimism, zest, persistence, and prosocial behavior. In the present study, only the four subscales related to gratitude, optimism, zest, and persistence were used. This decision was based on previous findings showing that these four components consistently form a reliable higher-order factor of school-based covitality in young children (Furlong et al., 2014; Naples & Tuckwiller, 2021). Each subscale contains four items, and students responded on a four-point Likert scale. Subscale means were combined to yield an overall covitality composite, reflecting the synergistic profile of school-grounded positive traits (Furlong et al., 2013). Higher scores indicate higher covitality. Published studies report factorial invariance across genders and good internal consistency for students in grades 4–8: school gratitude (α = 0.71), school optimism (α = 0.71), student zest (α = 0.78), student persistence (α = 0.80), and full-scale covitality (α = 0.89) (Furlong et al., 2013; Naples, 2019; Renshaw, 2017; Wang et al., 2018; Wilkins et al., 2015). In the current study, internal consistency was α = 0.68 for school gratitude, α = 0.64 for school optimism, α = 0.67 for student zest, α = 0.69 for student persistence, and α = 0.90 for the covitality composite.

2.3.2. Literacy Measures

All literacy measures in reading and vocabulary were drawn from the ELUL battery (Shatil et al., 2007), a standardized diagnostic tool for identifying students performing below expected levels in reading, language, and writing. This battery has been validated in second-grade samples and widely used in studies of early reading development among primary-grade students (e.g., Horowitz-Kraus et al., 2014; Nevo et al., 2020; Sabag-Shushan et al., 2023; Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018; Vaknin-Nusbaum, 2025). All tests were administered in pointed Hebrew, which is considered a transparent orthography.

Orthographic Word Identification Test. Students were presented with an 80-word list, comprising 25 animal-name targets and 55 distractors, and were instructed to circle the animal names within 2 min and 14 s. Scores were computed as the percentage of correctly circled target items out of 25. Higher scores indicated stronger orthographic word identification. Internal consistency reported in the manual was α = 0.94 (Elul norms; Shatil et al., 2007).

Phonological Decoding Test. Students were presented with 78 pronounceable pseudowords (22 targets, 56 distractors) and were asked to circle those that sounded like familiar food words. The time limit was 3 min and 5 s. Scores were calculated as the percentage of correctly circled targets out of 22. Higher scores reflected stronger phonological decoding. Internal consistency reported in the manual was α = 0.89 (Elul norms; Shatil et al., 2007).

Reading Comprehension Test. Students read a 61-word passage (“Ofir and the Dog”) with a time limit of 3 min and 15 s and then answered eight comprehension questions. Scores represented the percentage of correct answers out of eight. Higher scores indicated stronger reading comprehension. Internal consistency reported in the manual was α = 0.88 (Elul norms; Shatil et al., 2007).

Vocabulary. Vocabulary was assessed because of its established role in reading comprehension (Perfetti, 2007). A picture-vocabulary task was administered; students heard a target word and chose the matching picture from four options. The test included 26 items, ordered from more to less familiar. Scores were the percentage of correct responses out of 26. Higher scores indicated stronger receptive vocabulary. Internal consistency reported in the manual was α = 0.82 (Elul norms; Shatil et al., 2007).

2.4. Procedure

The study was approved by the Ministry of Education; parental consent was obtained prior to participation. Assessments were administered in person at the first semester of second grade (October–November, 2019 and 2021) in the same four schools for two independent cohorts (pre-COVID-19 vs. during-COVID-19). Instructional modality differed across cohorts. The pre-COVID-19 cohort completed first grade with continuous face-to-face instruction, whereas the during-COVID-19 cohort experienced extended periods of distance on-line learning at the end of kindergarten and throughout first grade. All measures were administered in pointed Hebrew; the reading and language tests followed ELUL battery guidelines, including standard timing and administration procedures.

Within each classroom, students completed measures in a fixed order: SEHS-P (covitality) followed by MMRP, and then the literacy tests (vocabulary, orthographic word identification, phonological decoding, and reading comprehension). Questionnaires were delivered in small groups (about 10 students) with standardized, read-aloud instructions to ensure responses were not constrained by reading proficiency; responses were paper-and-pencil and untimed. Literacy tests were administered according to the ELUL manuals, including the specified time limits for each task and the recommended classroom/small-group formats. Testing was completed across two sessions (each about 35 min) within two weeks on non-consecutive days, and all sessions were administered by the same trained research assistant.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics 28. Group status (typical vs. poor readers) was derived via K-means clustering (k = 2) on standardized beginning-of-year orthographic word identification and phonological decoding scores (see reader grouping). To evaluate differences by time (before vs. during COVID-19; independent cohorts) and group, three separate between-subjects MANOVAs were specified by construct domain: (a) motivation (overall motivation, self-concept, value of reading, literacy out loud); (b) school-related well-being (overall well-being, gratitude, optimism, zest, persistence); and (c) reading achievement (orthographic word identification, phonological decoding, vocabulary, reading comprehension). Gender, class, and school were included as control factors in all models. Prior to interpreting the MANOVA results, key assumptions were examined. To evaluate the assumption of multicollinearity among the dependent variables, we computed Pearson correlation matrices within each MANOVA domain; all intercorrelations were below 0.90, indicating no multicollinearity concerns and supporting the appropriateness of MANOVA for these analyses. Homogeneity of covariance matrices across cells was examined using Box’s M test for each MANOVA. Because Box’s M is sensitive to minor deviations from homogeneity in the presence of unequal group sizes, we based inference on Pillai’s trace, which is robust under such conditions. Pillai’s trace served as the multivariate omnibus criterion for the effects of time, reader group, and their interaction; adjusted univariate tests were examined only following significant multivariate effects. Partial η² is reported as effect size, with α = 0.05 (two-tailed).

2.6. Reader Grouping

We applied K-means clustering (Bauckhage, 2015) to word-level reading scores to classify students as typical or poor readers. A two-cluster solution (k = 2) was selected based on theoretical and developmental expectations for Hebrew reading acquisition in early second grade. K-means was preferred because it uses squared Euclidean distance and iteratively reassigns cases until centroids converge, thereby minimizing within-cluster variance and producing stable, well-separated groups without imposing arbitrary cutoffs (Ikotun et al., 2023). Classification was based on second grade standardized percent-correct scores in orthographic word identification and phonological decoding. The resulting groups included typical readers (n = 177) and poor readers (n = 110).

Word-level indicators were selected because decoding and orthographic processing are foundational mechanisms of reading acquisition and support the development of fluency and comprehension in early grades (Chall, 1983; Jackson & Coltheart, 2001; Wolf, 2008). In the poor-reader cluster, students averaged 41.13% correct (10.25/25 items; ≈29th percentile) in orthographic word identification and 28.80% (6.16/22 items; ≈26th percentile) in phonological decoding relative to ELUL grade-level norms (M = 15, SD = 7.07; M = 10.94, SD = 5.65, respectively; Shatil et al., 2007). These percentile ranks fall at or below the 30th percentile, consistent with common practice in the reading-disability literature (Badian, 1997; McBride-Chang & Manis, 1996) and accepted screening criteria for Hebrew readers (Shany & Share, 2011).

3. Results

Three between-subjects multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to examine differences in reading motivation, school-related well-being, and reading achievement across time (before vs. during COVID-19) and groups (typical vs. poor readers). In each MANOVA, time (before vs. during COVID-19) and reader group (typical vs. poor readers) served as fixed factors, and gender, class, and school were included as controls to account for potential demographic and classroom-level variation. The time variable reflects two independent cohorts of students tested at different points (before and during COVID-19). MANOVA was chosen because it allows for the simultaneous examination of multiple dependent variables while controlling correlations among them, thereby reducing Type I error. All models were adjusted for gender, class, and school; these controls accounted for minimal variance and did not alter the substantive conclusions.

A series of three two-way between-subjects MANOVAs were conducted to examine the multivariate effects of time (before vs. during COVID-19), reader group (typical vs. poor readers), and their interaction on the three outcome domains: motivation, school-related well-being, and reading achievement. For the motivation domain, the MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate main effect of time, Pillai’s Trace = 0.054, F(4, 261) = 3.76, p = 0.005, partial η² = 0.054, and of reader group, Pillai’s Trace = 0.149, F(4, 261) = 11.41, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.149. The interaction between time and group was not statistically significant, Pillai’s Trace = 0.008, F(4, 261) = 0.55, p = 0.702, partial η² = 0.008.

For the school-related well-being domain, the MANOVA indicated significant main effects of time, Pillai’s Trace = 0.148, F(5, 233) = 8.11, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.148, and a significant time × group interaction, Pillai’s Trace = 0.057, F(5, 233) = 2.80, p = 0.018, partial η² = 0.057, primarily driven by differences in persistence. The main effect of reader group was not significant, Pillai’s Trace = 0.020, F(5, 233) = 0.98, p = 0.434, partial η² = 0.020.

For the reading achievement domain, there were significant multivariate effects for both time, Pillai’s Trace = 0.093, F(4, 240) = 6.16, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.093, and reader group, Pillai’s Trace = 0.711, F(4, 240) = 147.65, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.711. The interaction was not significant, Pillai’s Trace = 0.025, F(4, 240) = 1.51, p = 0.199, partial η² = 0.025.

Based on these multivariate results, follow-up univariate F-tests were conducted to examine effects for each individual outcome variable. Descriptive statistics and univariate results are presented in

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate Follow-Up Tests from MANOVA Models by Educational Setting, Reader Group, and Their Interaction for Motivation, School-Related Well-Being, and Reading Achievement (n = 287).

	Before						COVID-19						Year F(1, 280) (η2)	Group F(1, 280) (η2)	Year × Group F(1, 280) (η2)
	All Readers (n = 136)		Typical Readers (n = 90)		Poor Readers (n = 46)		All Readers (n = 151)		Typical Readers (n = 87)		Poor Readers (n = 64)
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Overall motivation	2.19	0.31	2.25	0.32	2.07	0.25	2.22	0.31	2.27	0.26	2.12	0.35	0.47 (0.002)	18.15 *** (0.064)	0.23 (0.001)
Self-concept	2.18	0.45	2.26	0.48	2.02	0.34	2.32	0.41	2.44	0.37	2.14	0.40	4.18 * (0.016)	28.06 *** (0.096)	0.13 (0.001)
Value of reading	2.27	0.36	2.34	0.36	2.12	0.31	2.34	0.38	2.41	0.33	2.22	0.42	1.93 (0.007)	21.70 *** (0.076)	0.20 (0.001)
Literacy out loud	2.04	0.39	2.04	0.40	2.03	0.36	1.91	0.42	1.89	0.41	1.95	0.43	3.21 (0.012)	0.38 (0.001)	0.51 (0.002)
Overall School well-being	2.88	0.62	2.85	0.63	2.93	0.62	3.41	0.49	3.44	0.46	3.37	0.58	36.80 *** (0.134)	0.09 (0.000)	0.67 (0.003)
Gratitude	2.90	0.73	2.92	0.74	2.86	0.74	3.48	0.52	3.47	0.53	3.54	0.52	37.88 *** (0.138)	0.10 (0.000)	0.92 (0.004)
Optimism	2.94	0.71	2.88	0.73	3.07	0.67	3.47	0.55	3.46	0.54	3.45	0.59	23.94 *** (0.092)	1.28 (0.005)	1.12 (0.005)
Zest	2.80	0.71	2.78	0.72	2.84	0.71	3.32	0.67	3.35	0.59	3.28	0.79	26.69 *** (0.101)	0.00 (0.000)	0.46 (0.002)
Persistence	2.87	0.73	2.83	0.76	2.96	0.67	3.39	0.65	3.49	0.56	3.21	0.74	21.94 *** (0.085)	0.18 (0.001)	4.10 * (0.017)
Reading and vocabulary
Orthographic word identification	75.44	28.40	92.09	7.75	42.87	25.73	65.62	27.26	84.16	15.80	41.56	18.41	5.91 * (0.024)	423.50 *** (0.635)	3.61 (0.015)
Phonological decoding	63.20	29.07	78.48	17.69	33.30	23.12	45.88	27.30	62.27	24.27	24.94	15.35	19.01 *** (0.073)	216.62 *** (0.471)	2.50 (0.010)
Vocabulary	67.11	23.76	72.18	20.46	57.19	26.72	60.72	23.74	66.23	22.46	56.29	22.64	0.71 (0.003)	17.28 *** (0.066)	0.42 (0.002)
Reading comprehension	68.01	24.94	75.97	20.03	52.45	26.43	67.00	25.53	76.03	21.92	54.27	23.65	0.03 (0.000)	63.26 *** (0.207)	0.03 (0.000)

Note. F values refer to adjusted univariate tests from three MANOVA models (motivation; school-related well-being; reading and vocabulary) with time (before vs. during COVID-19) and reader group (typical vs. poor readers) as fixed factors and gender, class, and school as control variables. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

.

3.1. Differences in Study Variables Before and During COVID-19

No significant difference was found in overall reading motivation before (M = 2.19, SD = 0.31) and during COVID-19 (M = 2.22, SD = 0.31), F(1, 280) = 0.47, partial η² = 0.002. However, reading self-concept was significantly higher during COVID-19 (M = 2.32, SD = 0.41) compared to before COVID-19 (M = 2.18, SD = 0.45), F(1, 280) = 4.18, p < 0.05, partial η² = 0.016. No significant differences were found for value of reading (F(1, 280) = 1.93, partial η² = 0.007) or literacy out loud (F(1, 280) = 3.21, partial η² = 0.012).

By contrast, strong time effects were observed for school-related well-being. Overall well-being scores were higher during COVID-19 (M = 3.41, SD = 0.49) than before (M = 2.88, SD = 0.62), F(1, 280) = 36.80, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.134. All subcomponents followed the same pattern, including gratitude (F(1, 280) = 37.88, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.138), optimism (F(1, 280) = 23.94, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.092), zest (F(1, 280) = 26.69, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.101), and persistence (F(1, 280) = 21.94, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.085), with each showing higher levels during COVID-19 than before.

Reading achievement measures showed lower achievement in some reading skills during COVID-19. Orthographic word identification was significantly lower during COVID-19 (M = 65.62, SD = 27.26) than before (M = 75.44, SD = 28.40), F(1, 280) = 5.91, p < 0.05, partial η² = 0.024. Phonological decoding scores were also lower during COVID-19 (M = 45.88, SD = 27.30) compared to before (M = 63.20, SD = 29.07), F(1, 280) = 19.01, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.073). Vocabulary and reading comprehension did not differ across time (vocabulary: F(1, 280) = 0.71, p = 0.40, partial η² = 0.003; reading comprehension: F(1, 280) = 0.03, partial η² = 0.000).

3.2. Differences Between Typical Readers and Poor Readers

Clear group effects were found in both motivation and achievement domains. Typical readers showed significantly higher overall motivation (M = 2.25, SD = 0.32) than poor readers (M = 2.07, SD = 0.25), F(1, 280) = 18.15, p < 0.001, η² = 0.064. Differences were also significant for self-concept (F(1, 280) = 28.06, p < 0.001, η² = 0.096) and value of reading (F(1, 280) = 21.70, p < 0.001, η² = 0.076). No significant group difference was found in literacy out loud.

For school-related well-being, no significant group differences emerged. Typical and poor readers showed comparable levels of overall well-being and its subcomponents, indicating that socio-emotional experiences were broadly similar across groups despite marked achievement differences.

Achievement results showed the strongest group effects. Typical readers showed higher achievement than poor readers across all measures: orthographic word identification (F(1, 280) = 423.50, p < 0.001, η² = 0.635), phonological decoding (F(1, 280) = 216.62, p < 0.001, η² = 0.471), vocabulary (F(1, 280) = 17.28, p < 0.001, η² = 0.066), and reading comprehension (F(1, 280) = 63.26, p < 0.001, η² = 0.207).

3.3. Interaction Effects of Time and Group

The interaction between time and group was not significant for overall motivation (F(1, 280) = 0.23, partial η² = 0.001), self-concept (F(1, 280) = 0.13, partial η² = 0.001), value of reading (F(1, 280) = 0.20, partial η² = 0.001), or literacy out loud (F(1, 280) = 0.51, partial η² = 0.002). Similarly, no interaction was found for overall school well-being (F(1, 280) = 0.67, partial η² = 0.003) or for gratitude (F(1, 280) = 0.92, partial η² = 0.004), optimism (F(1, 280) = 1.12, partial η² = 0.005), or zest (F(1, 280) = 0.46, partial η² = 0.002).

An exception was persistence, where a significant interaction emerged, F(1, 280) = 4.10, p < 0.05, partial η² = 0.017: typical readers had higher persistence during COVID-19 (M = 3.49, SD = 0.56) than before (M = 2.83, SD = 0.76), whereas the increase among poor readers was smaller (from M = 2.96, SD = 0.67 to M = 3.21, SD = 0.74).

The interaction between time and group was not significant for reading achievement: orthographic word identification (F(1, 280) = 3.61, p = 0.06, partial η² = 0.015), phonological decoding (F(1, 280) = 2.50, partial η² = 0.010), vocabulary (F(1, 280) = 0.42, partial η² = 0.002), and reading comprehension (F(1, 280) = 0.03, partial η² = 0.000).

4. Discussion

The present cohort comparison focused on differences in reading motivation, school-related well-being, and foundational reading outcomes among second graders from low socioeconomic backgrounds who were assessed in the first months of second grade. The cohorts differed in prior instructional exposure. One completed first grade with continuous face to face instruction, whereas the other learned to read during extended distance learning with intermittent in-person schooling. Across instructional settings, overall reading motivation was similar, while self-concept as a reader was higher in the hybrid distance online cohort. School-related well-being was higher in the hybrid cohort at the composite level and across gratitude, optimism, zest, and persistence. Word level skills were lower in the hybrid cohort, whereas vocabulary and text comprehension were similar across settings. Typical readers reported higher motivation and achieved higher scores on all literacy measures, while school-related well-being was comparable between reader groups. Most interactions between instructional setting and reader group were non-significant; the single statistically significant interaction concerned persistence, where the hybrid cohort showed higher persistence than the in-person cohort in both groups and the between-cohort difference was more pronounced among typical readers. Taken together, this pattern addresses the three research questions by showing that (a) differences between instructional settings were concentrated in self-concept, covitality, and word-level outcomes, (b) typical and poor readers differed clearly in motivation and achievement but not in covitality, and (c) setting-related differences were broadly similar across reader groups, apart from the finding for persistence.

4.1. Reading Motivation

Reading motivation was broadly similar across instructional settings, with a specific difference in self-concept favoring the hybrid distance online cohort. Within an expectancy–value perspective, competence beliefs are shaped by proximal features of instruction, including clarity of goals, visibility of success criteria, and the timing and specificity of feedback (Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Wigfield et al., 2006). Situated accounts likewise highlight the role of classroom organization and task design in directing young children’s motivational beliefs (Bates et al., 2016; Gambrell, 2015; Marinak et al., 2015; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). In this context, several mechanisms may account for higher self-concept among students in the hybrid cohort. Viewed in relation to these perspectives, the higher self-concept observed in the hybrid cohort suggests that children’s competence beliefs may remain responsive to daily instructional routines that highlight success and provide focused teacher feedback, even when learning formats are altered.

One possibility is that re-established classroom routines on school attendance days made success cues more salient in daily literacy activities and brought teacher feedback into sharper focus. A complementary possibility is that the hybrid educational setting itself, with shorter school days and some learning undertaken at home, reduced perceived school pressure for some pupils, thereby making success feel more attainable and supporting stronger competence beliefs. These hypotheses are consistent with EVT, which distinguishes competence beliefs from broader value signals; the present pattern suggests a setting relation primarily to the competence component while overall motivation remained stable. This interpretation aligns with cognitive–motivational models of reading that emphasize how children’s motivation develops through their daily literacy experiences and the specific classroom conditions in which these experiences occur (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000).

Differences between reader groups aligned with previous findings in Hebrew second graders (Vaknin-Nusbaum & Nevo, 2025; Vaknin-Nusbaum & Tuckwiller, 2022). Typical readers reported higher overall motivation, higher self-concept, and higher value of reading than poor readers, whereas literacy out loud was similar across groups. This pattern is in line with evidence that early difficulty in decoding and orthographic processing dampens perceived competence and the value attached to reading tasks, which in turn may constrain practice and engagement (Guthrie et al., 2007; Marinak et al., 2015; Nevo et al., 2019). Similar levels on literacy out loud across reader groups may indicate that, at this stage, children are still forming their feelings toward reading, and shifts may emerge later as opportunities for self-comparison with peers increase (Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018). Interactions between instructional setting and reader group for motivation were non-significant, indicating that the relation of setting to motivational profiles was similar for typical and poor readers at school entry in second grade. Consistent with prior work, some studies report similar overall motivation across reader groups but a decline in self-concept among poor readers during second grade (Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018). Finally, it is important to note that the current participants were examined in an educational setting that some view as especially challenging for students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Betthäuser et al., 2023; Kogan & Lavertu, 2021), yet motivation remained relatively high and, on some subscales, was similar to or higher than in business-as-usual settings. Viewed in light of the AVR model, which conceptualizes reading as involving both cognitive processes and motivational engagement (Duke & Cartwright, 2021), the findings suggest that motivational components of early reading can be sustained, and in some respects strengthened, when instructional arrangements continue to provide accessible routines and supportive interactions, even when word-level skills are not yet fully consolidated.

4.2. School-Related Well-Being

Similar to some aspects of motivation, school-related well-being was higher in the hybrid distance online cohort at the composite level and across gratitude, optimism, zest, and persistence. From a covitality perspective, coordinated differences across multiple assets are expected when classroom belonging and regular teacher contact are salient features of pupils’ experience (Furlong et al., 2013, 2014; Wilkins et al., 2015). Some researchers further suggest that structured expectations and supportive climates can heighten positive anticipatory beliefs and energized engagement (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018; Lombardi et al., 2019). In terms of emotional support, it is plausible that the hybrid timetable enabled a softer transition to first grade, which is the first year in primary school, reducing pressure for some students. Reduced pressure may have supported more positive effects toward school and thus contributed to higher ratings on gratitude, optimism, and zest. These factors work together, offering a coherent explanation for a pattern in which asset-level and composite covitality move in the same direction, consistent with modeling covitality as an integrated construct in the primary grades (Furlong et al., 2014; Naples & Tuckwiller, 2021; Wang et al., 2018). In early reading acquisition, this profile suggests that children encountered literacy activities within environments they perceived as emotionally secure and predictable, conditions that have been found to support engagement and positive classroom participation (Govorova et al., 2020; Low et al., 2016).

Despite clear achievement differences, typical and poor readers reported comparable levels of covitality. This suggests that a positive educational environment, whether in the classroom or virtual, and teachers’ socio-emotional support can provide similar benefits across different levels of students’ achievement. This aligns with research showing that well-organized environments contribute to engagement and school satisfaction for a wide range of students (Govorova et al., 2020; Low et al., 2016; Yan et al., 2017). Within this generally positive profile, persistence was the single variable that showed a statistically significant interaction between educational settings and reader group. In both reader groups, persistence was higher in the hybrid cohort, and the between-cohort difference was more pronounced among typical readers. Among the SEHS-P assets, persistence sits closest to sustained task management in daily schoolwork and is sensitive to the availability of clear success criteria, manageable steps, and timely feedback. Hybrid provision may have accentuated these features during in-person and virtual sessions through small-group formats and may have structured tasks in ways that made steps explicit. Taken together with the motivation findings, these results indicate that well-structured educational environments can support children’s well-being even when learning is partly virtual, reinforcing the idea that emotional and motivational resources operate as part of the broader system that sustains early engagement with reading.

4.3. Reading Achievement

With respect to reading achievement, the hybrid distance-online cohort showed lower performance on word-level measures (orthographic identification and phonological decoding), whereas vocabulary and reading comprehension were similar across settings. This pattern aligns with accounts that place decoding and orthographic processing as practice-dependent mechanisms requiring dense, feedback-rich engagement for consolidation in the early primary grades (Chall, 1983; Jackson & Coltheart, 2001; Wolf, 2008). Hybrid timetables may reduce real-time monitoring and shift portions of practice to technology-mediated or independent formats, which can limit immediate error correction and decrease the volume of accurately guided trials on nascent grapheme–phoneme mappings.

Vocabulary and reading comprehension, however, were similar across settings. Because comprehension is context dependent, short texts with familiar vocabulary can sometimes be understood using contextual cues and background knowledge, allowing students to partially compensate for inaccuracies in word reading. As texts lengthen and become more syntactically complex toward the end of second grade and into third grade, limitations in word decoding are more likely to affect comprehension (Shimron, 2006).

Group differences were robust and expected. Typical readers scored higher than poor readers on all literacy measures, supporting the critical role of word-level processes in reading in the primary grades (Chall, 1983; Jackson & Coltheart, 2001; Wolf, 2008). Of note, these group differences appeared alongside similar covitality levels, underscoring that emotional and motivational resources alone do not guarantee high reading achievement and do not replace the need for extensive, well-structured practice. Interactions between instructional setting and reader group for achievement were non-significant, indicating that the setting-related reduction in word-level outcomes was broadly similar for typical and poor readers. These findings are consistent with large-scale reports of slowed progress in basic skills during the pandemic period and illustrate that not all literacy outcomes shift in the same direction under altered instructional conditions (Betthäuser et al., 2023; Hammerstein et al., 2021; Kuhfeld et al., 2022; Tomasik et al., 2021).

4.4. Technology-Mediated Mechanisms and Learning Ecology

The pattern across the examined domains in the current study helps clarify how a hybrid setting may influence academic and emotional aspects in young students learning to read. Technology-integrated activities can support engagement and early literacy when they are structured, purposefully selected, and accompanied by clear guidance, as indicated in studies of digital media and blended formats in the early years (Blok et al., 2002; Støle et al., 2018; Verhoeven et al., 2020; Zipke, 2017). This approach has also been reported as successful in a hybrid language program delivered to kindergarten children in small groups (Vaknin-Nusbaum & Nevo, 2025). In practice, hybrid arrangements often concentrate teacher attention during shorter in-person sessions and rely on online tasks for encouraging lesson engagement and independent consolidation. Such formats may strengthen motivation and foster positive feelings toward learning and school by maintaining a sense of connection and continuity across settings, factors associated with school engagement in primary grades (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018; Lombardi et al., 2019; Wilkins et al., 2015). These same designs may be less optimal for supporting the consolidation of decoding and orthographic accuracy, skills that usually require immediate corrective feedback, high-frequency practice, and close teacher monitoring. Results from a hybrid intervention with Hebrew-speaking kindergarten children are consistent with this interpretation, showing positive change in language measures in the hybrid condition; however, gains were larger when the program was delivered face-to-face (Vaknin-Nusbaum & Nevo, 2025).

Parental mediation is a further mechanism relevant to hybrid configuration. Participation in online tasks in the early years commonly requires adult scaffolding and stable access to devices and platforms. Families in low socioeconomic contexts report higher logistical demands and barriers to sustained support at home, which can shape how consistently children engage with independent practice (Canales-Romero & Hachfeld, 2022; Kalil et al., 2020; S. J. Lee et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2023; Stites et al., 2021). Where adult assistance varies, technology-mediated work may preferentially support outcomes that hinge on classroom-re-established routines and teacher-led discussion, while leaving the most practice-dependent word-level processes relatively less supported. This learning ecology helps explain why covitality was higher in the hybrid cohort and why self-concept was stronger, while word-level skills were lower. Finally, blended learning models for young pupils are feasible and can be effective when small-group formats, and alignment between online and classroom activities are in place as previously suggested (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Owston et al., 2013; Verhoeven et al., 2020).

Interpretation of the current results should take into account that both cohorts of children, those who learned to read before the pandemic and those during it, entered school for the first time in first grade. Accordingly, children had no prior in-school reference point against which to judge changes in schooling. In addition, during the pandemic primary teachers were encouraged by the ministry of education to foreground pupils’ emotional well-being and to provide space for sharing feelings. These practices may have fostered a classroom climate that felt more secure for many pupils. This aligns with the higher self-concept and covitality found in the hybrid cohort. At the same time, hybrid learning did not yield the same level of reading achievement as continuous face-to-face instruction, a pattern consistent with large-scale evidence of pandemic-period slowdowns in foundational skills (Betthäuser et al., 2023; Hammerstein et al., 2021; Kuhfeld et al., 2022; Tomasik et al., 2021). Taken together, the picture is not black and white. Hybrid provision may support socio-emotional well-being for novice readers while simultaneously posing risks for the consolidation of foundational reading skills, so focusing only on achievement can obscure this broader profile. Because countries adopted different policy guidelines and timetables, cross-national variability in outcomes should be expected (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020). In the present context, national guidance that prioritized pupils’ emotional well-being appears consistent with the elevated socio-emotional indicators accompanying early reading. Finally, interpretation should consider the properties of pointed Hebrew as a relatively transparent orthography with consistent grapheme–phoneme mappings; different profiles might be expected in deeper orthographies, where mapping demands are more complicated (Seymour et al., 2003; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005).

Practically, the findings suggest that early-primary classrooms should treat motivational and socio-emotional assets as intentional components of literacy instruction. Embedding brief motivation and well-being check-ins within literacy time, making success criteria visible, and maintaining predictable opportunities for participation are consistent with covitality principles (Furlong et al., 2013, 2014). Such practices may help sustain competence beliefs and positive school orientation even when instructional formats vary, as was the case for the hybrid cohort. In terms of hybrid learning, online components might be best used selectively as extensions of classroom teaching. Short, tightly guided tasks with built-in feedback can support practice at a distance, although they are unlikely to substitute for the dense, feedback-rich decoding practice that occurs in face-to-face settings. Accordingly, hybrid formats may be more appropriate for enriching language exposure and strengthening motivation than for building grapheme–phoneme mapping skills. For schools serving low socioeconomic communities, the findings emphasize the importance of providing structured routines and emotionally supportive climates, which appear to protect motivational and well-being indicators even when learning conditions are less stable. Initiatives that strengthen teacher–student relationships, ensure clarity of expectations, and stabilize classroom routines may help maintain these assets. Future research should examine which specific features of hybrid provision are most relevant for supporting motivation and socio-emotional well-being without compromising decoding development. Studies that track students across grades would also help clarify how early motivational and emotional profiles interact with the gradual consolidation of word-level skills under different instructional arrangements.

4.5. Limitations

This study compared two independent cohorts assessed at the same point in second grade under different first-grade instructional settings, which means that within-student change could not be examined and causal inferences cannot be drawn. The sample was drawn from a single low-SES municipality, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Group sizes also varied across typical and poor readers, and although gender, class, and school were included as covariates, unbalanced groups may influence the precision of some estimates. In addition, the cross-sectional design did not allow us to explore how motivational, socio-emotional, and word-level outcomes develop within the same children over time. Teacher-related factors, such as instructional quality, emphasis on socio-emotional support, and variation in hybrid implementation, were not directly observed and could relate to the results. Although checks did not indicate problematic multicollinearity among the dependent variables within each MANOVA domain, future studies incorporating a broader set of instructional and contextual variables should continue to examine potential associations among them. Finally, some subscales within the MMRP showed lower internal consistency in this sample compared to previous uses in similar populations, suggesting that measurement error may have attenuated certain effects. Research that includes repeated measurements across grades, direct observations of classroom practices, and indicators of home learning conditions would enable a more detailed examination of how motivational, socio-emotional, and word-level components of early reading are related to specific features of hybrid and face-to-face provision.