Reading Research Quarterly
Vol. 36, No. 4
October/November/December 2001
©2001 International Reading Association
(pp. 350–377)
ÒJust plain readingÓ: A survey of what
makes students want to read in
middle school classrooms
Gay Ivey
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA
Karen Broaddus
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA
M
Middle school reading instruction is full of mixed
messages and inconsistency. One hallmark of middle
school is an emphasis on students as individuals, yet
teachers rarely differentiate instruction to meet student
needs (Tomlinson, Moon, & Callahan, 1998). Students are
assigned to read increasingly complex materials, but
teachers spend little time showing them how to be strategic (Alvermann & Moore, 1991). Students are expected to
know how to read a wide range of texts, yet in school
they are likely limited to teacher-selected class novels
(usually award-winning fiction) and textbooks (Worthy,
Moorman, & Turner, 1999). Teachers want students to be
able to read critically, but they seldom allow them to initiate conversations about books. Most importantly, students are expected to become independent readers, yet
they get limited opportunities to explore their own interests in reading, to read at their own pace, or to make
their own decisions about whether or not to read a book.
In short, if the goal of instruction is to create skillful, versatile, engaged readers, then middle schools may be
missing the mark.
What counts most for students in middle school
reading instruction? How does that compare with what is
happening in middle school classrooms? In this article we
iddle school students are known for negative attitudes and resistance toward reading
(McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995).
However, when students talk about their
reading, they make quite a different impression. Consider
some of the responses we received when we asked over
1,700 sixth graders to explain what makes them want to
read:
“I like learning about some things and sometimes I just
want my imagination to run wild.”
“Usually what makes me want to read in this class is if I
start reading and it sounds good, I continue to read it. I
read good books.”
“Really I read what I find at the library interesting. Mostly I
read books on Egyptians and buildings.”
“What makes me want to read is the fact that I whant
(want) to be a wrighter (writer) and derector (director) of
movies.”
“It makes me want to read when I hear it’s our choice and
no one else’s!”
“I want to read because I like to. If the story is good I will
red (read) forever.”
“Usally (usually) if it’s interesting I wouldn’t mined (mind)
it at all. If it’s silent reading time.”
350
ABSTRACTS
“Just plain reading”: A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms
Middle school students are often characterized as disinterested readers (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995), yet studies of adolescent
reading typically do not feature students’ voices about classroom
practices (Alvermann, 1998). This study used students as primary
informants about what motivates them to read in their middle school
classrooms. We surveyed 1,765 sixth-grade students in reading/language arts classrooms in 23 diverse schools in the mid-Atlantic and
northeastern United States. Students described how classroom environments motivated their reading through open-ended responses,
short answers, and checklist items. To obtain richer data about positive instructional environments, we conducted follow-up interviews
with 31 students in 3 classrooms in which students reported high engagement with reading. Using qualitative methodology, we conducted a content analysis of the survey responses and compared
these findings with the interview data. We identified several overall
findings about positive features of instruction. First, students valued
independent reading and the teacher reading out loud as part of instructional time. Second, when asked what they liked most about
time spent in the class, students focused more on the act of reading
itself or personal reasons for reading rather than on social aspects
or activities related to reading. Third, when students were asked
what motivated them to read at school, they emphasized quality
and diversity of reading materials rather than classroom setting or
other people. When considering how middle school classrooms
measure up, issues emerged about access to reading materials in
the classroom and lack of diverse reading materials at school. These
findings raise questions about the range of materials used for middle school reading/language arts instruction and the place and purpose of student independent reading.
“Simplemente Lectura”: Un estudio sobre lo que motiva a los estudiantes a leer en la Escuela Media
Los estudiantes de escuela media son a menudo caracterizados como
lectores desinteresados (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995), sin embargo los estudios sobre lectores adolescentes generalmente no otorgan importancia a la opinión de los estudiantes acerca de las prácticas en el aula (Alvermann, 1998). Este estudio utilizó estudiantes
como los informantes principales acerca de qué los motiva a leer
en la escuela media. Examinamos a 1,765 estudiantes de sexto grado
en clases de lectura y lengua, provenientes de 23 escuelas diversas
del este de los Estados Unidos. Los estudiantes describieron cómo
los contextos del aula motivaban la lectura a través de respuestas
abiertas, respuestas cortas y listas de ítemes. Para obtener datos más
ricos acerca de los contextos positivos de enseñanza, realizamos mediante entrevistas el seguimiento de 31 estudiantes en 3 aulas en las
cuales se reportó un alto interés por la lectura. Utilizando una
metodología cualitativa, realizamos el análisis del contenido de las
respuestas del examen y comparamos estos hallazgos con los datos
de las entrevistas. Identificamos varios resultados generales acerca de
los aspectos positivos de la enseñanza. En primer lugar, los estudiantes valoraban la lectura independiente y la lectura del docente en
voz alta como parte del tiempo dedicado a la enseñanza. En segundo lugar, cuando se les preguntó qué les gustaba más de la clase, los
estudiantes dieron más importancia al acto mismo de la lectura o a
las razones personales para leer que a los aspectos sociales o actividades relacionadas con la lectura. En tercer lugar, cuando se les
preguntó qué los motivaba a leer en la escuela, enfatizaron la calidad
y la diversidad de los materiales de lectura en lugar del contexto
del aula o las otras personas. Al considerar cómo las aulas de escuela
media alcanzan las metas, surgieron cuestiones acerca del acceso a
materiales de lectura en el aula y la falta de diversidad de los materiales en la escuela. Los resultados hacen surgir interrogantes acerca
del rango de materiales usados en la enseñanza de la lectura y la
lengua en la escuela media y el lugar y propósito de la lectura independiente de los estudiantes.
“Einfach nur Lesen”: Eine Untersuchung darüber was Schüler in den Mittelschulklassen zum
Lesen veranlaßt
Schüler der Mittelschule werden oft als desinteressierte Leser charakterisiert (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995), jedoch berücksichtigen
die Studien über jugendliche Leser gewöhnlich nicht die
Meinungsäußerungen der Schüler über Klassenraumpraktiken
(Alvermann, 1998). Diese Studie nutzte Schüler als primäre
Informanten darüber, was sie in ihren Mittelschulklassenräumen zum
Lesen motiviert. Wir untersuchten 1765 Schüler der sechsten Klassen
in Lese-/Sprachbereichsklassenräumen in 23 verschiedenen Schulen
in den mittelatlantischen und nordöstlichen Vereinigten Staaten. Die
Schüler beschrieben wie Klassenraumeinflüsse ihre Leseleistungen
durch zu ergänzende Erwiderungen, kurze Antworten und
Einzelheiten in Prüflisten motivierten. Um reichere Daten über positive Unterrichtseinflüsse zu erhalten, führten wir Folgeinterviews
mit 31 Schülern in 3 Klassenräumen durch, in denen die Schüler
über eine hohe Leseteilnahme berichteten. Durch Anwendung von
qualitativer Methodologie ermittelten wir eine Inhaltsanalyse der
überprüften Antworten und verglichen diese Ergebnisse mit den
Interviewdaten. Wir identifizierten mehrere allgemeingültige
Erkenntnisse über positive Auswirkungen der Lehranweisungen.
Erstens, die Schüler schätzten selbständiges Lesen und lautes
Vorlesen des Lehrers als Teil der Unterrichtsanweisung. Zweitens,
auf die Frage was sie am besten von der in der Klasse verbachten
Zeit empfanden, verwiesen die Schüler mehr auf die eigentliche
Lesehandhabung oder auf persönliche Gründe zum Lesen statt auf
soziale Aspekte oder daraufhin bezogener Aktivitäten zum Lesen.
Drittens, befragte man die Schüler, was sie zum Lesen in der Schule
motivierte, hoben sie die Qualität und Unterschiedlichkeit der
Lesematerialien hervor, statt der Klassenraumumgebung oder anderer Mitmenschen. Bei der Bewertung wie Mittelschulklassen
zueinander abschneiden, tauchten Punkte über den Zugang zu
Lesematerialien im Klassenraum und der Mangel an unterschiedlichen Lesematerialien in der Schule auf. Diese Ergebnisse
stellen Fragen über den Umfang an Materialien der in Mittelschulen
verwendeten Lese-/Sprach-Unterrichtsanweisungen und nach Ort
und Zweckmäßigkeit des unabhängigen Lesens der Schüler.
351
ABSTRACTS
« Juste lire, tout simplement » : une enquête sur ce qui donne envie de lire aux élèves
des écoles secondaires
On considère souvent que les élèves du secondaire sont peu intéressés par la lecture (Mc Kenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995), bien que
les études sur la lecture des adolescents ne fassent pas entendre la
voix des élèves au-delà des pratiques scolaires (Alvermann, 1998).
L’étude effectuée prend les étudiants comme informateurs primaires à
propos de ce qui les motive à lire dans les classes du second degré.
Nous avons enquêté auprès de 1,765 élèves de 6° année à propos de
l’enseignement de la lecture ou du langage dans 23 écoles différentes
du centre Atlantique et du nord-est des Etats-Unis. Les élèves ont
décrit comment l’environnement scolaire motive leur lecture, au
moyen de questions ouvertes, de réponses courtes, et de listes avec
réponses à cocher. Pour parvenir à des résultats plus riches sur ce qui
constitue un environnement didactique positif, nous avons prolongé
l’enquête par des entretiens auprès de 31 élèves de 3 classes dont
les élèves avaient manifesté un haut niveau d’investissement dans la
lecture. Employant une méthodologie qualitative, nous avons effectué
une analyse de contenu des réponses de l’enquête et comparé ces ré-
sultats avec ceux des entretiens. Ceci nous a permis d’identifier
plusieurs résultats généraux concernant des traits didactiques positifs.
Tout d’abord, les élèves apprécient la lecture autonome et le fait que
leur professeur fasse une lecture à haute voix pendant la classe. En
second lieu, quand on leur a demandé ce qu’ils aiment le plus en
classe, les élèves se sont centrés plus sur l’acte de lire proprement
dit ou sur des raisons personnelles de lire que sur des aspects sociaux
ou des activités liées à la lecture. En troisième lieu, quand on a demandé aux élèves ce qui les motive à lire à l’école, ils ont mis l’accent
sur la qualité et la variété du matériel de lecture plutôt que sur la situation de classe ou les autres personnes. Quand on considère comment les classes de lecture du secondaire se montrent à la hauteur
de la tâche, on peut en tirer des conséquences relatives au matériel
à lire en classe et au manque de matériel diversifié dans l’école. Ces
résultats posent des questions sur la variété du matériel utilisé pour
l’enseignement de la lecture et du langage et sur la place et le but
de la lecture autonome des élèves.
352
will address these questions by describing what we
learned from over 1,700 sixth-grade students’ responses
to a survey we administered in a wide range of classrooms in two different areas of the United States. Our
purpose was to have students shed light on some of the
features of middle school reading instruction that foster
their engagement with reading.
We begin with an examination of studies that address the tensions between instruction and reading
achievement and learning among young adolescent students, followed by a rationale for why we decided to
conduct our study. Next, we describe the methods employed in our survey research and in follow-up student
interviews designed to add deeper understandings of the
students’ responses on the survey, along with limitations
of our study. Then we present our results, which provided
three categories of information: (a) What students valued
most in their reading and language arts classes; (b) what
students said motivated them to read; and (c) how well
their middle school classrooms responded to these needs.
Finally, we discuss our findings in relation to the existing
research used to frame our investigation and suggest implications for future studies and for practice.
A conceptual framew ork for the study
Middle school students have been portrayed in research as apathetic, reluctant readers (Anderson,
Tollefson, & Gilbert, 1985; Ley, Schaer, & Dismukes,
1994; McKenna et al., 1995). In framing the present study,
we took the position that the tensions between middle
school students and school reading can be mainly attributed to the mismatch between what students need and
the instruction they likely receive rather than to fixed
characteristics that define students (Ivey & Broaddus,
2000). Like others (Allington, 1994; Dillon, O’Brien,
Wellinski, Springs, & Stith, 1996; O’Brien, 1998), we perceive that institutionalized structures and curricula in
schools that are not responsive to students may foster
both negative attitudes and school failure.
Research on the fit between young adolescent readers and instruction
The trend toward dissatisfaction with reading as students move into the middle grades and beyond may be
linked to classroom instruction, and three themes run
through research related to this phenomenon. First, typical reading demands in middle schools rarely take into
consideration the developmental and personal differences
between students. Ivey’s (1999) case studies of three students in the same sixth-grade class highlighted not only
the variation between them, but also the complexities
within each of the three, calling for alternatives to one-
Just plain reading
size-fits-all instruction and for reading and writing experiences that showcase and capitalize on students’ strengths
rather than assignments that emphasize their weaknesses.
Although this kind of student-centered instruction is
rare in middle schools, it has strong potential for lower
achieving readers. A comparison of two investigations of
reading-disabled middle school students clearly illustrates
this point. After getting to know four students well
through interviews, observation, and tutoring sessions,
Kos (1991) concluded that, contrary to conventional wisdom on struggling readers, these students were motivated
to improve their status as readers. The problem, as students saw it, was that they could not further develop in
school as they knew it because curriculum and instruction were not designed to meet their particular needs.
Morris, Ervin, and Conrad (1996) demonstrated the reverse situation. They documented the changes that occurred for one learning-disabled student who at the
outset of the study looked much like the students Kos
described. Reading instruction for this student had practically disintegrated, and the goal of his special education
instruction was to get him through assignments in his
academic subjects. However, after working with a tutor
who tailored a reading program for him outside of school
for 2 years, this student made significant strides.
The student-instruction mismatch also extends beyond the struggling reader. Competent adolescent readers
who are reluctant to read in school indicate that they
would do so given adequate time and access to personally
engaging materials (Worthy & McKool, 1996). But Worthy
et al. (1999) reported that, in general, what middle school
students like to read is difficult to find in school. Even
avid, proficient young adolescent readers who excel in
school reading express dissatisfaction with assigned reading and writing that does not match their interests or purposes (Ivey, 1999).
Second, there is often a mismatch between what
students want to learn and the content requirements of
schools, particularly schools that are governed by districtor state-mandated standards. Students in the middle
grades and beyond are not only still developing as readers
and writers, but also beginning to explore possible identities and a range of personal interests about the world.
However, despite the concerns and curiosities of young
adolescent students and suggestions for curriculum that is
more relevant to their thinking and their lives (e.g.,
Beane, 1990; Stevenson, 1986), subject-area loyalties and
content-driven teaching persist in middle school classrooms (George, Stevenson, Thomason, & Beane, 1992).
Thus, the challenge for students to become more proficient and engaged readers and writers, in many cases
without appropriate instruction, may be further complicated by subject matter that is uninteresting, difficult to
353
understand, or both. O’Brien, Stewart, and Moje (1995)
argued how attempts to integrate content literacy in secondary schools have done little to alleviate this problem.
They contended that the goals of content literacy have
been confused in research, in teacher education, and in
schools. Some approaches to content literacy, particularly
content-area reading strategies, support traditional goals
of schools, that is, learning specific content. Other approaches to content literacy encourage students to use
reading, writing, and discussing to socially construct
knowledge, giving students more control over what and
how they learn. However, as O’Brien et al. pointed out,
student-controlled learning does not fit with traditional
school structures and practices and may be difficult for
both students and teachers to accept. Although secondary
teachers vary in their beliefs and practices, they typically
resort to more teacher-centered instruction, especially
when they perceive it is necessary to cover specific content (Bean, 2000).
Third and related, young adolescents may not be
able to reconcile school reading and writing with their
out-of-school reading and writing. Students who are resistant to school reading may read purposefully and strategically outside of school in materials they find interesting
(Bintz, 1993; Worthy, 1998). Furthermore, students’ reasons for reading and writing out of school may differ significantly from their reasons for reading in school. Bean
and his two adolescent daughters, Shannon and Kristen
(Bean, Bean, & Bean, 1999), pointed out that for these
girls, the purpose of school reading was to answer questions and to accomplish other academic tasks. On the
other hand, their out-of-school reading was linked to personal and socially oriented activities in which they explored a range of new roles and identities, such as being
a performing artist. Also, their school reading was based
mainly on traditional texts, while their out-of-school reading involved a range of media and technology. Likewise,
the students Finders (1997) studied played out a range of
social roles in what Finders called a “literate underlife”
(p. 1) outside of the school curriculum. Students read,
wrote, and talked about issues that were not sanctioned
for them in typical classrooms. Relatedly, the young adolescents who participated in the after-school book discussion clubs facilitated by Alvermann, Young, Green, and
Wisenbaker (1999) used these opportunities to develop
social relationships and to explore social positions as
they talked about what they read.
What we see in a vast majority of these studies are
young adolescents who can and want to participate in literate activities, but who are without appropriate kinds of
support or motivation to do so in schools. As a whole,
these studies support Moore’s (1996) recommendation
that for adolescent literacy “productive research might
354
highlight at-risk situational contexts rather than at-risk
students” (p. 26).
Research on practices that support young
adolescents as readers
There is a growing body of research on middle and
secondary instructional contexts that actually foster good
experiences with reading and writing in school, and three
general themes emerge from this work. First, studies of
particular classrooms suggest that responsive teachers
make the difference for students who might otherwise
become disengaged with school literacy. Through a formative experiment, Reinking and Watkins (2000) were
able to document how fourth- and fifth-grade teachers
modified a whole-class multimedia book review project
to increase struggling readers’ participation by making a
wide range of books of varying levels of difficulty acceptable for review, and by suggesting that the database
might be used for second- and third-grade students who
would need easier books to read. Relatedly, Dillon (1989)
examined the social organization of a low-track Englishreading classroom and reported that, in this case, the
teacher’s effectiveness was linked to his ability to create
culturally responsive instruction and to build an environment in which students could be confident and successful. In her chronicle of one English teacher’s experiences
with urban middle school students, Hynds (1997) pointed
out the importance of teachers’ responding not only to
students’ cultural backgrounds, but also to the social and
political forces that shape their literacy development.
The second theme is student ownership over literacy
learning. Atwell (1998) argued that student ownership was
one of the defining features of her successful reading and
writing workshop, and Oldfather (1993) noted similar benefits in a fifth- and sixth-grade whole language classroom.
Results of the 8-month ethnographic study indicated that
student motivation was linked to two main features of the
classroom. The first was a meaning-centered curriculum,
which was negotiated by students, and the second was a
student-responsive culture that honored students’ voices
and their need for self-expression. Oldfather concluded
that student choice about what and how to learn leads to
personal investment in literacy activities.
Third, adolescent students who participate in programs that connect literacy with real-life out-of-school issues and personal interests indicate more positive
feelings about reading and writing in school. The
Jefferson High School Literacy Lab (Dillon et al., 1996;
O’Brien, 1998), designed for an at-risk population, freed
students from a traditional curriculum and allowed them
to select their own topics for study and the methods by
which they completed their projects, with a strong emphasis on incorporating technology. Similarly, the Write
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
For Your Life program (Fairbanks, 1998, 1999) involved
students in inquiry-based reading and writing projects on
topics stemming from students’ personal experiences and
concerns. When interviewed about their engagement in
this program (Fairbanks, 1999), students reported that
they invested more time and effort in Write For Your Life
than in the traditional language arts curriculum, pointing
to choice, autonomy, and personal relevance as key factors in the program’s appeal.
Rationale for a student surv ey
We can identify at least two characteristics of our
study that distinguish it from past research. First, previous
studies have examined students’ experiences and motivation in a specific curriculum established by the teacher or
a researcher, such as a whole language classroom (e.g.,
Oldfather, 1993) or inquiry-based literacy projects related
to students’ life experiences and personal interests (e.g.,
Dillon et al., 1996; Fairbanks, 1998). We wondered what
we could learn from a larger, diverse sample of students
from a wider and more varied range of reading and language arts classrooms, especially because most classrooms would probably not resemble, for example, the
student-centered environment of Atwell’s (1998) reading
and writing workshop. Specifically, we wanted to know if
there were some general, underlying features of instruction that seemed to work for students across many different kinds of classrooms regardless of the curriculum in
place. We were also interested in learning about additional practices that contribute to students’ motivation,
such as teachers’ instructional actions.
Second, we wanted to highlight students’ voices.
Student perspective constitutes the essence of learnercentered classrooms (e.g., Oldfather, 1993) and of democratic communities for literacy learning (e.g., Johnston &
Nicholls, 1995), but when it comes to literacy research, it
is rare for students to be asked explicitly to report on
how their needs are addressed in school. Students’ opinions and input are rarely considered in empirical studies
of reading acquisition and development or in examinations of classroom literacy environments. Students have
been asked to report their reading habits (e.g., Anderson,
Wilson, & Fielding, 1988) and dispositions toward reading (e.g., McKenna et al., 1995) in examinations of students as readers, but they are seldom asked to comment
on their classroom instruction.
Certainly, students’ perspectives are becoming better represented in literacy research, particularly in studies
of adolescents. Researchers are increasingly relying on
students to help them understand a range of phenomena
related to literacy learning and classroom practices. For
instance, Ivey (1999) observed, interviewed, and partici-
Just plain reading
pated in reading and writing activities with three sixthgrade students across a large portion of the school year
as a way to learn more broadly about the complexities of
being a young adolescent reader. Moje (1996) included
students’ perspective, in addition to a teacher’s perspectives, to examine how teacher-student relationships contextualized the literacy practices in a high school
chemistry classroom. Nevertheless, it is ironic, as
Alvermann (1998) pointed out, that while adolescents’
perspectives are valued in literacy research, their voices
are missing in most studies. She elaborated on the positioning of students’ perspectives in research with this
commentary from Erickson and Shultz (1992, pp. 467–468,
cited in Alvermann, 1998, p. 360):
If the student is visible at all in a research study, he is usually viewed from the perspective of…educators’ interests
and ways of seeing…. Rarely is the perspective of the student herself explored. Classroom research typically does
not ask what the student is up to, nor does it…question
whether “failing” or “mastering” or being “unmotivated”
…adequately captures what the student might be about in
daily classroom encounters with curriculum.
When students’ voices are included in research reports, they typically take a backseat to teachers’ voices
and researchers’ interpretations of what they say and do,
and selected comments from a few students are used to
supposedly reflect the opinions of their larger body of
peers (Hinchman, 1998).
Because the purpose of our study was to understand
what makes students want to read in their middle school
classrooms, we decided to foreground their voices, making them primary informants in our investigation and asking them questions that were a close match to our own
research questions. Furthermore, we wanted to include
the opinions of a large number of students in order to not
only detect strong commonalties in their perspectives, but
also identify issues on which students differed from one
another with respect to motivating contexts for reading.
Background of the researchers
The histories and backgrounds of researchers are important because they figure into their decisions about empirical questions, their choice of participants and settings,
and their interpretations of data (LeCompte & Preissle,
1993). This study was conceived partly out of the researchers’ educational histories, their experiences teaching
middle school students, and their work with preservice
and inservice teachers. At the time of data collection, both
researchers were assistant professors at large statesupported universities. The researchers’ background included training as reading specialists with a strong
355
background in reading diagnosis and working with struggling readers. The first researcher began her career as a
teacher of Title I reading classes for Grades 6 through 8
students in a public middle school. Her research has focused on investigations of factors that affect the reading
performance and dispositions of middle school students.
The second researcher worked as an elementary and middle school librarian and as a middle school English
teacher. She has conducted research on inquiry-based preservice teacher education, exploring preservice teachers’
case studies of struggling readers’ literacy development,
and done reader response research in multiethnic
literature.
Both researchers have had extensive experience
with middle school students who struggled with reading,
many of whom exhibited the consequences of “Matthew
effects” (Stanovich, 1986), that is, the “rich get richer” (p.
381) and “poor get poorer” (p. 382) syndrome. For these
students, year-after-year instruction that did not match
their individual needs resulted in a general apathy toward
reading. However, given appropriate instruction, including strategies for word identification and comprehension,
as well as exposure and access to a wide range of personally interesting children’s literature, many of these students became active, competent, and engaged readers.
Both researchers believe that motivating, successful reading environments include thorough and ongoing diagnosis and assessment of individual students’ reading, along
with instruction that provides students with the skills and
strategies necessary to read and write. This instruction
should be embedded in the context of diverse genres and
multiethnic children’s and adolescent literature that inspires students and evokes personal responses, and
thereby helps students to develop a sense of purpose for
reading. The researchers’ hunch (Wolcott, 1991) was that
purposeful readers are not necessarily those who are the
most skilled; students who are still developing as readers
can also be purposeful readers. Classroom environments,
including reading materials and teaching methods, can
have a meaningful impact on students’ motivation to
read, regardless of individual reading ability.
Method
Data sources
We administered a survey (see Appendix A) to
1,765 sixth-grade students in 23 schools. When designing
our survey, we included open-ended response items and
short-answer items in addition to checklist items.
Although open-ended responses and short answers required more lengthy data analysis procedures, the responses on these items provided us with rich data on
356
individual preferences. In addition, we were able to look
across these responses to detect trends in particular classrooms that would not have been evident in checklist
items alone. Initial survey analysis indicated clear trends
in what students valued in their classrooms: independent
reading, the teacher reading aloud, and materials. Next,
we examined this data by individual classrooms to identify
classrooms in which large numbers of students reported
time for independent reading, high interest in teacher
read-alouds, and engaging materials.
Finally, to gain a better understanding of these
trends and to collect more explicit information, we conducted follow-up interviews (see Appendix B) with 16
girls and 15 boys from three diverse classrooms in which
a large number of students reported engagement in these
areas. Our primary purpose was not to look for further
validation of the categories per se, but for richer information about the themes that had already emerged. New issues came up because of the depth of the data in the
surveys. The interviews provided us with more detailed
explanations from students about how their engagement
in reading was related to issues such as individual literacy
activities in the classroom (e.g., free reading time, teacher
reading out loud, group reading of poetry and plays) or
the availability of materials (e.g., use of classroom library,
visits to public library, purchases).
Setting and participants
The survey. The survey was conducted in two settings: an urban area in the northeastern United States and
a rural/small-city area in the mid-Atlantic. Both locations
display a wide range of economic and cultural diversity
in local middle school populations. We sent requests to
participate in the survey to teachers in schools located
within the two university regions. We were able to conduct the survey in 23 of these schools with 74 teachers
volunteering to participate and 109 total classrooms of
students completing the survey. Seventy-nine percent of
the students from these classrooms received parental permission and completed the survey. In total, surveys from
1,765 sixth-grade students were collected.
Looking across the diversity of these classrooms,
49% of the students were female and 51% of the students
were male. Sixty-four percent of students were from
schools in which 0–25% of all students were eligible for
free school lunch. Thirty-one percent of students were
from schools in which 26–50% of all students were eligible for free school lunch. Five percent of students were
from schools in which 51–100% of all students were eligible for free school lunch. Teachers reported that the student populations represented the following groups: 71%
European American, 12% African American, 7% Hispanic
American, 7% Asian American, and 3% other ethnicity.
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
We asked teachers to describe the classrooms in
which these students were enrolled as either “high ability,”
“average ability,” “low ability,” “mixed ability,” or “other.”
According to teachers’ reports, 44% of the participants
were from “mixed-ability” classrooms; 29% were from
“average-ability” classrooms; 10% were from “high-ability”
classrooms; 10% were from “low-ability” classrooms; and
7% were from “other” kinds of classrooms.
Individual interviews. We conducted individual interviews with 31 students from three classrooms in different schools. (All names are pseudonyms.) Teachers from
the three identified classrooms and researchers worked together to select students with a wide range of abilities and
interests as well as differences in their general motivation
to read. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed.
Ten students (seven girls, three boys) were interviewed
from Mr. Leonard’s class at Kingston Middle School. He
taught reading and social studies and worked closely with
the language arts teacher. Kingston is a sixth- to eighthgrade school of 685 students with 36% of the students receiving free or reduced-cost lunch. The school is located
in a city in a mountainous region with industrial sites. The
student population is 78% European American, 19%
African American, 2% Hispanic American, and 1% Asian
American.
Eight students (four girls, four boys) were interviewed from Ms. Nolan’s class at Stenway Middle School.
She taught reading, and she also worked as a team with
Ms. Donner in an open classroom to teach language arts
and social studies. Stenway is a sixth- to eighth-grade
school of 830 students with 18% of the students receiving
free or reduced-cost lunch. The school is set in a rural
area with farming and industrial sites. The student population is primarily European American (97%) with small
African American (1%), Hispanic American (1%), and
Asian American and other (1%) student populations.
Thirteen students (five girls, eight boys) were interviewed from Ms. Barnhardt’s class at Lakeside Middle
School. She taught reading, and she collaborated on thematic units with the team’s writing teacher. Lakeside is a
sixth- to eighth-grade school of 1,269 students with 5% of
the students receiving free or reduced-cost lunch. The
school is located on the urban fringe of a large metropolitan area. The student population is 79% European
American, 12% Asian American, 6% Hispanic American,
and 3% African American.
Data analysis
For every item in the survey, the data were entered
on a master grid so that we could compare number of
students responding and compute response percentages
across classrooms. We also computed total percentages
for responses. The following sections describe the data
Just plain reading
analysis procedures for the different types of items on the
survey and the data analysis procedures for the follow-up
interviews of students.
Open-ended responses. Two questions located at the
beginning and end of the survey required open-ended responses about what inspired student engagement in reading in the classroom: (a) What makes you want to read in
this class? (item 2); and (b) What do you like most about
the time you spend in this class? (item 10). When the first
group of surveys was returned (about half of the data),
both researchers conducted an individual content analysis
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of each open-ended item to determine the categories that emerged from the survey responses. Each researcher kept a research log that
documented the data analysis procedures undertaken:
categories created, decisions made, subcategories that
emerged, and the eventual saturation of data. The two researchers then met to cross-check coding units and final
thematic categories for each question. We verified that
the same categories and subcategories had emerged
across both sites with slightly different terminology used.
At this point, we created written step-by-step procedures
and a sample analysis of a single classroom (see
Appendix C) to provide a model for the classification of
the data. With the help of three research assistants, all of
the open-ended responses were classified with the use of
these procedures, and each researcher cross-checked
data classified by another.
Checklist items. Checklist responses were required
for questions on three topics: preferred reading activities
at school, where students find the books that they enjoy
reading, and preferences in reading materials. An “Other”
category was provided for open response on each checklist. Students were able to check as many items as they
wished. Table 1 provides an example of the summary
sheet for Ms. Halahan’s 22 students for item 1. The content of each checklist question was analyzed by listing
the number of students responding to each item and
computing the percentage of students checking a particular item by classroom and then by a grand total of all students’ responses. For example, under our first question
“Which activities do you enjoy most in this class?” a total
of 1,111 students (63%) checked “Free Reading Time”
and only 403 students (23%) checked “Book Discussion
Groups.” Under our third question “How do you find the
books you like to read?” 1,073 students (61%) checked
that they found books in the public library, and only 492
students (28%) checked that they found books they liked
to read in their reading or language arts classrooms.
Short response. Students were also asked to respond
to five short-answer questions. Two of the questions required students to list the materials that they enjoyed
reading at school as well as the materials that they
357
Table 1
Ms. Halahan’s class tally sheet for item 1
Item 1: Which reading activities do you enjoy most in this class?
Total number of students to check each item
(22 students responding)
Teacher reading out loud
Students reading out loud
Free reading time
Reading with the whole class
Reading plays and poetry out loud
Book discussion groups
Class novels
Reading stories from the reading book or the literature book
Other
18
5
12
2
8
0
2
2
1
enjoyed reading at home. Students were also asked how
often they were able to read these materials. These responses were categorized by the number of student responses, and percentages were calculated in three areas:
types of materials (e.g., comic books, magazines, chapter
books); genres and topics (e.g., science fiction, sports,
scary stories); and specific references to an author, book,
or series (e.g., Judy Blume; Chicken Soup for the Teenage
Soul, Canfield, 1997; Fear Street series). Three additional
questions required students to list a specific title of a favorite book read at home and two favorite books from
reading in their school classroom. In order to determine
the breadth of reading within classrooms, we counted the
total number of different titles mentioned. For example, if
12 students from one classroom listed Maniac Magee
(Spinelli, 1990), 5 students listed Roll of Thunder, Hear
My Cry (Taylor, 1976), and 6 students listed different titles, the results for that classroom would be eight titles
mentioned by 23 students. This allowed us to compare
the diversity of students’ reading at home (23 books for
23 students) with diversity of books read at school (eight
books for 23 students). Table 2 provides a sample data
chart of favorite books read at home and at school by
Ms. Merrick’s students.
Individual student interviews. Our individual interview protocol was designed to collect information that
would extend and further explain the responses on the
survey. To analyze this data, first we grouped all 31 student interview responses by individual survey items. For
a short-answer item, we proceeded with a simple tabulation by number of students responding with an answer,
then calculated a percentage. For open-ended questions,
we performed a content analysis of the categories that
emerged across the responses. We also considered the
patterns that were evident across individual classrooms.
The depth of these responses was helpful in providing a
clearer picture of student engagement and classroom environments. When we had completed this analysis, we
358
(82%)
(23%)
(55%)
(9%)
(36%)
(0%)
(9%)
(9%)
(5%) (reading in pairs)
compared the interview results to our findings from the
survey.
For example, one theme emerging from the survey
was that students valued time for personal reading. To
explore the types of opportunities students had to read in
these three classrooms, we asked, “How do you read
most things in this class?” In the 31 interviews, 17 students (55%) reported that they usually read silently, 12
students (39%) reported that they did several different
types of reading (e.g., silent, group reading out loud,
teacher reading out loud), and only 2 students (6%) reported that students usually read out loud as a group.
However, students’ responses from individual classrooms
differed on this item. More students in Ms. Nolan’s class
reported that reading involved different types of activities
(6/8, 75%) while the students in the other two classrooms
felt that they spent most of their time reading silently (Mr.
Leonard, 7/10, 70%; Ms. Barnhardt, 9/14, 64%). Students
were asked two related questions: “Which way works
best for you? Why?” Most students clearly felt that silent
reading worked best (20/31, 65%), although 5 students
(16%) liked varied reading activities and 6 students (19%)
preferred students reading out loud.
The most interesting data came from the students’
responses to why a particular type of reading worked
best for them. Regardless of their initial response, most of
the students (20/31, 65%) mentioned increased comprehension (e.g., “understand things better,” “pay more attention,” “concentrate more”) as the reason they preferred
silent, oral, or mixed methods of reading. This focus on
understanding was not evident in the responses on the
survey, although this data clearly fit with student responses
about the personal contexts for reading that they valued
in their classrooms. The responses to this series of questions on the individual student survey were used to extend the information given on the survey in checklist
item 1 (“Which reading activities do you enjoy most in
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
Table 2
Data chart for Ms. Merrick’s class reading at home and at school
What’s your favorite book you read at home?
(23 distinct responses)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sports Illustrated for Kids
Sports Illustrated
Wrestling magazines
Hunting magazines
Beanie Baby books
Hardy Boys books
The Complete Ferret Book: Tips and Tricks to
a Happy & Healthy Ferret
Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing
My Side of the Mountain
The Bible
A Little Princess
Dear Mr. Henshaw
Cricket in Times Square
The Mother Book (book made about my
mommy)
Anpao: An American Indian Odyssey
Perfect Date
Mystery of the Stolen Shoe
Eye Spy
Hardy Boys series
science
animals (reptiles)
sports books (2)
scary (2)
What’s a good book or story you read in this
class this year?
(8 distinct responses, 2 other responses)
What’s another good book or story you read
in this class this year?
(13 distinct responses, 1 other response)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Number the Stars (11)
Maniac Magee (3)
Zeely (2)
Fudge-o-mania
The Whipping Boy
Kid Heroes
A Strange Matter
sports
only two good books
I have not really read a lot
this class?”) and open-ended item 10 (“What do you like
most about the time you spend in this class?”).
Limitations of the study
Although we were able to gather information from
a large number of students through our survey (1,765)
and we had a sizable response rate (79% of the students
in participating classrooms), we encourage readers of this
article to consider several limitations of our study. First,
we surveyed a variety of school populations representing
a wide range of socioeconomic, cultural, and instructional
experiences, but we were limited to those schools, teachers, and students who were ultimately willing to participate within our designated areas. Because we wanted to
conduct follow-up interviews in classrooms in which high
engagement was reported, we limited our requests for
participating in the survey to schools within a 100-mile
radius of each research location. Second, although we
collected detailed information about classroom instruction
and learning environments, this information was gathered
through teachers’ self-reports on a written form. It would
be interesting to compare what students said they preferred versus what we might observe in their classrooms.
Third, the teachers also provided information about gender and ethnicity for the participating students in order to
keep the process as anonymous as possible. Because of
Just plain reading
Zeely (3)
Maniac Magee (4)
Number the Stars (3)
James and the Giant Peach (2)
Kid Heroes (2)
Moby Dick
Black Beauty
Otherwise Known as Sheila the Great
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street
Courage Dana
Scholastic News
Dear America
some
the size of our surveyed population, our goals were to
look at classrooms and overall percentages for student response rather than to analyze characteristics of individual
responders to our survey. Fourth, although we clearly
made this process anonymous for students, the surveys
were administered and collected by classroom teachers,
which may have influenced how students responded to
some questions. However, many students gave candid responses, including some qualified statements (“I like
reading quietly to ourselves our own book that we get
from the library or from home, but I want more time to
read in this class.”) and negative responses (“Nothing in
this class makes me want to read.”).
Results
An analysis across the survey data provided information in three areas: (a) What students valued most in
their reading or language arts classes; (b) what students
said motivated them to read; and (c) how middle school
classrooms measured up. Under each category, major
themes emerged related to personal purposes for reading,
time to read, and student access to interesting and varied
materials. Additional survey results not specifically detailed here are included in Appendix D.
359
What students valued most in their reading and
language arts classes
Survey responses to classroom activities. What type
of classroom practices or activities do students value? In
checklist item 1 of our survey (“Which reading activities
do you enjoy most in this class?”) (see Table 3), students
clearly preferred two types of activities, free reading time
(63%) and the teacher reading out loud (62%). Most other
literacy activities were checked by only a quarter to a
third of the students. This included preferences for
whole-class activities such as reading poetry and plays
out loud (36%), reading with the whole class (23%), or
students reading out loud (26%). These figures were similar to the students’ responses to activities that involved
the shared reading of materials such as class novels
(31%), book discussion groups (23%), or reading stories
from the reading book or the literature book (16%). Few
students mentioned activities that were not listed on the
checklist (8%).
Interview responses to free reading time. In followup interviews about how free reading time was spent in
their classroom, students commented on their own personal contexts for reading and the importance of interesting materials. Engagement in thoughtful reading was at
the forefront of many of these responses:
I like it because it’s quiet and because you get to just think
and you don’t have to answer questions. (Brad)
I like it that we get to choose our own book. It gives you
something to think about and it’s not boring. I don’t like
how it’s such a short time. (Doug)
I like how it wastes time. I like how we get to read. If it’s
a good book, I want to read it. (Ross)
Table 3
What I like is because I get to read because I like reading.
If you could check out a baby book for your little cousins
or nieces or nephews or something, you could look over
that book to see if there’s anything in it they can’t actually
hear at this age right now. (Amy)
Interview responses to the teacher reading aloud. In
addition, each teacher in the three classrooms read aloud
to their students as a regular part of instruction. Students
were able to point to how they benefited from readalouds. In addition, students were able to articulate what
they thought their teachers’ purposes for reading aloud
were or how their teachers used read-alouds in the classroom to further instructional goals. For example, Mr.
Leonard’s students commented that he used high-interest
read-alouds, gave a dramatic performance, and shared his
own personal responses. Their understanding of these
read-aloud books was supported by these types of techniques. His students felt that he wanted them to enjoy the
wide variety of humorous, suspenseful, and serious
books that he selected.
Mr. Leonard reads to us every day after lunch. He’s a really good reader. I like it when he reads. He does the voices
real cool. It just makes it fun…how he does the voices. It
usually makes it funny like when he says something or if
something funny happens because sometimes he starts
laughing in the middle while he’s reading it. (Katherine)
Students discussed how Mr. Leonard made choices
about what to read to them after reading the books himself and seeing what he thought they would enjoy.
Comprehension was also a key issue.
He reads all kinds of books. I think he’s kind of feeling
like he’s read all of them previously, and then if he likes
them, he reads them to us. Listen to him. I like how Mr.
Leonard—he’ll change his voice for all the characters. It
makes it easier to follow who everybody is. (Matthew)
Which reading activities do you enjoy most in this class?
Checklist responses of 1,765 students to survey item 1 (students could check more than 1 item)
Survey checklist
Number of students
Free reading time (like DEAR or silent reading time)
Teacher reading out loud
Reading plays and poetry out loud
Class novels
Students reading out loud
Reading with the whole class
Book discussion groups
Reading stories from the reading book
Other (activities written by students)
360
1,111
1,089
641
550
451
407
403
289
137
Percentage
63
62
36
31
26
23
23
16
8
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
In Ms. Nolan’s class, read-alouds in language arts
typically were connected to social studies instruction. She
read historical fiction about topics students were studying
that were listed on the state learning standards. For example, the students mentioned learning about the Great
Depression from hearing selections of Out of the Dust
(Hesse, 1997) or learning about World War II from a
read-aloud of Foster’s War (Reeder, 1998). Since this was
a large-group setting with two classes combined, some
students discussed distractions to listening. Not all the
students were engaged by the historical content.
However, in the smaller reading class, Ms. Nolan did read
shorter selections from more varied materials such as
book introductions to engage students in their own independent reading. David described Ms. Nolan reading a
picture book to them as follows:
Ms. Nolan in reading, she’ll read some books like The
Sweetest Fig (Van Allsburg, 1993). She gives us books that
we could read. She’ll let us copy it down on a piece of paper, and we’ll check the book out if we have it here. See,
I have problems with my eyes and I like it when I can just
hear it and not have nothing in my hands. I can just sit
here and listen and picture what’s happening in my mind.
When I’m reading I’m hooked onto the words rather than
what’s going on.
In Ms. Barnhardt’s class, students discussed the
wide variety of materials she read to them. Some of the
books were related to thematic study, and some of the
books were chosen for interest. Although the students
appreciated how a teacher read-aloud improved their understanding, many of the students (8/14) mentioned that
some of the selections were not engaging:
Well I don’t really like books that are boring. I like the
books that are exciting. (Reid)
I like the teacher’s expression. Ms. Barnhardt is very expressive. (Kendra)
She makes it sound so interesting. If there’s complicated
words instead of us trying to figure it out she’ll be reading
it and she’ll understand what the words mean. (Leslie)
Survey responses to classroom environments. A more
general query, item 10 (open-ended response) explored
individual classroom environments. (See Table 4 for a list
of subcategories and representative responses.) When
asked “What do you like most about the time you spend
in this class?” most students (41%) wrote about the act of
reading itself or personal reasons for wanting to read.
There was a clear connection in these written responses
to the free reading time that so many students checked in
item 1. Students wrote about independent reading in the
classroom with comments such as, “That it is usually quiet
and it helps you get your mind clear to read” or “I get to
Just plain reading
read without being disturbed” or “I like it because it’s
quiet and plus this so called quiet time gives me time to
read, read, read, and read some more.” Other students
wrote about personal reasons for reading such as, “I like
to read because it takes me on a journey” or commented
on the process of reading such as, “You get to read on
your own as fast or as slow as you want.”
Fewer students wrote about the social aspects of
reading with peers or the teacher (21%) or classroom activities related to reading (16%). One student mentioned,
“I like being with my teacher reading together because
she is really nice, and the best thing is she has got pashince [patience].” Another noted the interaction with peers,
“We joked about the book,” while still another said,
“When we all read a book and then we do book talks.”
Commenting on activities, students often talked about
performance or interaction such as, “We do fun stuff like
read short plays and act them out. We had a debate
about one of the plays.” Only 10% of the students mentioned that materials were something that they liked
about the time that they spent in their classrooms.
Students’ comments included, “I like it when the teacher
reads or lets us read a very scary story,” and “When you
get to read plays and other things in Read Magazine.”
What students said motivated them to read
Survey responses about motivation and interesting
materials. For item 2 (open-ended response), students
were asked to write about what motivates their reading at
school. Table 5 lists subcategories and provides representative responses. To the question “What makes you want
to read in this class?” many of the students (42%) responded that they were motivated by finding good materials to read and having choice in the selection of these
reading materials. Some students noted specific topics
such as “Good sports books that tell me a lot of history
and facts about a certain team,” while other students
wrote in more general terms about “The freedom to read
what you want.” The quality of the book itself often came
up in the students’ comments. For example, one student
noted “If I have a really good book that keeps me on my
toes I want to read alot,” while another wrote, “Some
books that we read leave us in suspense, so that’s why I
like to read.” It is interesting to note that in this item students indicated that materials may be the biggest factor in
their inclination to read in class, but as we reported earlier
under item 10, students rarely mentioned materials (10%)
as the best thing about being in their particular classrooms. However, in the classrooms in which materials
were available, one student wrote “My Language Arts
teacher has a big cabinet and a book shelve [shelf] full of
realy [really] good books,” while another one stated that
“The books there are intristing [interesting].” Students also
361
Table 4
What do you like most about the time you
spend in this class?
Representative responses for free response survey item 10
Personal reading (728 students, 41%)
General comments about reading (392 students, 22%)
• “I like to read a lot of books.”
• “We learn a lot about reading.”
• “Reading. I used to not read as much as I do now.”
• “You get to read a lot.”
• “I like to read.”
• “That when I’m done with my work I can read instead of get another
worksheet.”
Independent reading/time to read alone (236 students, 13%)
• “Reading by myself.”
• “Having everybody being really quiet and being able to read.”
• “I like it when I can just sit down and read a good book by myself.”
• “Silent reading.”
• “I like being able to read without being disturbed.”
• “When we are allowed to read are [our] owen [own] book by are [our]
self.”
Learning (73 students, 4%)
• “I can read and learn knew [new] words.”
• “You get to learn things.”
Other personal reading responses (27 students, 2%)
• “Taking a picture in your mind and imagining the scenery.”
Reading in a social context (375 students, 21%)
Peers (234 students, 13%)
• “Getting to read with friends.”
• “Talking about stories that we read and saying what would have
happened if this or that was in the story.”
Teacher (111 students, 6%)
• “When my teacher reads to our class. He does all of the voices in the
story.”
• “Mrs. Whitman is a cool teacher. She knows how to make it fun.”
Other (30 students, 2%)
Responses unrelated to reading (369 students, 21%)
• “I like history the best.”
• “You don’t have assigned seats and you don’t have a teacher telling
you what to do every second.”
• “I think I like the time when we get to talk to our friends.”
Activities related to reading (283 students, 16%)
• “Watching movies about stories or plays we read.”
• “The art activities with my friends and word study games.”
• “I like watching Jack Tales on a movie.”
Reading materials (175 students, 10%)
• “I like when we read Orphan Journey Home. That story is starting to
get sad.”
• “Freedom to choose books.”
• “We read interesting books together and they aren’t the kinds of
books that are boring and you can’t understand.”
Negative responses (50 students, 3%)
• “It stinks and I don’t like to read anyway.”
• “Not reading!”
No entry (48 students, 3%)
362
wrote about wanting to read because they had access to
books on particular topics of interest: “It is just fun because Mrs. Green has a lot of good books like motocycles [motorcycles].”
To a lesser extent, students reported that three other
factors—self, environment, and people—motivated them
to read in the classroom. Almost a quarter of the students
(self, 28%) mentioned personal reasons for reading. One
student stated that “The more you read the smarter you
get,” and another said, “I want to be able to read good
when I grow up.” Another student explained as follows:
Because reading is interesting. It also is because you can
learn lots of things. It is also something to kill time with. I
like to read for one other reason it is because it takes you
to a different world. Your [you’re] in your own world. I
LOVE READING.
In responses that focused on school environment
(23%), students brought up classroom contexts, external
rewards, and literacy activities. One student commented
on “All the advertising they do here at school to encourage you to read.” Another said, “I like to read in this class
because it is the only time we have to read in school.”
Students also mentioned other people (19%), such as the
teacher or peers, as a motivator to read. One student remarked, “When the teacher tells me about a book and it
sounds like a good book,” and another commented,
“Because my friends read things that I would like to
read.” A few students did write down negative responses
(5%) such as, “Nothing usually makes me want to read.”
Interview responses on motivation and reading. To
follow up on survey responses, students were asked,
“What motivates you to read in this class?” Many of the
same topics came up. Twelve students (39%) mentioned
a good book or a good topic, and 7 students (23%) mentioned personal reasons such as individual learning.
However, in these classrooms that had been selected because of a high engagement in reading, 9 students (29%)
felt that the teacher was an important factor in student
motivation. This is a higher figure than the 11% of students who mentioned the teacher as a motivator on the
survey. In the interviews, only a handful of students mentioned other factors that motivated reading at school (free
time, 2, 6%; peers, 2, 6%; programs such as Accelerated
Reader, 3, 10%).
Another way that we explored motivation and reading in the interviews was by asking students about positive and negative experiences with reading in school. We
used the following prompts: “Tell me about when you
got ‘hooked’ on a book in this class. What hooked you?”
and “Tell me about the worst reading experience you’ve
had in this class. What was bad about it?” In this area, it
was clear that there was a wide diversity in personal
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
Table 5
What makes you want to read in this class?
Representative responses for free response survey item 2
Reading materials (740 students, 42%)
Quality of the materials and student interest (430, 24%)
• “If you have a good book it is fun to read anywhere.”
• “Reading books that catch my attention.”
• “The books makes [make] me want to read.”
• “What makes me want to read is getting a very interesting book.”
• “Sometimes the book sounds good so I want to read it.”
Variety of materials and specific types of books (245 students, 14%)
• “I like to read about peoples lives, and what thay [they] had to go
through.”
• “I like to read because most of the books are really exciting or there
[they’re] full of love & romance. So when I come to this class to do
something, it’s mostly read. And when ever [whenever] someone tells
me or asks, “have you read this book?” And I’ll be able to tell them
yes because of reading class.”
• “I want to read war or space books.”
Ease of reading and other responses (64 students, 4%)
• “I want to read in class because it’s easy and fun.”
Personal reasons for reading (499 students, 28%)
• “Well you get to learn about new things and also I guess it makes
your mind think.”
• “I just want to read.”
• “It makes me smarter and I learn more about the subject I’m reading
about.”
• “You use your imagination and explore your mind.”
• “I just feel like reading.”
• “So I can calm down or just go into my own world.”
• “The joy of doing it. It is also good for learning new things and good
for your mind because it challenges your brain with new and exciting
words.”
Classroom contexts for reading (403 students, 23%)
Classroom setting (173 students, 10%)
• “It gives you more time to read because sometimes you don’t have
time at home.”
• “It is quiet and is a very good surrounding for reading.”
External rewards (120 students, 7%)
• “Because it’s reading class and it counts as a grade.”
• “We have a program called Accelerated Reader. We read a book on
the list and then you take a test on it on the computer. In my class, if
you have extra points, you can get pencils, a locker pass, a free spot
to sit at lunch, stuff like that.”
interests in reading. Once again, students mentioned
reading materials by citing specific titles as both motivation to read and as the reason for a bad experience reading. Personal choice was closely aligned with positive
experiences reading. When students reported an experience in which they were motivated to read, they usually
discussed the content of the book and described features
they found interesting. Many of their responses included
comments about suspense and humor, but students also
discussed interest in the subject matter and personal connections. Students clearly understood and responded to
the content of the book. Here are samples of positive
responses:
Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul (Canfield, 1997). It was
my own book. I was reading it in school. I was using it to
read in school because it was about other kids and everything so it related to me. (Brian)
Probably Woodsong (Paulsen, 1990). It was that my aunt
used to live up in northern parts, so I learned a lot more
from that book. With the races and all, it kind of kept me
going on. It left me in suspense a lot. (Dana)
Magnificent Mummy Maker (Woodruff, 1995). It was
about this guy who goes into a museum and he sees a
mummy of an old pharaoh from Egypt. He gets this little
power from it. I really enjoyed it. It was very funny.
(Nathan)
One of Matt Christopher’s sports books. The kid got into
mischief. He reminds me of myself. I get into mischief.
(Ross)
In contrast, students’ worst experiences reading in
school were directly related to assigned reading. Students
complained of difficulties with comprehension or boredom as follows:
Reading activities (86 students, 5%)
• “My teacher motivates us to read by giving us projects, such as personality bags, which is a different way of giving information than having to write a report.”
• “I like to read out loud to people. I also like to hear other people read.”
I think it was Sweetgrass (Hudson, 1989) or something. It
was hard to understand because of all the Indians and
stuff. Different stuff that was happening to them, it was
hard to comprehend. It was where it took place. It just
didn’t make any sense at one point. I think it just got a little boring after a while. (Kelly)
Other classroom comments (24 students, 1%)
Other people (331 students, 19%)
Poems because they don’t have no meaning to them. No
point. (Joshua)
Teacher (201 students, 11%)
• “I like how Mr. Powers reads. The teacher makes you read.”
• “He [the teacher] inspires us to [read].”
• “Ms. Sutton is a teacher that understand [who understands] stuff if you
don’t know it.”
I had to read O Pioneers! (Cather, 1997). It was the
longest, most boring book ever.
Peers (117 students, 7%)
• “When my friend tells me the book is really good.”
• “Because I like reading in class with the other kids.”
Other individuals (13 students, 1%)
Negative responses (86 students, 5%)
• “Nothing.”
• “The only time I like to read is when I have to read.”
No entry (47 students, 3%)
Just plain reading
I guess it’s Park’s Quest (Paterson, 1989), the one we just
finished. I really didn’t get into it. I thought it was kind of,
it had a good point, but it was just a little stupid because it
was overdramatic…. It’s so confusing. (Ellie)
A number of books that were part of assigned
whole-class reading were mentioned by different students
as both the best and the worst reading experiences.
Students who were not engaged in assigned books often
commented that they did not understand the purpose of
363
the reading exercise or that they found the reading materials boring. See Table 6 for an example of the range of
comments about assigned books from different students.
Range and diversity of materials. Students also reported interest in reading from diverse types of materials.
For checklist item 4 (“What types of books do you like to
read?”), the top three choices were magazines, adventure
books, and mysteries. Other favorites were information
books about animals and sports or collections like scary
stories, joke books, comic books, and series books. A
quarter to a third of students enjoyed reading across genres in books about people their own age, fantasy, science
fiction, poetry books, historical fiction, and picture books.
Approximately a quarter of the students liked reading
nonfiction books (biographies, science, history) and
newspapers. Table 7 provides a ranked listing of materials students preferred.
One interview question, in which students discussed the importance of diverse materials, was “What
advice would you give someone who does not like to
read in school?” Of the 31 students, 14 students (45%) felt
that trying out different books on a topic of personal interest in order to find the right book was the key to en-
Table 6
joying reading. Some even mentioned that it might be
easier to find the book outside of school:
But if you can find a really good book, like a book at
home, and bring it to school and read it at school,
that…might help. (Brian)
That you should find out what you like to do, and then
read about that kind of thing. If you like soccer, maybe
you should read a book that’s about someone else who
likes soccer. Or if you like figuring things out, read mysteries. (Ellie)
To pick all kinds of books like mysteries, science fiction,
and historical fiction. Read all of them. And then see
which one they like better. And then start picking them
kind of books to read. (David)
I would tell them that you look at maybe different kinds of
books because there are some really good books out
there. (Katherine)
In addition, 10 students (32%) commented on the
importance of the personal and academic benefits of
reading:
You should try to read because you’ll get a better education and it’s easier to understand when you get in the
higher grades. (Jeremy)
Variety in personal response to interview questions about motivation in classroom reading
Tell me about when you got “hooked” on a book in this class. What
“hooked” you?
Tell me about the worst reading experience you’ve had in this class.
What was bad about it?
I got hooked on Slake’s Limbo (Holman, 1974). It was just so interesting.
It was about a homeless boy who had nobody and he lived down in
the subway and I was really interested in how somebody could live for
121 days down in the subway. (Leslie)
Slake’s Limbo. I had no clue we were reading the book. (Rich)
Slake’s Limbo. It was boring. No action whatsoever. It was just dull.
(Brian)
Tuck Everlasting (Babbitt, 1988) because there was mystery and murder.
(Rich)
Tuck Everlasting because it was so boring. I wasn’t interested in it.
(Kendra)
Tuck Everlasting because the story idea wasn’t right. It wasn’t good.
(Nathan)
When I had to read Tuck Everlasting. I just didn’t like it. (Manny)
Night of the Twisters (Ruckman, 1987). It’s like a mystery except you
don’t know what’s going to happen in the next chapter…. Yeah, I wanted to read it to the next chapter and see what happened. We’re not allowed to take that book home. But if it were allowed, I would be taking
it home to see what was happening in the next chapter and stuff.
(Kelly)
It’s something that one of the teachers assigned us on Night of the
Twisters. I didn’t really like it. It was kind of boring. It didn’t have any
girls in it. It had all boys. (Winnie)
Out of the Dust (Hesse, 1997) because it was written in poetry form and
I like poetry. (Hilary)
When Mr. Leonard read Out of the Dust. I thought it was really boring. I
thought it was kind of pointless. It didn’t seem exciting to me.
(Matthew)
I really liked the first book that we read, Dear Napoleon, I Know You’re
Dead, But… (Woodruff, 1992), and we did a lot of activities with that
and I really liked the book a lot. We even had a like pancake breakfast
because that’s what’s mentioned inside the book and I really liked that
activity that we did. Made me really like the book a lot. (Katelyn)
Dear Napoleon, I Know You’re Dead, But… because I wasn’t fond of it.
It was boring and I didn’t understand why he was writing to a dead
guy. It was strange. (Reid)
Dear Napoleon, I Know You’re Dead, But… because it was all around
boring. It was hard to get into. I just didn’t like the book at all. (Jeremy)
364
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
Table 7
What types of books do you like to read?
Checklist responses of 1,765 students to survey item 4 (students could check more than 1 item)
Survey checklist
Magazines
Adventure books
Mysteries
Scary stories
Joke books
Animals (information books)
Comic books
Series books
Sports (information books)
Books about people your age
Fantasy
Science fiction
Newspapers
Poetry books
Biographies
Picture books
History (novels/chapter books)
Science books
History (information books)
Other specific topics
Number of students
1,355
1,219
1,189
1,041
980
889
864
851
836
686
662
543
500
487
479
478
470
381
359
263
To keep at it because you need reading vocabulary to
make it through life. (Brian)
Nobody can make them read, but they should because
reading makes you learn more about stuff you didn’t
know. (Tina)
How middle school classrooms measured up
Access to materials. Considering the wide range of
reading interests reported on the survey, it is not surprising that students often did not find the books they wanted to read in the classroom. When asked “How do you
find the books you like to read?” in checklist item 3, most
students checked the public library (61%), a bookstore
(56%), the school library (55%), or home (49%). In comparison, only 28% of the students reported that they had
books they liked to read in their own classrooms.
Students also found books by looking for good topics
(58%) and favorite authors (45%). Although friends (42%)
were seen as sources for finding good books, fewer students found the teacher (27%) or the librarian (22%) as
sources for finding reading materials.
Even in our follow-up interviews with students in
classrooms in which high engagement in reading was reported, the classroom was not viewed as a place to find
good reading materials. The students were asked, “Where
do you get the materials you like to read?” Out of 31 students, 23 (74%) said that they bring books from home or
buy books, 23 (74%) said that they find books at their
Just plain reading
Percentage
77
69
68
59
56
51
49
48
48
39
38
31
28
28
27
27
27
22
20
15
public library, 17 (55%) said that they find books at the
school library, and only 5 (16%) mentioned finding books
in the classroom.
Home versus school reading. There was also a difference in the range (variety in reading levels) and diversity (variety in format and genre) of materials that students
reported reading at home compared with materials read
at school. Students were asked to respond to the following questions (short response) on the survey: item 7,
“What’s your favorite book you read at home?”; item 8a,
“What’s a good book or story you read in this class this
year?”; item 9a, “What’s another good book or story you
read in this class this year?” For each classroom, we totaled the number of unique titles mentioned for each
question. More than three quarters of the classrooms reported greater than or equal to 0.7 unique titles per student for home reading. In contrast, less than a quarter of
the same classrooms reported greater than or equal to 0.7
unique titles per student for both questions about school
reading. The global average, or the average of unique titles per student across all classrooms, was 0.82 unique titles per student for home reading, 0.43 unique titles per
student for school reading, and 0.51 unique titles per student for another good book read at school. Table 8 illustrates how these global averages would be represented in
a classroom of 25 students.
Reading at home was diverse and clearly showed
that students read to learn about information or for enter-
365
Table 8
Number of unique titles read by students in middle-grade classrooms
Home reading versus school reading
(Global average)
Survey question
Favorite book at home
Favorite book at school
Another good book at school
Unique titles per student
0.82
0.43
0.51
tainment. The only titles that were named by multiple
students for home reading were popular series such as
Goosebumps or Animorphs. Students listed a variety of titles that included nonfiction, fiction, popular and informational magazines, picture books, and poetry. In
contrast, the book list from school reading typically consisted of award-winning novels (contemporary realistic
fiction, historical fiction, and some fantasy). It was rare
for students to mention any nonfiction, informational
magazines, or recently published titles. For example, if
we look at Ms. Merrick’s classroom, our sample data
chart (Table 2) given in the analysis section, there was a
total of 23 responses for good books read in school. Of
the 23 responses, Number the Stars (Lowry, 1989) was
listed 11 times, Maniac Magee (Spinelli, 1990) was listed
3 times, and Zeely (Hamilton, 1967) was listed 2 times. Of
the remaining 7 responses, 5 were unique book titles or
topics and 2 were nonspecific responses (e.g., “I have not
really read a lot”). Even when asked for another good
book read in school, students mentioned the same titles
or other well-known titles as follows: Number the Stars
(3), Maniac Magee (4), Zeely (3), James and the Giant
Peach (Dahl, 1961) (2), Kid Heroes (Shusterman, 1993)
(2). In addition, seven unique titles of novels (awardwinners, contemporary classics, and series), one magazine, and one general response were mentioned.
However, for their home reading, all of the 23 students
mentioned separate titles or topics. These reading materials included nonfiction books about varied topics (e.g.,
ferrets, reptiles, sports), informational magazines (e.g.,
hunting, wrestling, sports), historical fiction, mysteries, series books, classics, and books often found in homes
(e.g., encyclopedia, family Bible). The difference in
school reading and home reading was striking. The specific titles suggested that, on their own, students were
reading to learn more about topics of individual interest
and that there were personal and varied purposes for
reading.
Interview information on free reading time. In all
three classrooms in which we spent time interviewing
366
Unique titles per 25 students
21
11
13
students, there was time provided for free-choice reading.
However, the interviews pointed out the complexity of
pinning down scheduling issues such as free reading time
in a middle school classroom. Students mentioned many
different ways free reading was accomplished: homeroom, schoolwide reading on Friday, before or after
lunch, twice weekly during instructional time, or after
class work was completed. The time frames differed with
each of these activities. Even the students became confused in trying to decipher how free reading fit across different courses and different middle school teams for
reading, language arts, and social studies. Their responses
did suggest that time to read was valued in the classrooms, but they were not able to relate how it fit in daily
reading instruction.
Discussion and implications
This investigation focused on sixth-grade students’
perspectives on what makes them want to read in their
reading and language arts classrooms. Baker and Wigfield
(1999) argued that motivation is multidimensional and
that students fluctuate in their motivational profiles. Ivey
(1999) reported similar complexities in motivation for
three middle school readers of different achievement levels. Like Baker and Wigfield, we perceive that motivation
for middle-grade readers is not an all-or-nothing construct. Furthermore, we suspect that what happens in
school affects how children feel about reading. Although
McKenna et al. (1995) found a negative trend in reading
motivation from first to sixth grade, they also saw the
need for additional research that explores causes for
these attitudinal changes. While our study does not tap
reasons for the decline in motivation per se, it does shed
light on some features of instruction that have a positive
influence on middle school students’ inclination to read
in school. Here we discuss some ways students’ voices
expand our understandings about the tensions between
young adolescent readers and middle school instruction.
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
How studentsÕ voices helped us reconsider common
practices to promote reading
Like middle-grade students in other studies
(Stewart, Paradis, Ross, & Lewis, 1996; Worhy & McKool,
1996), our participants were clear about the importance
of time to read in school. Also, as in previous research
(e.g., Dillon et al., 1996; Oldfather, 1993; Worthy et al.,
1999), participants in our study sent a strong message
about the need to read personally interesting materials
and about having some control over what they read in
school (Atwell, 1998; Oldfather, 1993). In addition, our
respondents favored teacher read-alouds as an important
part of class time. Furthermore, our findings remained
consistent even though our respondents came from a
wide range of instructional environments, as compared
with, for example, students from one school or from a
specific kind of setting, such as a literature-based classroom. We cannot infer that time to read, teacher readalouds, and personal interest materials were characteristic
of the students’ classrooms, only that these factors were
critical to their reading engagement. These results suggest
the possibility that these fundamental features of instruction—having a rich supply of texts and many opportunities to experience text through independent reading and
through teacher read-alouds—may be universal needs for
diverse students across a range of contexts.
But the students in our study offered a new perspective on the benefits of time spent engaged in text.
From teachers’ and researchers’ perspectives, the most
important reason for giving students many opportunities
to read in school is so that they will get better at reading
(Allington, 1977). Similarly, reading competence has been
linked to the amount of time children spend reading on
their own (Anderson et al., 1988). In short, adults’ reason
for letting students read is that practice leads to progress.
While we agree and also espouse this viewpoint, students
were able to shed even more light about the benefits of
time spent with texts through independent reading and
teacher read-alouds. Students did not view time spent
reading and listening as a way to get better at it. Rather,
they saw silent reading as a way to make more sense of
the text at hand, since time set aside freed them to concentrate, comprehend, and reflect without being disturbed or distracted by some other task. Likewise, they
saw teacher read-alouds as scaffolds to understanding because the teacher helped to make the text more comprehensible or more interesting to them.
If having time to read and listen does help students
to make more sense of what they read and to think more
critically about it, it behooves us to look at where time
for engaged reading and listening is included in the
school day. Voluntary reading programs (e.g., Sustained
Silent Reading [SSR] and Drop Everything And Read
Just plain reading
[DEAR]) allow students time to engage in wide, freechoice reading without being disturbed, but they are typically not tied to the curriculum or to any specific content
area. If time freed up for reading and listening fosters students’ understandings as much as our participants indicate, then perhaps independent reading and teacher
read-alouds should take on a more central role in the
curriculum, particularly in content area learning, where
meaning making and learning new concepts are paramount. Certainly, more research is needed to examine
the place and purpose of independent reading and
teacher read-alouds and their connections to instructional
and curriculum goals.
Also, we were struck by students’ preference for independent reading and teacher read-alouds above a
range of other possible activities, such as reading a class
novel or participating in book discussion groups. Even in
open-ended responses to the question “What’s the best
thing about being in this class?” more students wrote
about personal reading than about peers or social activities. For these students, the benefits of personal reading
outweigh the benefits of the whole-class or small-group
readings and discussion they experienced. Because research indicates that, when implemented thoughtfully
and carefully, student-centered discussions can have a
powerful effect on student learning (e.g., Almasi, 1995;
Goatley, Brock, & Raphael, 1995), one might assume that
either discussions were not happening in these classrooms or the discussions that took place were not engaging for students. When Alvermann et al. (1999) studied a
voluntary after-school book club for middle school students, they found that out-of-school discussion did not
resemble school discussions and that, for these students,
the purpose of the discussion was personal rather than
academic. Given what we learned about the mismatch
between students’ out-of-school reading and classroom
reading, we are left to wonder if typical school discussions for our participants were similarly inconsistent with
out-of-school discussions and therefore not a high priority
for students.
Similarly, activities related to assigned reading (e.g.,
class novel units) were mentioned by students rarely in
comparison with independent reading and teacher readalouds. We can conceive of some possible explanations
for these differences. One possibility, given the diversity
in their reading preferences, is that the students in our
survey were not interested in the books selected by their
teachers. A second reason might be that class novel studies take up lot of time, and that this time is taken away
from what students say they like most—time to just read.
Instead, most instructional time is devoted to activities to
extend students’ knowledge about the content of the
book (e.g., character analysis), to enhance their experi-
367
ences with the book (e.g., response journals), or to increase students’ interest in that particular book. For the
most part, students’ pace of reading is determined by the
teacher. Furthermore, these practices, if they are common
in the classrooms we surveyed, are inconsistent with
what our respondents indicated would constitute productive reading experiences for them. For instance, in class
novel studies, extension activities to help students understand the content of the assigned book far outweigh time
spent actually reading, but students in our survey indicated
that it was the opportunity to spend time alone with the
text or to experience the text through their teachers’ readaloud interpretations that helped them understand. The
students we interviewed complained about assigned
reading, and, ironically, they pointed to difficulties in understanding as the main reason for not liking these texts
despite the fact that so much time was spent on activities
to help them comprehend.
How studentsÕ voices gave us new perspectives on
out-of-school literacies
While our results of students’ reading preferences
parallel the 1999 findings of Worthy et al. (e.g., scary stories, magazines, comics, series books), we were also
struck by the range of books students said they liked and
reported reading out of school. For instance, according to
our survey as many as 4 or 5 students out of a class of 20
may be interested in nonfiction books, and a similar
number may be interested in poetry or picture books.
Researchers and educators have recently begun to respond to the need to infuse students’ out-of-school interests into the school curriculum by urging those who deal
with adolescent learners to consider the role of popular
culture (e.g., Alvermann & Hagood, 2000; Lewis, 1998;
Nixon, 1999) in literacy development. When students in
our study reported on what motivated them to read outside of school, they mentioned texts connected to popular
culture (e.g., biographies of musical artists) occasionally,
but no more frequently than a host of other kinds of materials (e.g., books about World War II, books about
snakes).
The idea of linking students’ out-of-school literacies
with classroom practice makes sense. For the sixth
graders in our study, however, it makes the most sense to
look at reading preferences broadly, balancing reading
trends across adolescents with the interests and preferences of individual students. Although evidence for what
is motivating is mounting in favor of certain materials
(magazines, comics), genres (mysteries, scary stories),
and issues (popular culture, social concerns), we would
like to see researchers and educators consider these texts
collectively and develop a broad notion of what young
adolescents prefer to read. Finders (1998/1999) pointed
368
out the tendency of preservice middle school teachers to
characterize young adolescents as a group, ignoring any
diversity among individuals. Likewise, to limit our definition of high interest to just these materials and for narrow
reading purposes would be selling individual students in
our study short.
How does the importance of materials for our participants factor into their middle school reading and language arts programs? Although we do not have extensive
information on what students actually read in their classrooms, we do know that the books they mentioned did
not match what they said they preferred to read and what
they read out of school, and that they ranked their classrooms as one of the least likely places to find the materials they want to read. Of particular significance is the
amount of nonfiction students reported reading out of
school compared with the near nonexistence of nonfiction mentioned for school reading.
Some may argue that free reading programs driven
by students’ choices may lead to students reading narrowly in nonchallenging materials and that teachers need
to make choices for students and guide them toward
more high-quality texts. However, on the basis of what
students in our study reported they want to read, a curriculum defined by teacher choices, which would include
mainly award-winning fiction, might limit their reading
experiences rather than extend them. We especially wonder about the absence of nonfiction materials in the classroom reading of our respondents, particularly with the
content area focus of the middle school curriculum, not
to mention content standards related to high-stakes tests.
We are left to assume that either these materials were not
used or they were not engaging enough for students to
recall. Also, if reading selections in classrooms were as
narrow as we suspect, then models for expository writing
might be similarly narrow.
One barrier to using student reading preferences as
a way to conceptualize a reading program is that we
have so few models of how teachers put these programs
into practice. Much information on using activities and
thematic study to extend the teaching of certain books
exists in the professional literature (e.g., “The Dynamic
Nature of Response: Children Reading and Responding to
Maniac Magee and The Friendship,” Lehr & Thompson,
2000; “Reading, Living, and Loving Lord of the Flies,”
Sunderman, 1999). On the other hand, there is limited information on how teachers help students pursue their
own reading and writing interests in a wide range of
texts. Specifically, we lack extensive research on what
constitutes effective teaching in a middle-grade classroom
that is set up around a curriculum of individualized reading in varied materials. Atwell (1998) described how her
reading and writing workshop evolved, but Atwell’s
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
workshop did not focus on expository texts or on the
wide range of materials mentioned by our participants. In
addition, we would benefit from descriptions of diverse
classrooms that extend beyond the student population in
Atwell’s school. One good example is the Jefferson High
School Literacy Lab (Dillon et al., 1996; O’Brien, 1998),
which focuses on at-risk high school students. Similar
studies with a middle-grades focus are needed not only
to describe the implementation and effects of such programs in a range of contexts, but also to explore the
complexities and dilemmas that emerge.
How studentsÕ voices informed the teaching content
versus teaching reading problem
A curriculum driven by students’ interest may be
feasible, at least in theory, in reading and language arts
classes where teachers are not tied to specific content.
Where does independent reading in subject area classes
fit in? At face value, our results illuminate the tensions between what and how students want to learn and what
they typically encounter in their content classes. Although
we asked students to comment on reading in their reading and language arts classrooms and not in their content
area classes, we believe our findings as a whole suggest
some different ways to envision reading and learning in
the content areas. First, students’ responses indicated that
they are interested in reading about a wide range of informational topics (e.g., aviation, cooking, musical instruments), even if these topics do not exactly match the
content requirements teachers must address in school. It
seems productive for teachers and researchers to acknowledge that students are interested in reading for information and to view the diversity in interests not as a
liability, but as an indication that students are motivated
to learn about many topics. Furthermore, given the
breadth of students’ interests for out-of-school reading,
we became hopeful that if teachers investigated students’
interests, they might find ways to link students’ out-ofschool reading interests with content requirements rather
than replace one with the other. We have some research
on students’ reading and writing about their personal interests and concerns (e.g., Fairbanks, 1999) in school, but
clearly we need research that connects students’ out-ofschool literacies with a standard curriculum.
Second, students made us wonder if the practices
they associate with engaged reading in their reading and
language arts classrooms—independent reading, good
materials, teacher read-alouds—would also foster interest
and learning in their content classes. Students reported
that time to read alone in materials of their choice allowed them to think, learn, and understand new concepts and that teachers who read-aloud made texts more
comprehensible and interesting to them. We wonder if
Just plain reading
and how independent reading in a range of texts and
teacher read-alouds has been used to make content area
topics more accessible to students, providing the knowledge base that makes topics more engaging. We also
wonder, given the importance of good reading materials,
how access to a wider range of texts in content classes
might influence students’ engagement with content topics. While our results only raise the question, we believe
future research should address this possibility. Research
on concept-oriented reading instruction (e.g., Guthrie et
al., 1996), which links motivations, strategies, and conceptual knowledge to engaged reading, helps to move us
in that direction.
Third, the value students placed on interesting reading materials in particular is an important issue for content area teachers and researchers to consider, especially
given the ongoing predominance of the textbook as the
main source of authority in content area classes (Bean,
2000). Duke (2000) reported that informational texts were
almost nonexistent in the first-grade classrooms she studied, and our survey suggests that students may have limited
access to informational texts in their language arts classrooms even in sixth grade. Bean (2000) called for research that explores the use of young adult literature in
content classes beyond English class, but his recommendations seem to be for the use of fictional novels. In addition, we would like to see studies of content area
teachers who use a variety of nonfiction materials (e.g.,
picture books, newspapers, magazines, journals, record
books) that match the kinds of materials students in our
survey reported reading on their own. This also more
closely represents the kinds of reading and information
students might encounter on high-stakes tests. Future research should examine not just the availability of fiction
and nonfiction materials in secondary content classes, but
also, and just as important, how teachers can use a range
of materials for instruction.
Nieto (1994) proposed that student voices must be
included in discussions of school reform if we are ever
going to make any real changes. If our research is a good
indication, then perhaps we ought to let these discussions begin with students. What we learned from asking
students critical questions is that both instruction and curriculum goals need to be evaluated in response to what
students need. Our purpose is not to override or diminish
the importance of teachers’ judgment in favor of what
students say they want. On the contrary, we believe that
understanding students’ perspectives will help teachers
make good instructional decisions.
We close with more voices from sixth-grade students representing what they collectively suggest is critical to making school reading meaningful and productive
for them:
369
“I like reading by myself. That way I get done with my
book and I find out what happens.”
“When our teacher reads the story she explains it to us
and makes her voice sound exciting.”
“When I look at a book, I think how good it can be. That
gives me the ambition to read.”
For the students in our survey, it is clear that highengagement reading and language arts classrooms would
include time to read, time to listen to teachers read, and
access to personally interesting materials. However, students’ perspectives on why these practices work for them
opened our eyes to some different ways to think about
motivation to read, raised some important questions
about teaching, and extended our own research questions. While we were interested in what would inspire
students to read in school, students seemed more concerned about the conditions that would help them learn
and grow from their reading rather than about motivation
to read in general. Rather than asking “What makes students want to read?” we now wonder if a better question
is “How can we use reading and reading instruction to attend to students’ motivation to learn?”
REFERENCES
ALLINGTON, R.L. (1977). If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get
good? Journal of Reading, 21, 57–61.
ALLINGTON, R.L. (1994). The schools we have. The schools we need. The
Reading Teacher, 48, 14–28.
ALMASI, J. (1995). The nature of fourth-graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in
peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly,
30, 314–351.
ALVERMANN, D.E. (1998). Imagining the possibilities. In D.E. Alvermann,
K.A. Hinchman, D.W. Moore, S.F. Phelps, & D.R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing
the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. 353–372). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ALVERMANN, D.E., & HAGOOD, M.C. (2000). Fandom and critical media
literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 436–446.
ALVERMANN, D.E., & MOORE, D. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R.
Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 951–983). New York: Longman.
ALVERMANN, D.E., YOUNG, J.P., GREEN, C., & WISENBAKER, J.M.
(1999). Adolescents’ perceptions and negotiations of literacy practices in afterschool read and talk clubs. American Educational Research Journal, 36,
221–264.
ANDERSON, M.A., TOLLEFSON, N.A., & GILBERT, E.C. (1985).
Giftedness and reading: A cross-sectional view of differences in reading attitudes and behaviors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 186–189.
ANDERSON, R.C., WILSON, P.T., & FIELDING, L.G. (1988). Growth in
reading and how children spend their time outside school. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23, 285–303.
ATWELL, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
BAKER, L., & WIGFIELD, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for
reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading
Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477.
BEAN, T.W. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist conventions. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 629–644). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
BEAN, T.W., BEAN, S.K., & BEAN, K.F. (1999). Intergenerational conversations and two adolescents’ multiple literacies: Implications for redefining content
area literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42, 438–448.
BEANE, J. (1990). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality.
Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
370
BINTZ, W.P. (1993). Resistant readers in secondary education: Some insights and implications. Journal of Reading, 36, 604–615.
DILLON, D.R. (1989). “Showing them that I want them to learn and that I
care about who they are”: A microethnography of the social organization of a
secondary low track English-reading classroom. American Educational
Research Journal, 26, 227–259.
DILLON, D.R., O’BRIEN, D.G., WELLINSKI, S.A., SPRINGS, R., & STITH,
D. (1996). Engaging “at-risk” high school students: The creation of an innovative
program. In D.J. Leu, C.K. Kinzer, & K.A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the
21st century: Research and practice. 45th yearbook of the National Reading
Conference (pp. 232–244). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
DUKE, N.K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts
in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
ERICKSON, F., & SHULTZ, J. (1992). Students’ experience of the curriculum. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 465–485).
New York: Macmillan.
FAIRBANKS, C.M. (1998). Nourishing conversations: Urban adolescents,
literacy, and democratic society. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 187–203.
FAIRBANKS, C.M. (1999, December). Investigating “kids’ business”:
Fostering adolescents’ literacy engagements. Paper presented at the National
Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
FINDERS, M.J. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and New York: Teachers
College Press.
FINDERS, M.J. (1998/1999). Raging hormones: Stories of adolescence and
implications for teacher preparation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42,
252–263.
GEORGE, P.S., STEVENSON, C., THOMASON, J., & BEANE, J. (1992).
The middle school and beyond. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
GOATLEY, V.J., BROCK, C.H., & RAPHAEL, T.E. (1995). Diverse learners
participating in regular education “Book Clubs.” Reading Research Quarterly,
30, 352–380.
GUTHRIE, J.T., VANMETER, P., MCCANN, A.D., WIGFIELD, A., BENDER,
L., POUNDSTONE, C.C., RICE, M.E., FAIBISCH, F.M., HUNT, B., &
MITCHELL, A.M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 31, 306–325.
HINCHMAN, K.A. (1998). Reconstructing our understandings of adolescents’ participation in classroom literacy events: Learning to look through other
eyes. In D.E. Alvermann, K.A. Hinchman, D.W. Moore, S.F. Phelps, & D.R.
Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp.
173–192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
HYNDS, S. (1997). On the brink: Negotiating literature and life with adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.
IVEY, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities
among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 172–192.
IVEY, G., & BROADDUS, K. (2000). Tailoring the fit: Reading instruction
and middle school readers. The Reading Teacher, 54, 68–78.
JOHNSTON, P., & NICHOLLS, J.G. (1995). Voices we want to hear and
voices we don’t. Theory Into Practice, 34, 95–100.
KOS, R. (1991). Persistence of reading disabilities: The voices of four middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 875–895.
LECOMPTE, M.D., & PREISSLE, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative
design in educational research, (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
LEHR, S.L., & THOMPSON, D.L. (2000). The dynamic nature of response:
Children reading and responding to Maniac Magee and The Friendship. The
Reading Teacher, 53, 480–493.
LEWIS, C. (1998). Rock ’n’ roll and horror stories: Students, teachers, and
popular culture. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42, 116–120.
LEY, T.C., SCHAER, B.B., & DISMUKES, B.W. (1994). Longitudinal study
of the reading attitudes and behaviors of middle school students. Reading
Psychology, 15, 11–38.
LINCOLN, Y.S., & GUBA, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
MCKENNA, M.C., KEAR, D.J., & ELLSWORTH, R.A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,
934–955.
MOJE, E.B. (1996). “I teach students, not subjects”: Teacher-student relationships as contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31,
172–195.
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
MOORE, D.W. (1996). Contexts for literacy in secondary schools. In D.J.
Leu, C.K. Kinzer, & K.A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century:
Research and practice. 45th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.
15–46). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
MORRIS, D., ERVIN, C., & CONRAD, K. (1996). A case study of middle
school reading disability. The Reading Teacher, 49, 368–377.
NIETO, S. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream.
Harvard Educational Review, 64, 392–496.
NIXON, H. (1999). Adults watching children watching South Park. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 12–16.
O’BRIEN, D.G. (1998). Multiple literacies in a high school program for “atrisk” adolescents. In D.E. Alvermann, K.A. Hinchman, D.W. Moore, S.F. Phelps,
& D.R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp.
27–49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
O’BRIEN, D.G., STEWART, R.A., & MOJE, E.B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum,
pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442–463.
OLDFATHER, P. (1993). What students say about motivating experiences
in a whole language classroom. The Reading Teacher, 46, 672–681.
REINKING, D., & WATKINS, J. (2000). A formative experiment investigating
the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students’ independent reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 384–419.
STANOVICH, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences
of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 24, 7–26.
STEVENSON, C. (1986). Teachers as inquirers: Strategies for learning with
and about early adolescents. Columbus, OH: National Middle School
Association.
STEWART, R.A., PARADIS, E.E., ROSS, B., & LEWIS, M.J. (1996).
Student voices: What works in literature-based developmental reading. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39, 468–478.
SUNDERMAN, W.L. (1999). Reading, living, and loving Lord of the Flies.
English Journal, 89, 49–54.
TOMLINSON, C., MOON, T.R., & CALLAHAN, C. (1998). How well are we
addressing academic diversity in middle school? Middle School Journal, 3,
3–11.
WOLCOTT, H.F. (1991). Posturing in qualitative research. In M.D.
LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 3–52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
WORTHY, J. (1998). “On every page someone gets killed!” Book conversations you don’t hear in school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41,
508–517.
WORTHY, J., & MCKOOL, S. (1996). Students who say they hate to read:
The importance of opportunity, choice, and access. In D.J. Leu, C.K. Kinzer, &
K.A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice.
45th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 245–256). Chicago:
National Reading Conference.
WORTHY, J., MOORMAN, M., & TURNER, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to
read is hard to find in school. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 12–27.
Just plain reading
CHILDRENÕS BOOKS CITED
BABBITT, N. (1988). Tuck everlasting. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
CANFIELD, J. (1997). Chicken soup for the teenage soul. Deerfield Beach,
FL: Health Communications.
CATHER, W. (1997). O Pioneers! Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
DAHL, R. (1961). James and the giant peach. Ill. N.E. Burkett. New York:
Knopf.
HAMILTON, V. (1967). Zeely. Ill. S. Shimin. New York: Macmillan.
HESSE, K. (1997). Out of the dust. New York: Scholastic.
HOLMAN, F. (1974). Slake’s limbo. New York: Scribner.
HUDSON, J. (1989). Sweetgrass. Edmonton, AB: Treefrog.
LOWRY, L. (1989). Number the stars. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
PATERSON, K. (1989). Park’s quest. New York: Viking.
PAULSEN, G. (1990). Woodsong. New York: Simon & Schuster.
REEDER, C. (1998). Foster’s war. New York: Scholastic.
RUCKMAN, I. (1987). Night of the twisters. New York: HarperCollins.
SHUSTERMAN, N. (1993). Kid heroes: True stories of rescuers, survivors,
and achievers. New York: Tor Books.
SPINELLI, J. (1990). Maniac Magee. Boston: Little, Brown.
TAYLOR, M.D. (1976). Roll of thunder, hear my cry. New York: Dial.
VAN ALLSBURG, C. (1993). The sweetest fig. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
WOODRUFF, E. (1992). Dear Napolean, I know you’re dead, but…. Ill. J.
Woodruff. New York: Holiday House.
WOODRUFF, E. (1995). Magnificent mummy maker. New York: Scholastic.
ADDITIONAL CHILDRENÕS BOOKS
BLUME, J. (1972). Otherwise known as Sheila the Great. New York: E.P.
Dutton.
BLUME, J. (1972). Tales of a fourth-grade nothing. New York: E.P. Dutton.
BLUME, J. (1990). Fudge-a-mania. New York: E.P. Dutton.
BURNETT, F.H. (1995). A little princess. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
CLEARY, B. (1983). Dear Mr. Henshaw. New York: Morrow.
FLEISCHMAN, S. (1987). The whipping boy. New York: Morrow.
GEORGE, J.C. (1975). My side of the mountain. New York: E.P. Dutton.
HIGHWATER, J. (1992). Anpao: An American Indian odyssey. New York:
HarperCollins.
KETCHUM, L. (2000). Orphan journey home. New York: Camelot.
SELDEN, G. (1983). A cricket in Times Square. New York: Farrar, Straus &
Giroux.
STEIN, R.L. (1996). The perfect date. New York: Archway.
Received January 4, 2000
Revision received May 30, 2000
Accepted November 3, 2000
AUTHORSÕ NOTE
This research was supported by an Elva Knight Research Grant from the
International Reading Association.
371
APPENDIX A
Student survey
Teacher’s name ________________________________________________________________Date_____________________
School _________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Which reading activities do you enjoy most in this
class?
(You may check more than one.)
_____ Teacher reading out loud
_____ Students reading out loud
_____ Free reading time (like DEAR or silent reading
time)
_____ Reading with the whole class
_____ Reading plays and poetry out loud
_____ Book discussion groups
_____ Class novels
_____ Reading stories from the reading book or the
literature book
_____ Other (explain)______________________________
2. What makes you want to read in this class?
3. How do you find the books you like to read?
(You may check more than one.)
_____ In this classroom
_____ From the school library
_____ From the public library
_____ Home
_____ Bookstore
_____ Friends
_____ Your teacher
_____ The librarian
_____ From teacher reading out loud
_____ Books by favorite authors
_____ Books on a good topic
_____ Other (explain)______________________________
4. What types of books do you like to read?
(You may check more than one.)
_____ Novels/chapter books
_____mysteries
_____fantasy
_____science fiction
_____adventure
_____history
_____books about people your age
_____scary stories
_____books in a series (like Goosebumps or
Babysitter’s Club)
_____other (explain)________________________
372
_____ Picture books
_____ Poetry books
_____ Information books
_____ sports
_____ animals
_____ science
_____ history
_____ biographies
_____ other (explain)________________
_____ Magazines
_____ Newspapers
_____ Comic books
_____ Joke books
_____ other (explain)______________________________
5. What are the best kinds of things you read at home?
How often do you read these things at home?
6. What are the best kinds of things you read at school?
How often do you read these things at school?
7. What’s your favorite book you read at home?
8. What’s a good book or story you read in this class
this year?
How did you read this book?
_____ With the whole class
_____ With a small group
_____ With a friend in class
_____ By yourself
9. What’s another good book or story you read in this
class this year?
How did you read this book?
_____ With the whole class
_____ With a small group
_____ With a friend in class
_____ By yourself
10. What do you like most about the time you spend in
this class?
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
APPENDIX B
Student interview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tell me about yourself as a reader.
What do you like to read?
Where do you get the materials you like to read?
What kinds of things do you read in this class? (Get students to describe this in detail.)
How do you read most things in this class (silently, out loud, small group, with a partner)?
Which way works best for you? Why?
Do you have a free reading time in your class? How often?
Tell me how you spend your time during free reading time.
What kinds of materials do you choose for free reading?
Where do you get the materials you read during free reading time?
What do you like or dislike about free reading time?
Do you have other times when you read silently in this class? How often?
Tell me how you spend your time during silent reading time.
What kinds of materials do you read during silent reading time?
Where do you get these materials?
What do you like or dislike about silent reading times?
Does your teacher read aloud to you? How often?
What types of things does he/she read? How does he/she decide what to read?
What do you do during read-aloud times?
What do you like or dislike about teacher read-alouds?
Do students ever read aloud in your class? Tell me more about that.
What kinds of materials do students read aloud? Where do you get the materials you read aloud?
What do you like or dislike about students reading aloud in class?
Do you ever have discussions about what you read? Tell me more about that.
What kinds of things do you talk about when you discuss books?
Who talks during discussions?
What do you like or dislike about discussions?
Tell me about the writing you do in this class.
How do you decide what you will write about?
Is your writing connected in any way to what you read? How so?
Do you talk to other students in the class about what you read? If so, what do you talk about?
Is there anyone in this class who is similar to you as a reader? Who? In what ways?
Is there anyone in this class who is different than you as a reader? Who? In what ways?
Tell me about a time when you got “hooked” on a book in this class. What “hooked” you?
Is there another good reading experience you’ve had in this class? Tell me about it.
Tell me about the worst reading experience you’ve had in this class. What was bad about it?
What advice would you give someone who does not like to read in school?
What book would you suggest for someone who has never liked to read? Why would you recommend that book?
What do you think motivates students to read in this class?
Just plain reading
373
APPENDIX C
Directions for analyzing data
You will be given a list of specific categories for each question. Categorize each response using the appropriate list.
• First, identify a general category.
• Next, classify the response under one of the subcategories.
• Type the response exactly as it is written by the students, including any misspellings or grammatical errors.
For example, consider the classification of the following response for question 2 on the Student Survey:
“Some of the books that we read leave us in suspense so that’s why I like to read.”
General category: Materials (some of the books)
Subcategory: Type/variety (suspense)
As you are analyzing data, do your best to include the responses in the general categories given, but use the “Other”
designation if you are unable to find a good fit with any of the subcategories.
Attach a separate sheet with a list of responses that don’t fit any of the given categories or any section with “Other”
categories.
Note: You may find that one response belongs in multiple categories. For example, the following response for question
2 includes two categories:
“We have good books and the teacher makes it fun.”
*Materials (Interest/quality) We have good books
*People (Teacher) The teacher makes it fun
The full response should be typed under each category, but put [brackets] around the part of the response that applies
to that category.
Sample items for the analysis of item 2 from Ms. Thatcher’s class follow:
Categories for survey item 2: What makes you want to read in this class?
THE READER (MYSELF)
• [So I can calm down or just go into my own world.]
• It is quiet here but at home I can’t because it is to noisy. [It’s fun too.]
• [Because I want to learn how it’s going to be when I get a job you need to learn how to read or you won’t have a
good Education.]
PEOPLE
Teacher
•The stories are good. [I like to read with Mrs. Thatcher.]
•[If the teacher started off some of a book and told the class to read the rest by ourselves.] Or if I lik the book.
•[When I hear about diffrent stories my teacher tells me and class.]
•[The teacher gives us exciting books to read.]
Peers/social context
• [because I like reading class with the other kids]
Other
ENVIRONMENT
Classroom setting
• [It is quiet here but at home I can’t because it is to noisy.] It’s fun too.
374
(continued)
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
APPENDIX C
Directions for analyzing data (continued)
Activities
• [Because I am not the only one reading I get to hear everbody read.]
External rewards
• [So I can get a good grade if I have to do a report on it.]
Other
MATERIALS
Quality/interest
• [The stories are good.] I like to read with Mrs. Thatcher.
• [When I get interrested.]
• If the teacher started off some of a book and told the class to read the rest by ourselves. [Or is I lik the book.]
• [Being interested in the topic.]
• [Because some of the stories we read are good and I like to read good books.]
• [I have a very good book.]
Type/variety
• [Because I like to read funny books.]
• [real life exciting stories]
Ease of reading
Other
NEGATIVE RESPONSES
Nothing/dislike
• [Well I do not like to read in the class at all because I do not like reading out loud.]
Other
“When we have deadlines you have to read fast so I don’t understand the story as well.”
“So you don’t have to read when you get home.”
NO ENTRY
Just plain reading
375
APPENDIX D
Additional survey results
Question 5a: What are the best kinds of things you read at home?
Students gave responses in three categories: (a) types of materials; (b) topics and genres; and (c)
specific references.
Categories and responses
Number of students
Percentage
Types of materials
Magazines
Novels
Newspapers
Comic books
Picture books
Poetry
Textbooks
Plays
Other
637
444
217
151
47
35
13
2
106
19
13
12
5
3
2
1
0
6
343
135
123
85
80
76
71
55
53
38
34
20
19
8
7
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
237
225
73
13
13
4
Topics and genres
Scary, mystery, horror
Adventure
Sports
Specific topics
Nonfiction (general)
Funny/joke books
Fantasy
Science fiction
Animals
Realistic fiction
Biography
Historical fiction
Specific references
Specific series
Specific title
Specific author
Question 5b: How often do you read these things at home?
Daily, often
Weekly, sometimes
Not much, rarely
Never
No response
68
18
11
2
1
(continued)
376
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2001 36/4
APPENDIX D
Additional survey results (continued)
Question 6a: What are the best kinds of things you read at school?
Students gave responses in three categories: (a) types of materials; (b) topics and genres; and (c)
specific references.
Categories and responses
Number of students
Percentage
Types of Materials
Novels
663
38
Textbooks
116
7
Magazines
74
4
Poetry
53
3
Newspapers
36
2
Plays
24
1
Picture books
23
1
Comic books
12
1
157
9
Scary, mystery, horror
247
14
Adventure
184
10
Nonfiction (general)
89
5
Specific topics
65
4
Fantasy
62
4
Realistic fiction
46
3
Sports
42
2
Science fiction
42
2
Funny/joke books
38
2
Historical fiction
36
2
Animals
31
2
Biography
30
2
Other
Topics and genres
Specific references
Specific title
142
8
Specific series
60
3
Specific author
18
1
Question 6b: How often do you read these things at school?
Daily, often
59
Weekly, sometimes
22
Not much, rarely
15
Never
1
No response
3
Just plain reading
377