Reading Habits and Attitudes of College Students

This article was downloaded by: [Saint Joseph's University] On: 30 March 2015, At: 17:15 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Literacy Research and Instruction Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20

The Peter Effect Revisited: Reading Habits and Attitudes of College Students a

b

Anthony J. Applegate , Mary DeKonty Applegate , Martha A. b

c

d

Mercantini , Catherine M. McGeehan , Jeanne B. Cobb , Joanne R. e

f

DeBoy , Virginia B. Modla & Kimberly E. Lewinski

Click for updates

f

a

Holy Family University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

b

St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

c

Kutztown University, Kutztown, Pennsylvania

d

Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina

e

Lincoln University, Lincoln University, Pennsylvania

f

LaSalle University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Published online: 09 May 2014.

To cite this article: Anthony J. Applegate, Mary DeKonty Applegate, Martha A. Mercantini, Catherine M. McGeehan, Jeanne B. Cobb, Joanne R. DeBoy, Virginia B. Modla & Kimberly E. Lewinski (2014) The Peter Effect Revisited: Reading Habits and Attitudes of College Students, Literacy Research and Instruction, 53:3, 188-204, DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2014.898719 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.898719

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Saint Joseph's University] at 17:15 30 March 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Literacy Research and Instruction, 53: 188–204, 2014 Copyright © Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers ISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 online DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2014.898719

The Peter Effect Revisited: Reading Habits and Attitudes of College Students ANTHONY J. APPLEGATE Holy Family University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


MARY DEKONTY APPLEGATE AND MARTHA A. MERCANTINI St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

CATHERINE M. McGEEHAN Kutztown University, Kutztown, Pennsylvania

JEANNE B. COBB Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina

JOANNE R. DEBOY Lincoln University, Lincoln University, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA B. MODLA AND KIMBERLY E. LEWINSKI LaSalle University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Certainly a primary goal of literacy education is the creation of avid, enthusiastic, and highly motivated readers. However, in this article revisiting the Peter Effect (Applegate & Applegate, 2004), researchers surveyed more than 1,000 college sophomores and found strikingly low levels of enthusiasm for reading. Only 46.6% of surveyed students could be classified as Enthusiastic readers, and only 5.7% could be classified as Engaged and Avid readers. Thus, it appears that the Peter Effect still persists. The authors investigated the reading attitudes of college students, particularly those aspiring to be teachers, and found that 48.9% of teachers will be called on to inspire their students with a love of reading that they do not have. Finally, implications reveal that teacher educators must address the importance of enthusiasm for reading if teachers are to transcend their literacy dispositions to create positive impacts on their future students. Keywords qualitative research, teacher education, motivation

Address correspondence to Anthony J. Applegate, Holy Family University, Education, 9801 Frankford Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19114. Email: [email protected]

188


The Peter Effect Revisited

189

The American educational community has long been exposed to conflicts and disagreements among reading educators. However, if there is one issue that has the potential to smooth over past differences and unite teachers, theorists, and researchers alike, it is the vision of the ideal reader, the ultimate goal of virtually all literacy educators. That ideal student is an avid, engaged, and enthusiastic reader, immersed in the joy of learning, with an imagination set free by words (Guthrie, 2001; Scharer, Pinnell, Lyons, & Fountas, 2005). Teachers rejoice when they encounter such students because they know, both from experience and research, that enthusiasm for reading sets off a cascade of effects that result in some very significant advantages in the academic lives of these young people. First of all, ideal readers are motivated to spend significantly more time reading than the average student (Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), almost certainly because they experience more rewards from it. And because reading improves with practice, they become steadily better at it (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992), as reflected in higher grades in school (Donahue, Daane, & Grigg, 2003; Sweet, Guthrie, & Ng, 1998), better test scores (Gottfried, 1990), and higher levels of text comprehension (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999). Ideal readers think more deeply about what they read and this thoughtful response to text appears to be related to their overall motivation to engage in the activity of reading (Applegate & Applegate, 2010). With the emergence and widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association, 2010), the resurgence of interest in the nature of the ideal reader seems to be happening at a most opportune time. Common Core State Standards discussions are sending a clear message to American literacy educators that the stakes are rising, particularly the expectation that students demonstrate a thoughtful and well-supported response to ideas embedded in complex text. In a world increasingly characterized by global interaction and competition, the timing could not be better. For example, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reported that 15 year olds from the United States ranked 24th among the 64 countries that participated in international comparisons in reading (OECD, 2010). While international comparisons of this type are not without their critics (Turgut, 2013), one finding may be even more important. In all 64 countries, the level of enjoyment that students associated with reading was highly predictive of their levels of achievement. And, since levels of enjoyment are linked to levels of intrinsic reading motivation (Schiefele, Schaffner, Moller, & Wigfield, 2012), American literacy educators are being challenged not to be content with the training of technically proficient readers. Instead they must challenge their students to apply their skills by engaging with text, responding with sophisticated analysis, and learning to be energized and rewarded by the intellectual challenge that such deep thinking entails. When we consider our prospects for success in producing increasing numbers of ideal readers, the challenges are formidable. The National Endowment for the Arts conducts regular surveys of the extent to which Americans read literary texts, and they characterized the steep decline represented in their 2004 results as a “national crisis” (Bradshaw, 2004). The 2008 survey indicated an encouraging rebound in reading habits, particularly among college age students (NEA, 2009). However, the data also included the observation that barely half of college age students engage regularly in the reading of literature. Other researchers have reported higher amounts of time spent on recreational and academic reading (both literary and informational text) by college students (Mokhtari, Reichard, & Gardner, 2009). But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that huge numbers of college age students are functionally aliterate; that is, they can read but choose not to do so. Far too many students complete their assigned readings and duly receive their grades and degrees, but they emerge from


190

A. J. Applegate et al.

their educational experiences with their distaste for and avoidance of reading relatively untouched. Even more discouraging is the fact that among these college graduates is a significant percentage of students who aspire to become teachers in the nation’s schools. As such, they will be charged with promoting and encouraging the development of the ideal and deeply engaged readers that they themselves are not. This puts them squarely into the unfortunate position described as the Peter Effect (Applegate & Applegate, 2004). The label itself is drawn from a New Testament story of a beggar who approaches St. Peter and asks him for money. Peter responds that he “cannot give what he does not have” (Acts 3:5). In the former study of the same name, we found that of the nearly 400 elementary education majors surveyed, less than half could be classified as enthusiastic readers. And lest we think that these preservice teachers are not finding their way into the nation’s literacy classrooms, Nathanson, Pruslow and Levitt (2008) reported similar findings among practicing teachers. Thus, the problem that we investigated in this study is not only the extent to which teachers may be called upon to inspire their students with a love of reading that they do not have, but also the levels of reading enthusiasm that college sophomores who have passed through our educational system have managed to develop. We will describe the means by which we investigated the reading habits of college sophomores, report our findings and observations, and finally discuss some of the challenges that face teachers, parents, and institutions that prepare the nation’s teachers as they ready young children to attain the levels of achievement embodied in the Common Core.

Influential Teachers and the Aesthetic Stance Perhaps the most alarming scenario that emerges from the research is the notion of a recursive cycle of teaching producing large numbers of uninspired students, many of whom go on to become teachers who struggle to ignite in their students a love of reading that they have never experienced (Commeyras, Bislinghoff, & Olson, 2003; McKool & Gespass, 2009; Powell-Brown, 2003/2004). If we as a nation are to break out of this cycle, it will take battalions of what Ruddell (1997) described as influential teachers. Influential teachers are those who have a profound and lasting effect on their students. They engage students in intellectual discovery, set high expectations, and provide students with the logical tools to think deeply about what they read. Ruddell found that one of the hallmarks of the influential teacher is an approach to reading that Rosenblatt (1995) referred to as the aesthetic stance. Rosenblatt envisioned the individual’s reading stance as existing somewhere along a continuum of aesthetic (predominantly literary) to efferent (predominantly nonliterary). However, Rosenblatt (1995) emphasized that “in both kinds of reading, the reader focuses attention on the stream of consciousness, selecting out the particular mix of public and private linkages” (p. 293) with the text. In short, the reader with an aesthetic stance is one who reacts deeply and thoughtfully to any kind of text and, as a consequence, is intensely familiar with the engaged and enthusiastic reader we described above. We regard the notion of the aesthetic stance as a vitally important element of an individual’s view of reading, a set of concepts that comprise an individual’s internal model, or set of beliefs about the very nature of reading itself (Burgess, Sargent, Smith, Hill, & Morrison, 2011). If, for example, a teacher believes that the key to reading success is the ability to read text and then faithfully reproduce the author’s intended message, then that teacher will likely emphasize literal recall of text details. If a teacher believes that a thoughtful response to the author’s message is the essence of reading, techniques such as discussion, literature circles, and the ability to use textual information to support one’s ideas will be


191

emphasized. As will be evident in the discussion that follows, the college sophomores in our sample encountered a host of teachers who used a broad array of different techniques and approaches in their literacy classrooms.


Methods The original Peter Effect study (Applegate & Applegate, 2004) included only students who were pursuing certificates in elementary school education. In this study, we included students from a cross-section of college majors. In considering the original study, we all shared many questions. Has the love of reading among preservice teachers improved significantly since 2004? Is a lack of enthusiasm for reading largely restricted to education majors or is it equally prevalent among students pursuing degrees in other fields? Since our college and university sophomores are largely products of our educational system and have, if the data are accurate, encountered many teachers who have no love for reading. Have they managed to avoid the potential effects of teachers who are uninspired readers? Do particular literacy teaching approaches tend to promote student engagement in and enthusiasm for reading? What, in general, has been the reaction of college students to the literacy instruction they received in their earlier years? The answers are important because the stakes are increasingly high.

Participants The participants in this study were 1,025 college sophomores, a convenience sample from seven different East Coast colleges and universities (four urban and three suburban). The broad positive response we received enabled us to insure solid representation among majors from business (n = 166), health sciences (n = 120), humanities (n = 124), mathematics and science (n = 108), and social sciences (n = 124), in addition to a healthy sample of education majors or preservice teachers (n = 348).

Data Collection and Data Sources Investigators sought out colleagues who were slated to teach sophomore level courses and asked if they would be willing to spare the ten to fifteen minutes that it would take their students to complete the study questionnaire. We assessed levels of student reading activity by asking students to write about what reading they had done over the past summer and then compared it with their self-reported level of enjoyment of reading. Our expectation was that enthusiastic and engaged readers would make time to do a reasonable amount of leisure reading over the course of a summer. We then asked the sophomores to rate the instructional emphases that they recalled from elementary and secondary reading education and to describe their early literacy experiences. In addition, we prompted subjects to contrast their school and home reading experiences, as well as to describe their college or university reading experiences. Finally, we asked if any of their teachers had effectively inspired them with a love of reading. We modeled the instrument on the already field-tested original Peter Effect questionnaire, utilizing open-ended questions deliberately designed to encourage respondents to write freely about their learning experiences. The instrument is included in Appendix A. Using a constant comparison method (Glaser, 1965), three of the investigators independently scored the questionnaires by classifying the respondents as enthusiastic or unenthusiastic readers, utilizing the rubric included in Appendix B. At the same time, the

192



investigators coded open-ended responses that shared commonalities and indicated clear trends in reading experiences. This work was, of course, simplified by the fact that the previous Peter Effect study (Applegate & Applegate, 2004) had identified a set of characteristics shared by a significant number of respondents. The work that remained was to identify characteristics of college age students from a variety of backgrounds and majors and seek out links between their beliefs about reading and their home and school experiences. At the conclusion of their independent review, the investigators met and resolved any differences in scoring by discussion. They also identified and refined a set of key commonalities in responses that were associated with the reading attitude and habits of the individuals who participated in the study. In all, the project spanned nearly six months, including questionnaire administration and analysis of data. Enthusiastic Readers: Appreciative, Focused, or Engaged and Avid We classified as enthusiastic those who reported a positive attitude toward reading and who engaged in reading during the summer, whether that reading was selective or broad. We should emphasize from the outset that we chose not to set the bar for enthusiasm in reading very high. Instead, we regarded enthusiastic reading as reading that extended beyond newspapers and magazines and included the reading of at least a single book (other than children’s literature or textbooks assigned in a summer course). In the final analysis, we identified three specific types of enthusiastic readers. Appreciative readers were those who reported (a) the reading of at least one book over the course of the summer and (b) a positive attitude toward reading in general. Focused readers were those who reported enthusiasm only for particular types or genres, but also exercised that preference over the course of the summer. Engaged and Avid readers were those who reported a love of reading and read broadly and extensively over the summer. Unenthusiastic Readers: Lukewarm, Reluctant, and Unwilling Readers Lukewarm readers were those who expressed little enthusiasm for reading and did little summer reading. We also viewed as lukewarm those respondents who claimed to like or enjoy reading, but who did not find the time to read a single book over the course of the previous summer. Reluctant readers were more overt in their dislike for reading; they will often do the work that is asked of them from a sense of responsibility rather than from a love of what they are doing. Unwilling readers, on the other hand, were those who expressed fairly open dislike for reading and sought to exclude reading from their personal and academic lives whenever possible.

Findings As can be seen in Table 1, only 46.6% of the college students we polled could be classified as enthusiastic readers. Perhaps equally disturbing is the low overall percentage of students who were identified as Engaged and Avid readers (5.7%). Rounded off to whole numbers, our sample included 47% enthusiastic and 53% unenthusiastic readers.

Responses to Open-Ended Questions As noted above, we constructed our reading habits questionnaire with an eye toward inviting college students to talk about their experiences without having to respond to narrowly


193

Table 1 Percentages of Enthusiastic and Unenthusiastic Readers Among College Students Enthusiastic Avid

Focused


58 138 5.7% 13.4%

Unenthusiastic Appreciative 282 27.5%

Total 478 46.6%

Lukewarm

Reluctant

Unwilling

338 33.0%

111 10.8%

98 9.6%

Total 547 53.4%

targeted prompts. In this way, we hoped to identify those elements that respondents felt were important enough to include in their responses, rather than elements that we had already concluded were important. The vast majority wrote detailed responses that reflected what they considered to be the most important features of their educational and literacy experiences. Consequently, the analysis of their free responses provided us with a great deal of insight into what college students regarded as positive and negative dimensions of their reading education journey. The key themes that emerged from our analysis were a view of reading as intellectual challenge, the influence of parents and teachers on student growth, the effects of one’s view of reading on attitudes and habits, and reactions to experiences with reading instruction. We will discuss each of these themes in turn. Finally, we will discuss our findings related to preservice teachers and identify what we regard as important implications for teacher preparation programs. It is impossible to read through the comments of the respondents and not be struck by the sheer complexity and unpredictability of their observations. For every student who loved the books that teachers selected, it seemed we had another who resented the fact that the reading was assigned and students had no choice in the matter. Many participants were delighted that their teachers read aloud to the class and often shared their own favorite books. Others complained that by reading aloud to the class, their teachers “shoved their love of reading down our throats” or were “always preaching about how we should read more.” Many participants acknowledged their need to take their reading habits more seriously, but others blamed their lack of regard for reading on their teachers and on professors “who choose such boring books.” If anything, these findings re-emphasized our convictions that human motivation is an immensely complex disposition, complicated even further by the nuances of the educational situations in which students find themselves. Reading as Intellectual Challenge Despite the enormous range of individual comments, several patterns of student responses served as crystal clear lines of demarcation between enthusiastic and unenthusiastic readers. For example, more than 150 students commented on the association they made between reading and intellectual growth. Some described reading as a challenge that “exposed them to new ideas” or “forced them to think in different ways.” Even a number of students who regarded reading as a chore admitted that their reading assignments “forced them to think outside the box” or “made them learn things they never knew anything about.” Of the sophomores who viewed reading as this type of intellectual challenge, 84% were classified as enthusiastic readers. On the other hand, 175 sophomores specifically associated reading with career advancement, or as an obligation they had incurred as students. Some stated that they completed their assigned readings because they knew the knowledge they

194


acquired “would help them in their career.” Still others cited their “responsibility to complete their assignments” and the need “to earn good grades” in their courses. Among the latter students, the incidence of enthusiastic readers was only 18.9%. Not surprisingly, the attitude of college students toward reading is predictive of their enthusiasm for it. What surprised us was that so many had come to view reading as either an adventure or a responsibility, and the difference in the levels of reading enthusiasm of the groups could hardly have been sharper (see Table 2).


Parental and Teacher Influences on Reading Attitudes While it is not feasible to specify in numerical terms the influence of parents on the reading habits of their children, rich and extensive research exists that describes the role of parents in helping children become skilled and enthusiastic readers (Durkin, 1966; Hart & Risley, 1995; Klauda, 2009; Plessas & Oakes, 1978). The college students in this sample were no exception. Respondents who noted that they received parental encouragement to read, or who were praised by parents for their reading skill were significantly more likely to be classified as enthusiastic readers (62.7% to 43.7%) than those who made no note of parental influences. In the same vein, among those students who reported that they actually read less at home than they read at school, only 21.3% could be classified as enthusiastic readers. Sophomores in this study reserved their most detailed and specific responses for the teachers who guided them through the reading acquisition process with varying degrees of success. Higher percentages of enthusiastic readers occurred among those students who recalled their teachers reading aloud to them (54.1%), or their teachers offering some level of choice in reading assignments (55.1%). The most striking observation, however, came from college students who noted that their former teachers encouraged class discussions of books (Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz, 2010). Among these students, 68.4% were enthusiastic readers and among the preservice teachers, the percentage of enthusiastic readers was even higher (75%). Thus, it appears that active approaches to reading education, approaches that release more responsibility to students for choosing and

Table 2 Characteristics of Enthusiastic and Unenthusiastic Readers

Saw reading as intellectual challenge Saw reading as an obligation Received parental encouragement Read less at home than at school Reported that teachers read aloud to them Reported that teachers allowed some choice Reported that teachers encouraged discussion Named a teacher who ignited love of reading Saw teachers in general as influential Could not name an influential teacher Reported that teachers recommended books to them

n

Percent enthusiastic

Percent unenthusiastic

151 175 153 75 74 283 95 175 365 454 58

84.0 18.9 62.7 21.3 54.1 55.1 68.4 64.6 54.5 37.0 72.4

16.0 81.1 37.3 78.7 45.9 44.9 31.6 35.4 45.5 63.0 27.6



195

exploring what they read, are more likely to be associated with enthusiastic readers (Daisy, 2010; Patall, Cooper, & Wynn, 2010; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). When sophomores were asked if any of their teachers had effectively shared a love of reading with them, 175 respondents specifically identified a teacher, either by name or by grade level, who had inspired them as readers. Among these respondents, 64.6% were identified as enthusiastic readers. Even those who identified their former teachers as successful in promoting a love of reading in general, the percentage of enthusiastic readers was much higher than those who were unable to recall an influential teacher (54.5% versus 37.0%). One particularly striking element of the open-ended responses was the number of respondents who noted that one or more former teachers had recommended personalized choices of books that the teacher(s) felt they would like. Of the students with such memories, 72.4% were classified as enthusiastic readers. In light of these findings, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that a teacher’s love for reading puts a great many young readers at a significant advantage. Furthermore, only highly skilled actors can convey to children a love of reading that they do not possess, and as any seasoned teachers will note, their students are often incisive and brutally honest critics, certainly capable of discerning insincerity versus true affection for reading. Patterns of Respondents’ Views of Reading Several patterns of the college students’ responses included embedded hints about their views of reading. One such pattern surfaced when college students were asked how much enjoyment they associate with reading. In terms of their reading habits, 60 students offered responses such as “the book needs to grab my attention” or “my interest level depends on the book.” These respondents seemed to begin the reading activity waiting for the book to convince them that it is worth reading. They seem to minimize the contribution that their own related ideas and experiences bring to a book. It is not surprising that such a passive view of reading was associated with a very low percentage level of enthusiastic readers (20.3%). In the same vein, many respondents described their experiences with reading in terms of external attribution, with an emphasis on factors beyond their control. For example, many blamed their lack of enthusiasm for reading on “poor teaching” or “teachers who chose boring books.” Among these college students, professors who “assign unreasonable amounts of reading” or “teachers who didn’t love reading themselves” were also attributed a measure of responsibility for the attitudes of the respondents. Again the primary characteristic of these respondents is a tendency to minimize the active nature of the transaction that occurs between reader and writer, and to maximize the importance of the text as a standalone entity. Only 20% of the respondents who demonstrated external attribution could be classified as enthusiastic readers. In sharp contrast, nearly 220 students described their experiences with reading as an opportunity to “escape into a different world” and to “relax and unwind.” To these respondents, reading is a chance to “get into the minds of different characters” and to “explore different societies.” These responses are remarkably similar to what Rosenblatt (1995) and Ruddell (1997) described as the aesthetic stance in reading, described earlier. The aesthetic stance represents a view of reading that balances the contributions of both reader and writer and portrays reading as an essentially active and thoughtful process. We were surprised, not that students with an aesthetic view would tend to be enthusiastic readers, but that such a large percentage would be. Fully 90% of the respondents who cited elements of an aesthetic view of reading were classified as enthusiastic readers.

196



Early Experiences With Reading We identified respondents who reported struggles in learning to read during their early elementary years. These college students described being placed in the lowest reading group, being pulled out of their regular classroom for extra work in reading, or being declared learning disabled. It is impossible not to be moved by the first-person descriptions of respondents who began to doubt their own ability or self-worth, and to learn that some of their teachers could not help them. The encouraging news is that 37% of these students overcame their difficulties and went on to become enthusiastic readers. The less encouraging news is that 63% remain unenthusiastic. In sharp contrast, 58.1% of the respondents who related that they excelled in reading in elementary school went on to become enthusiastic readers. Similar results were obtained for respondents who took the opportunity to commend the good teachers they had (55.8% enthusiastic) or to note that those teachers selected good books and made reading fun (57.3% enthusiastic). If we incorporate enthusiasm for reading into our goals for literacy education, we would be well served to take note of the importance of early reading success (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010). Of the respondents who viewed college reading as positive, 54.0% were classified as enthusiastic readers. However, among respondents who viewed college reading as neutral or negative, the results were considerably less encouraging (43.2% and 25.0% enthusiastic, respectively). To put the findings into a different perspective, respondents who viewed college reading as negative were three times more likely to be classified as unenthusiastic readers than those who viewed it positively. Even more striking, students who specifically described their college reading as “boring” were more than four times more likely to be classified as unenthusiastic. Those who characterized their reading assignments as interesting and mind-expanding were much more likely to be enthusiastic readers (57.7%). These findings appear to be simply another facet of the contrasts between reading as intellectual growth and reading as responsibility. As literacy professors, we are all too familiar with the difference between students who are hungry for learning and those who hunger for a good grade. We would be remiss if we did not remind ourselves and our readers that the results of this study are reports of simple relationships among variables. One difficulty in interpretation of results is that the directionality of the relationship cannot be determined. For example, we found that college students who expressed a tendency to regard their reading as an aesthetic experience were much more likely to be classified as enthusiastic readers. We do not know, however, whether it was an already-existing aesthetic approach that made them more enthusiastic readers, or whether it was their enthusiasm for reading that impelled them toward an aesthetic stance.

Findings for Preservice Teachers Among the 1,025 students in our sample were 348 education majors, a cross-section large enough to address some issues raised in the original Peter Effect study (Applegate & Applegate, 2004). This sample differed from the original sample focused on elementary preservice teachers in that 114 of the current respondents were preparing for middle or secondary school. In our original 2004 study, just 48.5% of the preservice teachers could be classified as enthusiastic readers. Nine years later that number had risen by only 2.6% to 51.1% and nearly 40% of that gain may be accounted for by the inclusion of students preparing to teaching in middle and secondary schools. Thus, it appears that the Peter Effect still persists. No matter how we scrutinized the data, we could not escape the fact that nearly half of the preservice teachers in the current study were still unenthusiastic about reading.


197

Table 3 Percentage of Enthusiastic Readers by Major


Business Education Health Sciences Humanities Math & Science Social Sciences Undecided Total

Enthusiastic

Unenthusiastic

% Enthusiastic

65 178 45 81 42 53 14 478

101 170 75 43 66 71 21 547

39.2 51.1 37.5 65.3 38.9 42.7 40.0 46.6

Table 4 Education Majors by Class Level of their Preferred Teaching Assignment

K–1st grade 2nd–4th grade 5th–6th grade 7th–8th grade Secondary

Enthusiastic

Unenthusiastic

% Enthusiastic

36 74 8 14 46

63 45 8 17 37

36.4 62.2 50.0 45.2 55.4

We could take some rather grim comfort in the fact that education majors were more enthusiastic about reading than other majors (see Table 3). Education majors were, on the whole, significantly more enthusiastic as readers than their non-education classmates (51.1% to 44.3%). But as the reader has almost certainly perceived, we had become quite desperate to find anything that looked like good news in the results. One particularly disconcerting finding was the low level of enthusiasm for reading among education majors aspiring to teach kindergarten and first grade. This group of respondents demonstrated an enthusiasm level more than 21 percentage points lower than the average percentage of preservice teachers aspiring to teach at all other grade levels combined (see Table 4). This is an especially disquieting result since, as we have seen in our analysis of data, initial experiences with reading can have profound and long-lasting effects on emerging readers. This result bears some further scrutiny from the literacy research community (see Table 4). In a similar vein, we found that education majors aspiring to teach in Special Education classrooms lagged behind their regular education counterparts in terms of enthusiasm for reading by 4.1%.

Discussion In this study, 84% of the respondents who viewed reading as intellectually challenging were classified as enthusiastic readers, as opposed to only 19% of those who viewed reading as a career-related responsibility. This finding presents teachers with concrete challenges of their own. The ability of teachers to promote intellectual curiosity and abandon classroom practices that encourage “copying, remembering and reciting with few tasks assigned that


198


engage students in thinking about what they have read” (Allington, 2001, p. 94) may spell the difference in their students’ future reading attitudes. Even if some students are becoming avid readers because they are naturally inclined toward intellectual growth, an atmosphere of classroom inquiry that is cooperative, challenging, and exciting can be infectious (Almasi & Gambrell, 1994; Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003). At the same time, savvy teachers are well-positioned to make a note of students who are developing the habits of the mind that lead them to approach reading as an obligation to be met. Teachers who can nudge such students back onto the road that leads to satisfaction in conquering intellectual challenges have the chance to make a monumental difference in their literacy lives. Literacy teachers must note that the results of this study suggest once again that parental influence on the literacy attitudes and motivation of children cannot be overestimated. Many respondents clearly viewed parental influences on their attitude toward reading as more important, and in some cases infinitely more important, than their school experiences. As a consequence, schools that pass up the opportunities to enlist parents as allies in the battle for the intellectual growth of their children are most unwise. Effective programs for parents should share research studies that emphasize the importance of parental influence, good concrete advice for parents as to how to engage their children from their very earliest years in thoughtful response to text, and pointers on how to make home a place for family reading and mutual literacy encouragement and engagement. Educational programs for young parents, even though they may fall outside the pale of traditional school responsibilities, may pay valuable future dividends for the schools and communities that take up the challenge of developing and delivering them. If we ever doubted the role that teachers can play in the lives of individual students, those doubts disappeared when we read the vivid stories of 19-year-olds who, for example, still remembered the name of their second grade teacher and how that teacher impressed upon them the importance of reading. In the process of analyzing and considering teachers’ influences, we identified a set of conditions that seemed to have the greatest effects on reading enthusiasm. Teachers who aspire to be influential teachers need to seek out creative ways to (1) recognize and promote student autonomy (providing choices of reading material), (2) give students opportunities to share ideas about what they have read (offering book discussions), and (3) take time to react to youngsters as valued individuals in their own right (recommending books to students). We found that respondents who take a passive approach to reading and learning are far less likely to be classified as enthusiastic. That finding in itself is not particularly surprising. Because reading is defined by most experts as an active, thoughtful process during which readers bring their own experiences to the text in order to construct meaning, a passive perspective almost certainly represents a distorted and potentially harmful view of reading. Teachers at all grade levels need to be able to identify learners who appear to be developing a passive view of reading, and take steps to correct that erroneous view (Turner & Patrick, 2008). Informal attitude surveys and reading motivation assessment instruments can often be very valuable tools to aid in early identification of students with a distorted view of reading. These modest results echo many of the broader and more significant findings in the field of literacy education about the nature and impact of influential teachers, supportive parents, and the literacy models we use in classrooms. If, in our teacher preparation programs, we tend to minimize motivational factors, those complex human interactions that are difficult to assess, it appears that we will have little chance to break the recursive Peter Effect cycle. For it is still impossible to avoid the fact that even among the enthusiastic preservice teachers, no guarantee can be made that all will eventually become influential



199

literacy teachers. Some preservice teachers likely will be forced by circumstances to follow programs or basal scripts that do not encourage engagement, discussion, choice, or intellectual exploration. Others may listen to the siren song of linear instruction and never take their students beyond the most fundamental of reading skills (Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2003). On the other hand, those teachers without an enthusiasm for reading would seem to have very little chance to transcend their experiences and make positive impacts on their students unless schools and professional development providers recognize their needs and address the importance of enthusiasm for reading. The challenges that face teacher preparation institutions are formidable, but not insurmountable. As teacher educators we are sometimes quick to criticize the lack of attention paid to reading motivation. But, are we in fact guilty as well? If the corpus of research on reading habits and attitudes is even remotely accurate, large numbers of teachers and prospective teachers have never experienced the aesthetic stance in their reading. That is, they read but they tend not to see links between what they read and their private selves, or even the human condition. In the maze of state standards and regulations for teacher preparation programs, one might simply assume that, of course, our preservice teachers are enthusiastic readers. Unfortunately, the results of study after study suggest otherwise. If, as teacher educators, we incorporated effective modeling, insuring that students have the opportunity to experience the aesthetic stance, the changes in reading attitude reported by college students might be strikingly positive (Applegate & Applegate, 2006). In the same vein, school districts that are actively seeking new and influential teachers would do well to make enthusiasm for reading an important part of their hiring process. There is no reason to believe that the same attention to modeling and instruction will not work for inservice teachers in the course of their professional development. If Ruddell’s research (1997) is correct, low achieving readers encountered only 1.5 influential teachers in the course of 12 years of formal education. High achieving readers, on the other hand, encounter an average of 3.2. Increasing the number of influential teachers in our schools is certainly an achievable goal and one that could have a sizeable impact on reading attitude and motivation. One of the hallmarks of the influential teacher is the tendency to “tap internal student motivation that simulates intellectual curiosity . . . use aesthetic imagery and expression, and motivate the desire to solve problems” (p. 982). If we can help preservice and inservice teachers to re-experience and re-think their own reading, they stand a much better chance of influencing their future young students. After all, the comments of more than 40 of our respondents suggest that it was not until college that they developed an appreciation for the rewards of reading. Taking steps to create communities of readers with the faculty as leaders may help schools to achieve goals that are far more worthy than upticks in standardized test scores (Applegate & Applegate, 2006). In the final analysis, of course, educators need to attend to the engagement levels of not only preservice teachers but of all students. It is nearly impossible for avid readers to regard unenthusiastic ones as anything but shortchanged, in both their education and in the richness of their lives. It is equally impossible to avoid thinking of the loss to the nation of many potential leaders and learners. As a result, the need for a national vision of what it means to be a literate citizen has probably never been more acute. Certainly the Common Core State Standards seem to be a solid first step in the articulation of a national agenda, and we applaud their emphasis on thoughtful literacy. Yet, missing from the CCSS are concepts such as reading motivation and enthusiasm. Rather than wait for a national articulation of goals, districts and schools that value engaged reading must address the need for educators to assess and respond to levels of reading engagement and enthusiasm among their students. The rewards of engaged reading are


200


simply too great to overlook. Although this task is complicated by the absence of accountability assessments that measure reading engagement, teachers sensitized to monitor the progress of their students toward enthusiastic reading may be an even more valuable source of data. No doubt, concepts such as human motivation and engaged reading are complex, interactive, and messy. But when we ignore them on those grounds, we do so at our peril. If as a nation we succeed in producing generations of children who are technically proficient readers, but who have little use for reading in their lives, we will win nothing more than a hollow and illusory victory. When we examined our current findings in light of the original Peter Effect (Applegate & Applegate, 2004) results, we found some considerable reasons for encouragement. Many teachers and parents are experiencing high levels of success in generating enthusiastic readers for the future. Although the sheer proportion of those identified as enthusiastic readers, the higher percentages of unenthusiastic readers, and the sense of a loss of intellectual potential are all deeply discouraging, these results suggest that our nation can take many steps to provide more favorable conditions in our schools for the growth of reading enthusiasm and creative thinking. The responsibility for disseminating this knowledge and for encouraging the support of stakeholders falls directly on the shoulders of the literacy education community. Whether we can muster the will to assess and monitor the growth of reading enthusiasm among our children may, in the final analysis, determine whether we can break out of the debilitating sphere of influence of the Peter Effect.

References Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers. New York, NY: Addison Wesley. Almasi, J. F., & Gambrell, L. B. (1994). Sociocognitive conflict in peer-led and teacher-led discussion of literature (Research Report #12). Athens, GA: Universities of Maryland and Georgia, National Reading Research Center. Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P., & Fielding, L. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285–303. Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The Peter Effect: Reading habits and attitudes of preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 554–563. Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2010). A study of the relationship between thoughtful literacy and motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 64(4), 226–234. Applegate, M. D., & Applegate, A. J. (2006). The guided literature learning strategy: The process and an analysis of pre-service teachers’ reflections. College Reading Association Yearbook, 27, 136–149. Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 773–785. Bradshaw, T. (2004). Reading at risk: A survey of literary reading in America. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. Burgess, S. R, Sargent, S., Smith, M., Hill, N., & Morrison, S. (2011). Teachers’ leisure reading habits and knowledge of children’s books: Do they relate to the teaching practices of elementary school teachers? Reading Improvement, 48(2), 88–102. Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children’s exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74–89.



201

Commeyras, M., Bislinghoff, B. S., & Olson, J. (Eds.). (2003). Teachers as readers: Perspectives on the importance of reading in teachers’ classrooms and lives. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Daisy, P. (2010). Secondary preservice teachers remember their favorite reading experiences: Insights and implications for content area instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(8), 678–687. Donahue, P., Daane, M., & Grigg, W. (2003). The nation’s report card: Reading highlights 2003. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436–445. Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538. Guthrie, J. T. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAEP. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 145–162. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 199–205. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256. Hart, T., & Risley, B. (1995). Meaningful differences in the early experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, G. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895. Klauda, S. (2009). The role of parents in adolescents’ reading motivation and activity. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 325–363. McKool, S. S., & Gespass, S. (2009). Does Johnny’s reading teacher love to read? How teachers’ personal reading habits affect instructional practices. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(3), 264–276. Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. A., & Gardner, A. (2009). The impact of Internet and television use on the reading habits and practices of college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(7), 609–619. Nathanson, S., Pruslow, J., & Levitt, R. (2008). The reading habits and literacy attitudes of inservice and prospective teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 312–321. National Endowment for the Arts. (2009). Reading on the rise: A new chapter in American literacy. Retrieved from www.arts.gov National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 at a Glance, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264095298-en Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915. Plessas, G., & Oakes, C. (1978). Prereading experiences of selected early readers. The Reading Teacher, 17(4), 241–245. Powell-Brown, A. (2003/2004). Can you be a teacher of literacy if you don’t love to read? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(4), 284–288. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.) New York, NY: Modern Language Association (originally published in 1938).


202


Ruddell, R. B. (1997). Researching the influential literacy teacher: Characteristics, beliefs, strategies, and new research directions. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Scharer, P. L., Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 24–29. Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Moller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427–463. Sweet, A., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and students’ reading motivations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 210–223. Turgut, G. (2013). International tests and the U.S. educational reforms: Can success be replicated? Clearing House, 86(2), 64–73. Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2008). How does motivation develop and why does it change?: Reframing motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 119–131. Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 331–349. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.

Appendix A: Study Questionnaire A. Class Level (Circle One) Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior B. Your Major: __________________________ If your major is Education, please complete items C through E If your major is not Education, please proceed to Item # 1. C. Circle the item that best describes the focus of your program of study: Elementary Education Special Education Early Childhood Education Middle School Education Secondary Education Dual Certification (if dual, please circle both cert programs above) D. When you consider your career as a teacher, which of the following professional situations appeals most to you? Regular education Special Education E. Which of the following grade levels would you prefer to teach? Kg-1st 2nd-4th 5th-6th 7th-8th Secondary school ======================================== 1. What reading did you do this past summer? Are there any titles or authors that you can recall? In general, what did you read for recreation? 2. When you think of yourself overall as a reader, how much enjoyment do you associate with reading? What reason(s) do you have for responding in this way? 3. When you consider the instruction in reading that you received in school, how would you rate the emphasis that was placed upon each of the following: Scale 5—strong emphasis 2—little emphasis

4—considerable emphasis 1—no emphasis

3—some emphasis


203 Elementary School

High School

Remembering the details of what you read

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

Your reaction to or interpretation of what you read

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

Discussing your reactions with classmates or teachers 5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

Completing assignments or reports on what you read 5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1


4. When you consider your early elementary school reading experiences with learning to read, do you recall them as primarily positive, negative or neutral? Why? 5. Did your experiences with reading at home differ from your experiences at school? If so, how? 6. Were any of your teachers effective in sharing with you a love of reading? If so, how did they do this? 7. When you consider your college level reading experiences, do you see them as primarily positive, negative or neutral? Why?

Appendix B: Scoring Rubric for the Assessment Measure The authors quantified the responses of respondents according to the following scale: A. Summer reading activity 1 – did no reading during the past summer 2 – read only newspapers or magazines 3 – were in the midst of reading a book 4 – completed one book 5 – read several books B. Level of enjoyment associated with reading (Both studies) 1 – Unwilling: associate no enjoyment with reading 2 – Reluctant: associate little enjoyment with reading 3 – Lukewarm: reading is “OK” but they do not do it regularly; or “like reading” but did not engage in it over the summer 4 – Focused: like reading, engaged in it, but qualified the types and/or genres that they read 5 – Appreciative: find reading enjoyable and rewarding and read regularly 6 – Engaged & Avid: tend to read widely in a variety of genres and topics C. Characteristics of elementary & high school reading instruction 1 – no emphasis 2 – little emphasis 3 – some emphasis 4 – considerable emphasis 5 – great deal of emphasis


204


D. Elementary school experiences with reading 1 – negative 2 – neutral 3 – positive E. Experiences at home with reading 1 – different- home more negative than school 2 – same – both home & school negative 3 – same – both home & school neutral 4 – same – both home & school positive 5 – different – home more positive than school F. College level reading experiences 1 – negative 2 – neutral 3 – positive G. Teachers share a love of reading 1 – Yes with identification of teachers 2 – Yes but in general 3 – No