![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between adolescents’ reading attitudes and comprehension to better understand the interplay between affective and cognitive factors for students with varying reading abilities. A comprehension proficiency assessment and the Survey of Adolescent Reading Attitudes were administered to 202 ninth graders. Findings indicated moderate correlations between reading achievement and recreational print reading attitudes. Small correlations were found between both academic print and digital text attitudes and reading achievement. No correlations were found between recreational digital text attitudes and achievement, although students demonstrated the most positive attitudes toward recreational digital texts. Students who read on or above grade level demonstrated better attitudes toward recreational print, academic print, and academic digital texts than students who read below grade level. Implications for instruction and future research are discussed, including the need for further exploration of the association between reading achievement and incorporating pleasure reading into the English curriculum. Additionally, given the positive attitudes displayed by both on/above grade-level readers and below grade-level readers toward recreational digital texts, implications of the social nature of reading instruction are discussed.
A daunting reality facing American secondary teachers is the fact that 70% of their students require some form of remediation (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006). Consequently, improving literacy instruction for adolescent readers is of utmost importance. Research has shown that adolescent readers are a heterogeneous group with a variety of needs (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Paris & Hamilton, 2009); however, much of the classroom literacy instruction adolescents receive embraces a cognitive approach, with little regard for varying student motivations and affective reading beliefs. A cognitive approach, often the result of a standards-based approach, leaves out vital affective targets, which by the time students reach adolescence can present formidable barriers to progress (Afflerbach & Cho, 2011; Paris & Hamilton, 2009). Ignoring the affective element of literacy and focusing only on cognitive functions fail to reveal the complete picture of the reader and his or her strengths and weaknesses, and as such, classroom instruction and remediation of struggling readers fail to capitalize on an important aspect of the literacy—readers’ attitudes (McKenna, 2001).
Teachers charged with meeting the literacy needs of adolescents may not consider the affective dimension, and even when it is addressed, they may not distinguish between attitudes toward print and digital texts. Gathering information of this kind can deepen assessment insights by affording a more complete depiction (Jang, Conradi, McKenna, & Jones, 2015). Toward this end, we investigated the relationships between adolescents’ reading attitudes and comprehension proficiency. The goal of this study is to better understand the interplay of affective and cognitive factors during this crucial period.
While research has demonstrated that there is a connection between reading attitudes and achievement for elementary and middle school students (e.g., McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995; Petscher, 2010), there is limited evidence concerning how teachers can use knowledge of a reader’s attitudes to improve regular classroom instruction. Further, there is limited research exploring the relationship between reading attitudes and achievement, in particular, for high school students. Investigating the relationship between different reading attitudes on achievement has the potential to allow teachers to tailor instruction to meet the needs of high school readers. This study investigated the following questions:
What is the relationship between reading achievement and different dimensions of reading attitudes for ninth-grade students?
How do on/above grade readers and below grade readers differ with respect to purpose for reading (recreational vs. academic) and text environment (print vs. digital)?
Theoretical Perspectives
Theory Behind Reading Attitudes
Inquiry into motivation to read, and in particular intrinsic motivation, has long been hampered by problems of terminology. In a recent concept analysis, Conradi, Jang, and McKenna (2014) reported numerous instances in which researchers either did not explicitly define the motivation-related terminology they employed or used terms for distinct motivational concepts interchangeably. It is therefore important to be clear about the nature of the constructs that underlie the present study.
We support Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) definition of attitude as “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object” (p. 6). The notion that a predisposition to read is acquired means that it is the cumulative result of many experiences over time. At any point in the course of these experiences, one’s attitude can be characterized along a continuum from negative to positive. Subsequent experiences may alter that point. Liska (1984) articulated this general theory of attitude by describing how various contingencies can influence an individual’s decision to act. Although attitude is a factor influencing motivation, the decision to read will depend upon such contingencies. Some of these are obvious, such as the availability of materials and time. Others are more nuanced, such as the influence of social norms and one’s desire to conform to them. A teacher interested in fostering more positive attitudes toward reading may be able to manipulate these contingencies in order to add to a sequence of successful and engaging experiences with reading (McKenna, 2001).
Recently, McKenna, Conradi, Lawrence, Jang, and Meyer (2012) revisited and extended both the Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and Liska (1984) definitions of attitudes and defined reading attitudes as “acquired predispositions to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to aspects of reading” (p. 285). We adopted this definition of reading attitudes in this study to examine students’ relationships with reading achievement. However, we temper this definition with the understanding that attitude is not fixed or permanent but can change and is situated in a specific sociocultural context (Nolen, Horn, & Ward, 2015).
Reading Attitudes and Achievement
Research into reading motivation has frequently involved how to manage such contingencies in order to produce the most advantageous results. Measures of attitude have often been central to these investigations as a means of gauging the impact of various conditions, such as providing choice, offering time for independent reading, and so forth. Such measures have also been used to identify typical trends in attitude acquisition and how such trends are related to achievement. For example, a U.S. survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990; McKenna et al., 1995) indicated that the relationship between proficiency and attitude toward recreational reading increases through Grade 6. Moreover, this relationship appears robust with regard to language, nationality, and culture, as the results of Project in International Reading and Literacy Study and Program for International Student Assessment have consistently shown (see Miller & McKenna, 2016). There is evidence, however, that the relationship does not continue to strengthen. In a recent meta-analysis of 32 studies, Petscher (2010) reported a stronger relationship between reading attitudes and achievement at the elementary level (Zr = .44) than at middle school (Zr = .24). It may be that as children grow older, their attitudes toward reading exhibit less variance, becoming more stable and perhaps more difficult to influence.
Reading Attitudes and Medium
Among the newest contingencies that influence ones’ decision to read is medium. Print and digital environments present the reader with many similar experiences, to be sure, but also with a range of unique affordances. These distinctions are rapidly changing the nature of how, what, and why we read. The goal of altering contingencies in order to provide children with a succession of positive experiences and thereby foster more favorable attitudes can be advanced through a better understanding of how students perceive them. For example, in a recent U.S. survey of middle school students, McKenna et al. (2012) reported that males’ attitudes toward reading in digital environments were more positive than those of females, an unexpected finding that stands apart from studies conducted in print-only environments.
Further, it is necessary to define the term “text” in order to clarify what we mean when we discuss students’ attitudes toward texts. In digital contexts, the term text can often have a broad definition to include nonprint-related sources such as videos or images (e.g., Erstad, 2006). Although we acknowledge that literacy includes settings without written print texts, we are interested in students’ attitudes toward reading texts with written language. Therefore, our operationalized definition of text is narrower and is defined as texts “that present written language, either alone or in tandem with other electronic sources” (McKenna, Conradi, Lawrence, Jang, & Meyer, 2012, p. 286). In this regard, both the print (e.g., books, encyclopedias, and magazines) and the digital texts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and e-mails) included in the survey items contain written language.
Reading Attitudes and Purpose
Different purposes for reading have been known to influence comprehension processes (e.g., Linderholm & van den Broek, 2002) as well as reading motivation (e.g., De Naeghel, Van Keer, Vansteenkiste, & Rosseel, 2012) and attitudes (McKenna et al., 1995, 2012). Some studies (e.g., Bråten & Samuelstuen, 2004) differentiated reading purposes by focusing on reading activities (e.g., reading to prepare for a test, reading to summarize a main idea, and reading to discuss text with friends). Other studies such as Moore, Alvermann, and Hinchman (2007) suggest the difference is a characteristic of the location where reading occurs (at home or at school). It has been substantially investigated how adolescents distinguish their reading practices in different locations (e.g., Hull & Schultz, 2002; Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). Most adolescents perceive school reading as an academic event related to evaluation of proficiency and out-of-school reading as a personal event based on their own interests and choice.
Following McKenna’s (1994) model of reading attitudes acquisition, the present study defines reading purposes as perceived reasons for reading texts in different settings and divides the different reading purposes into two major categories: recreational and academic. McKenna (1994) explains that personal purposes and externally imposed purposes for reading influence the formation of reading attitudes in different ways. This distinction between academic and recreational purposes for reading is also coherent with our previous research (McKenna et al., 1995, 2012). In addition, this approach represents the purposes for reading more effectively compared to the in-school versus out-of-school reading distinction because some recreational readings can occur in school and some academic readings can be performed at home, for example, to prepare for class.
Social Aspects of Reading
In our 21st-century world, digital literacies and social interaction have collided into a shared experience that most adolescents engage with regularly, from e-mailing or texting with friends to posting and responding on social media sites. However, exploring the social nature of literacy is far from a new phenomenon. Sociocultural perspectives on literacy emphasize how meaning is constructed and shared in specific social and cultural contexts (Gavelek & Bresnehan, 2009; Gee, 1998). Numerous studies and researchers have touted the social nature of literacy and the importance of contextual factors in shaping reading motivation and attitudes such as out-of-school settings (e.g., Moje, Overby, Tysvaer, & Morris, 2008) or reading within a digital context (e.g., McKenna et al., 2012). Researchers have argued that engaging adolescents in the social aspects of literacy during instruction is more engaging for students (e.g., Ivey & Johnson, 2013) as well as can improve literacy outcomes (e.g., Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003; Drummond, Mazon, Littleton, & Velez, 2014). A gap remains in the literature, however, in exploring the relationship between reading achievement and students’ attitudes toward digital literacies, particularly those that are social in nature such as texting or engaging with social media.
Further, recent literature has explored the value placed on different literacies in schools. For example, Vasudevan and Campano (2009) argue that many marginalized students are proficient in literacies that are not valued in school. As a result, marginalized students are often viewed as illiterate by themselves as well as by their teachers, despite the fact that they have mastered nonacademic literacy skills. Therefore, we believe that investigating students’ attitudes toward digital reading in different social contexts and the relationship with reading achievement are key to understanding how teachers may better manipulate contingencies to produce more positive attitudes toward reading at school.
Method
Participants
Participants were ninth graders (n = 202; 102 males and 100 females) at one diverse urban high school in a South Atlantic state. All ninth graders at the school were invited to participate, and no students declined from participating in the study. Students ranged from advanced readers to those who struggled with reading, according to a cognitive reading assessment administered by the school. Approximately 5% of students were English learners and 13% of students were identified as learning disabled. Fifty percent of students participating in the study were Caucasian, 39% African American, 8% Hispanic/Latino, and 3% Asian. Approximately 50% of the students in the school qualified for lunch subsidies.
Four teachers were invited to participate in the study, and all teachers accepted the invitation. The English teachers used a number of selected novels and short stories from a textbook to teach reading. Further, student-selected choice reading was an important part of the curriculum for most ninth-grade English teachers. Nonfiction was an important element of the instruction with an emphasis on improving core reading skills such as identifying the author’s purpose of a text.
Measures
Reading comprehension
Reading achievement data were available from the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP; Northwest Evaluation Association [NWEA], 2008, 2009), a computer-adaptive test of reading comprehension routinely given to all students at the school. The reading comprehension MAP assessment is an untimed assessment available for students in Grades 2–12 to assist teachers in determining students’ reading ability. MAP is a norm-based assessment for measuring comprehension growth utilizing a Rasch UnIT score, or an RIT score, to determine students’ reading comprehension ability. Reliability estimates ranged from .93 to .94 for ninth grade (NWEA, 2004).
Attitudes toward reading
To assess attitudes toward reading, all ninth-grade English classroom teachers administered the Survey of Adolescent Reading Attitudes (SARA; Conradi, Lawrence Bryant, Jang, Craft, & McKenna, 2013; McKenna et al., 2012). The SARA maps students’ reading attitudes in four areas: academic reading, recreational reading, print reading, and digital reading (McKenna et al., 2012). This instrument is comprised of 18 six-node items, requiring students to indicate how they feel about a specific activity or situation (e.g., “How do you feel about reading a book in your free time?”). SARA includes four subscales as shown in Table 1: (1) attitudes toward recreational print (RP) texts, (2) attitudes toward recreational digital (RD) texts, (3) attitudes toward academic print (AP) texts, and (4) attitudes toward academic digital (AD) texts. This configuration allows for comparisons of attitudes by medium and purpose. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) of the four subscales were .86, .80, .78, and .82, respectively, and the McDonald’s ω coefficient of the full scale was .96.
|
Table 1. Subscales of SARA.
The two subscales related to recreational reading attitudes seek to understand how students feel about engaging with reading tasks outside school. The RD texts subscale includes items that investigate how students feel about engaging with digital reading in their free time and ask questions such as “how do you feel about texting or e-mailing your friends in your free time?” or “how do you feel about being on social media like Facebook or Twitter in your free time?” It should be noted that the RD subscale primarily presents digital literacy scenarios that are social in nature. Correspondingly, the recreational print texts subscale includes items that explore how students engage with books and magazines unrelated to school reading at home. The recreational print subscale includes items such as “how do you feel about reading anything printed (book, magazine, comic books, etc.) in your free time?” or “how do you feel about reading a book for fun on a rainy Saturday?”
The two subscales related to academic reading attitudes seek to understand how students feel about reading tasks related to school. The academic digital texts subscale explores students’ attitudes toward school-related digital reading and includes items such as “how do you feel about looking up information online for a class?” or “how do you feel about reading online for a class?” Respectively, the academic print texts subscale investigates how students feel about school-related reading tasks with print texts. Items include questions such as “how do you feel about doing research using encyclopedias (or other books) for class?” or “how do you feel about using a dictionary for class?”
Data Analysis
All of the statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS v.24. There were no missing values identified from checking frequencies of all the items. One outlier was detected by examining both box plots and scatterplots and was excluded from the data analyses. Results from the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that all of the subscale scores met the normality assumption (all ps >.05).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
We first computed descriptive statistics, which appear in Table 2, and then conducted a Pearson product–moment correlation analysis of all four subscales and MAP scores (see Table 3). The analysis revealed a moderate correlation between RP and achievement (r = .42) and small correlations between achievement and AP (r = .26) and AD (r = .24) texts. There was no significant correlation between achievement and RD, however, which was a finding of particular interest.
|
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.
|
Table 3. Correlation Coefficients Between Reading Attitudes and Achievement.
Attitudes and Achievement Differences Between Male and Female Groups
In the national survey (McKenna et al., 2012), RD was the only subscale for which the mean for males (M = 4.16) significantly exceeded that of females (M = 3.75). Because achievement data were not available, it was not possible to pursue this finding further, but we speculated that it was attributable to lower reading proficiency among males. In the present study, we found no gender difference for RD (t = .125, p = .21), but significant difference for reading achievement (t = −2.168, p < .05), indicating that females scored higher on the reading achievement assessment. In addition, the repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated that both males’ and females’ attitudes were more positive for RD than any of the other three subscales, Fmale (3, 99) = 28.62, p < .01; Ffemale (3, 97) = 30.82, p < .01.
Attitude Differences Between Below or At/Above Grade Level Groups
Finally, findings from the independent t tests indicated that at or above grade level students demonstrated more positive reading attitudes than below grade level students in three subscales (AP, AD, and RP). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in RD attitudes (see Table 4).
|
Table 4. Independent t Tests.
Discussion
Relationship Between Reading Attitudes and Achievement
Previous research had led us to hypothesize a positive moderate correlation between attitude and achievement. This hypothesis was confirmed for three of the four subscales. Of these three, RP was the most similar measure to the findings in the meta-analysis conducted by Petscher (2010). Petscher likewise reported a small positive relationship between attitude and achievement (r = .24) for middle school, which appeared to be part of a declining trend from elementary school (r = .32), where the relationship between reading attitudes and achievement is stronger. However, the result of the present study did not provide evidence of a declining trend as students enter adolescence. In fact, these participants were 1 year older than those in any of the studies reviewed by Petscher (2010), and the correlation between reading and achievement was nevertheless even higher than that for elementary students. These results suggest that the moderate relationship between attitude and achievement persists into high school, at least for this sample. Contrasting these results with those of a replication across Grades 9–12 would help to document how stable the relationship is over time.
The positive relationship with recreational reading and achievement for adolescents is notable. Our study indicated that higher reading achievement was associated with positive attitudes toward reading print texts for pleasure. Given the rising popularity of incorporating pleasure reading into the English curriculum (e.g., Ivey & Johnston, 2013), teachers may wonder if increasing pleasure reading at school will increase students’ overall reading ability. Our study does not attempt to answer this question. However, given the association between pleasure reading and reading achievement, our findings reveal that further investigation is warranted to explore whether or not including pleasure reading in the English curriculum has an impact on students’ overall reading achievement.
Attitudes Toward Reading Digital Texts for Recreational Purposes
Of principal interest in the present study was the relationship between proficiency and attitude toward reading in digital texts. From our previous findings, we hypothesized that males would exhibit more positive attitudes toward RD texts than females and that the difference might be attributable to inferior comprehension ability. Neither of these differences was substantiated in this study. Instead, both males and females harbored positive attitudes toward RD and in neither case were these attitudes related to achievement.
A possible explanation may lie in the nature of the RD subscale. The 3 items comprising the subscale are as follows:
How do you feel about instant messaging or e-mailing friends in your free time?
How do you feel about texting friends in your free time?
How do you feel about being on social websites like Facebook or Twitter in your free time?
It is conceivable that respondents perceived these items as related to an activity considerably different from conventional reading and entirely social in nature. Although the reading of text is clearly central to each item, they are likely to have perceived the reading demands as slight and the social benefits considerable. In this regard, it should be noted that during that pilot phase of the development of SARA, the RD subscale included items asking about contexts in which text reading is more central such as “how do you feel about reading online about a specific topic of your choice (like music, movies, sports, or fashion) in your free time?” However, these items were tested as invalid and removed from the final version of the survey. We believe that a more nuanced future investigation in this aspect is necessary to understand social aspects of adolescents’ digital reading.
The findings indicate that adolescents’ attitudes toward recreational digital reading texts are not connected with their academic reading ability (r = −.53), and adolescents have better attitudes toward recreational digital reading than toward academic digital and print reading or recreational print reading. We believe that this finding may offer clues as to fostering literacy practices for struggling learners. Because students may have perceived the items on the RD subscale as social in nature, considering ways to increase social activity related to reading in school settings is worthy of further exploration. For example, Ivey and Johnston (2013) found that the social aspect of literacy both is engaging for students and has benefits for the development of literacy skills. Drummond, Mazon, Littleton, and Velez (2014) similarly found that collaborative learning, which is social in nature, improved students’ ability to write and read independently even after the socially engaging instruction was over. The authors argue that regular classroom literacy practice that is not social in nature may not adequately address students’ needs, in particular, students who struggle with academic literacies. The findings of the present study suggest that utilizing students’ desire to socialize during literacy activities, as evidenced by their high interest in RD texts that are social in nature, has the potential to increase students’ attitudes toward and ability to engage in academic literacy practices.
While some argue that increasing the social nature of literacy practices has the potential to increase students’ literacy skills, others have argued that literacies included on the RD scale, such as texting or engaging in social media, may be a distraction to literacy learning (Merga & Moon, 2016) or potentially detrimental to the acquisition of literacy skills (e.g., Buelow, Hansen, & Hoffman, 2015). However, Vasudevan and Campano (2009) suggest that looking at school literacy practices with a broader lens that encompasses digital literacy practices will assist teachers in valuing literacy practices of some marginalized learners who are often not perceived as literate. Further, including multimodal literacies in school-based literacy instruction that take place in different spaces, such as social media, are necessary for preparing students for 21st-century literacy (e.g., Coiro & Dobler, 2007).
Limitations
The present study was intended as a preliminary investigation into how the relationship between proficiency and attitude is dependent upon medium for a ninth-grade population. A relatively small sample offered initial indications but low generalizability. A correlational design likewise restricted the inferences possible from these results.
Future Directions
The limitations of this exploratory investigation provide a blueprint for subsequent systematic inquiry that may further illuminate the relationship. Specifically, a larger sample, delineated by grade level (9–12), could shed light on developmental trends from the beginning to the end of high school. In addition, more in-depth interviews or observations of adolescent readers could explore the reasons underlying student preferences, in particular with respect to recreational reading in digital environments. For example, questioning students about recreational reading in digital environments that does not involve social interaction could further illuminate the issue. Further, investigating both social aspects of literacy in the academic setting and school-based literacy practices that foster an increase in recreational reading at home, such as providing students the choice for novel selection and requiring choice reading as homework, are both worthy of further exploration. Finally, examining the relationship between reading attitudes and digital reading comprehension proficiency that can be assessed by the Online Reading Comprehension Assessments (Leu et al., 2015) may extend our understanding of the relationship between the two important aspects of reading in a digital mode. Together, the results of this line of inquiry have the potential to answer important questions about how teachers can foster more positive attitudes toward reading.
Acknowledgments
We would like to dedicate this work to our mentor, colleague, & coauthor, Dr. Michael McKenna, who passed away before we completed this article. We would like to acknowledge his lifetime of work researching reading attitudes and reading motivation, including his key involvement in the development of the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) and the Survey of Adolescent Reading Attitudes (SARA), both of which have had a tremendous influence on literacy research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
|
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Association, 40, 685–730. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Afflerbach, P. P., Cho, B.-Y. (2011). The classroom assessment of reading. In Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., Afflerbach, P. P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 487–514). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar | |
|
Biancarosa, C., Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Google Scholar | |
|
Bråten, I., Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Buelow, R. K. D., Hansen, A., Hoffman, M. K. (2015). Serious reading, Internet, and the development of social interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71, 205–213. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Coiro, J., Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 127–164. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Conradi, K., Lawrence Bryant, C., Jang, B. G., Craft, A., McKenna, M. C. (2013). Measuring adolescents’ attitudes toward reading: A classroom survey. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56, 555–566. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1006–1021. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Drummond, S. R., Mazon, N., Littleton, K., Velez, M. (2014). Developing reading comprehension through collaborative learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 138–158. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Erstad, O. (2006). A new direction? Digital literacy, student participation, and curriculum reform in Norway. Education and Information Technologies, 11, 415–429. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar | |
|
Gavelek, J., Bresnahan, P. (2009). Ways of meaning making: Sociocultural perspectives on reading comprehension. In Israel, S. E., Duffy, G. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 140–177). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Gee, J. P. (1998). What is literacy? In Zamel, V., Spack, R. (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 51–59). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar | |
|
Gough, P. B., Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Hull, G., Schultz, K. (Eds.). (2002). School’s out! Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Ivey, G., Broaddus, K. (2001). Just plain reading: A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–377. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ivey, G., Johnston, P. (2013). Engagement with young adult literature: Outcomes and processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 255–275. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Jang, B. G., Conradi, K., McKenna, M. C., Jones, J. S. (2015). Motivation: Approaching an elusive concept through the factors that shape it. The Reading Teacher, 69, 239–247. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211–224. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 37–59. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Linderholm, T., van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778–784. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Liska, A. E. (1984). A critical examination of the causal structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen attitude-behavior model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 61–74. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
McKenna, M. C. (1994). Toward a model of reading attitude acquisition. In Cramer, E. H., Castle, M. (Eds.), Fostering the love of reading: The affective domain in reading education (pp. 18–40). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Google Scholar | |
|
McKenna, M. C. (2001). Development of reading attitudes. In Verhoeven, L., Snow, C. (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 135–158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B. G., Meyer, J. P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U.S. survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 283–306. doi:10.1002/RRQ.021 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude towards reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43, 626–639. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934–956. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Merga, M. K., Moon, B. (2016). The impact of social influences of high school students’ recreational reading. The High School Journal, 100, 122–140. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Miller, J. W., McKenna, M. C. (2016). World literacy: How countries rank and why it matters. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Google Scholar | |
|
Moje, E. B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 107–154. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Moore, D. W., Alvermann, D. E., Hinchman, K. A. (2007). Literacies in and out of school: A survey of U.S. youth. Reading Matrix, 7, 170–190. Google Scholar | |
|
Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., Ward, C. J. (2015). Situating motivation. Educational Psychologist, 50, 234–247. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Northwest Evaluation Association . (2004). NWEA achievement level tests and Measures of Academic Progress. Lake Oswego, OR: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Northwest Evaluation Association . (2008). Teacher hand-book: Measures of Academic Progress (MAP). Lake Oswego, OR: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/resources/Teacher%20Handbook_0.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Northwest Evaluation Association . (2009). Technical manual for Measures of Academic Progress™ and Measures of Academic Progress for primary grades™. Lake Oswego, OR: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Paris, S. G., Hamilton, E. E. (2009). The development of children’s reading comprehension. In Israel, S., Duffy, G. (Eds.), Handbook of research of reading (pp. 58–105). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Petscher, Y. (2010). A meta-analysis of the relationship between student attitudes towards reading and achievement in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 335–355. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01418.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Vasudevan, L., Campano, G. (2009). The social production of adolescent risk and the promise of adolescent literacies. Review of Research in Education, 33, 310–353. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
Author Biographies
Sarah Lupo is an assistant professor at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Her research investigates ways to improve comprehension instruction, including how to moviate students to read in K–12 schools.
Bong Gee Jang is an assistant professor in the department of reading and language arts at Syracuse University. His research interests include literacy motivation and engagement, disciplinary literacy, and education in global contexts.
Michael McKenna was the Thomas G. Jewell Professor of Reading at the University of Virginia and Reading Hall of Fame member. His lifetime of work on reading attitudes, digital literacy, and comprehension made enduring contributions to the field of literacy.
