Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Influences on grade-five students' decisions to read: an exploratory study of leisure reading behavior 1994

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_1994-954094.pdf [ 4.13MB ]
ubc_1994-954094.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078133.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078133+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078133.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078133+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078133+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078133+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0078133.ris

Full Text

INFLUENCES ON GRADE-FIVE STUDENTS DECISIONS TO READ: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF LEISURE READING BEHAViOR by PATRICIA WHITNEY BA., Mount Saint Mary’s College, 1967 M.A, San Francisco State University, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ThE DEGREE OF DOCTOROF EDUCA11ON in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Language Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1994 © Patricia Whitney, 1994 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. (Signature) Department of Pc1. e E-cL c-tto The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date _______________ DE-6 (2/88) II Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore why a child who is a capable reader either elects to read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. A sample of grade-five students (I = 53) from a school district outside a major metropolitan area in British Columbia, Canada, provided information about their out-of-school activities for a 17 day period. Measures administered were the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (1992), the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale (CNSIE), and the recreational reading subscale of the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS). Subjects, their parents, and their teachers were interviewed. Analyses of the means were conducted for out-of-school activities, amount of reading (books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail), and affective beliefs and values. A series of analyses of variance, t-tests, chi-square analyses, and multiple regressions were used for the variables of gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, reading ability, locus of control, attitude toward recreational reading, classroom factors, home factors, and amounts of reading. Significant effects were found for gender, attitude toward recreational reading, teacher behavior during Undisturbed Sustained Silent Reading, reading behavior of siblings and parents, and provision of a space for reading in the home. I’’ Table of Contents Abstract I Table of Contents iii List of Tables v I List of Figures v ii Acknowledgement v iii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Theoretical Framework 4 Definitions 9 Statement of the Problem 9 Research Questions 10 Significance of the Study 1 0 Organization of the Thesis 11 Chapter 2 Literature Review 1 2 Leisure Reading 1 2 Locus of Control and Intrinsic Motivation 25 Attitude Toward Recreational Reading 3 1 Other Variables 3 8 Summary 51 Chapter 3 Method 55 Design 55 Subjects 55 Instruments 58 Procedure 6 2 Analyses 70 Chapter 4 Results 79 iv Preliminary Analyses.80 Clock-sheets 80 Locus of Control 97 Attitude Toward Recreational Reading 98 Classroom Factors 98 Main Analyses 1 00 Leisure Reading 1 00 Locus of Control 1 01 Attitude Toward Recreational Reading 101 Classroom Factors 1 03 Home Factors 1 04 Reasons for Activities 1 06 Reasons for Reading or Not Reading 111 Summary 117 Chapter 5 Discussion 1 20 Clock-sheets 1 20 Leisure Reading Comparisons 1 23 Locus of Control 129 Attitude Toward Recreational Reading 1 30 Interviews 1 33 Classroom Factors 1 34 Home Factors 1 35 Reasons for Reading or Not Reading 1 38 Reseach Questions 1 41 Conclusions 1 42 Limitations 147 Implications 1 49 Bibliography 1 52 VAppendices 1 64 Appendix 1. After School Day 1 65 Appendix 2. Weekend Day 1 67 Appendix 3. Weekend Night 169 Appendix 4. Student Interview 1 71 Appendix 5. Teacher Interview 1 89 Appendix 6. Parent Interview 1 96 Appendix 7. Letter of Invitation to Participate 211 Appendix 8. Certificate of Approval from UBC Ethics Committee 21 3 vi List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Statistical Procedures Used with Different Variables . . . 76 Table 2 Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per Activity overAll 17 Days 84 Table 3 Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per Activity per School Day 85 Table 4 Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per Activity per Weekend Day 86 Table 5 Mean, Standard Deviation, and Median for Time per Day in Minutes Spent Leisure Reading 89 Table 6 Percentage of Out-of-School Time Spent on the Average Reading over All 17 Days 9 1 Table 7 Variation in Amount of Leisure Reading 95 Table 8 Reasons for Participating in Leisure Activities 1 08 Table 9 Encouragement for Leisure Activities 1 09 Table 10 Use of Rewards in the School and in the Home for Leisure Reading . 11 4 Table 11 Reasons, Expectations, and Values for Reading of Frequent Readers 11 5 Table 12 Reasons, Expectations, and Values for Reading of Infrequent Readers 11 6 List of Figures Figure 1 Average Minutes Spent Reading Various Materials 92 Figure 2 Average Minutes Spent Reading on School Days and Weekends 94 vii VIII Acknowledgement There are many people to thank for this accomplishment, all of them giving in their own unique way. Thank you to my supervisor, Jon Shapiro, for keeping me on task with a clear “readingTM focus. This project took a very long time, and I appreciate your time in the office and on the telephone. A very special thank you to David Bateson for your effort in introducing me to the language and nuances of statistics. I am most grateful for the time you gave so warmly to me. Thank you Claire Staab for the energy you gave to this project, and for dropping everything else to give your full attention to the thesis when it was required. I really appreciated your sense of humor and moral support during these years. This study would not have been possible without the approval of the school district, the principals, and the teachers. After spending several years at the university, it was most enjoyable to be back in the field again. Thank you. The children who participated in the study also need to be recognized and their parents as well. There would have been no study without your cooperation. Thank you. Finally, the support and encouragement of my colleagues studying for their doctorates, my family, friends, and David—thank you. I needed you and you were there for me. 1CHAPTER 1 Introduction When most children start school they are usually looking forward to learning to read, or even already reading (Durkin, 1960/61). These young readers find looking at books enchanting, and quickly warm to a person who will take the time to read to them. They are intrinsically interested (Condry & Koslowski, 1979; Deci, 1975; Earns & Kaczmarski, 1988) in acquiring this skill. Intrinsic interest in reading could be defined as a simple delight in reading for its own sake. “Intrinsic motivation is defined as doing something for its own sake rather than for external reward” (Burroughs, 1991, p.256). The kind of reading that will be discussed throughout this thesis is what Nell (1978; 1 988a; 1 988b) refers to as ludenic reading—reading for pleasure that “is carried on exclusively for its own sake” (Nell, 1978, p.65). Since it is not clear at times within the literature whether expressions such as “interest in reading,” “amounts of reading,” “reading behavior,” “voluntary reading,” and “active readers” include reading for school, the concept of reading throughout this thesis will be limited to reading for leisure, fun, or pleasure outside of the classroom or school, unless otherwise noted. If leisure reading is assigned as homework, this will be treated as homework. Recreational reading and leisure-time reading will also be considered synonymous in this paper as exemplified in the Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors (Houston, 1990). Accordingly, leisure reading is the term that will be used throughout this paper and will mean reading for its own sake outside of school. As children progress through the elementary grades, this intrinsic interest begins to change (Kohn, 1987). Some students at various grade-levels will testify that either they hate reading, or they do not enjoy it (Shapiro & White, 1991); some teachers will testify that their students 2do not like to read (Whitney, 1986), or that their students rarely read for pleasure (Chisom, 1989). For some reason, “too many students who can read choose to avoid the printed word” (Alvermann & Guthrie, 1993, p.1). What has happened to some of these readers from that initial point where they were intrinsically interested in reading to the point where they hate reading? Does this shift have something to do with a possible misconception on the part of some teachers, principals, librarians, and educators as to what motivates a student to want to participate in the wonderful world of reading? What other potential reasons might there be? A person may ask “what is so wonderful about reading?” The answer, of course, is very subjective. It has everything to do with one’s personal experience, If one’s experience was filled with miserable reading experiences then he/she is not going to expect reading to be wonderful at all. On the other hand, if one’s experience was filled with pleasurable reading experiences then he/she will expect reading to fulfill those expectations. The purpose of this study was to explore why a child either elects to read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. Possibly a disinterest in leisure reading may be the result of rewards. Tokens, grades, praise—all external rewards—offered in school settings have an impact on one’s intrinsic interest in an activity. “A reward (a grade) encourages us to focus narrowly on a task, to do it as quickly as possible and to take few risks” (Kohn, 1987, p.55). This is evident when one observes students rushing to complete reading assignments. Instead of reading the book, they telephone a friend who has hopefully read the story to “please fill them in.” Failing that, they examine a summary to get the gist of the story. Turning out book reports can be another example of narrowly focusing on a task in an attempt to meet the reading requirements assigned in a class. “When we work for a reward, we often see ourselves as being controlled by it; anything perceived as constraining—surveillance, deadlines, evaluation—all tend to undermine intrinsic interest in a given activity” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Kohn, 1987, p.55). Programs that reward children with grades, prizes, and praise for the amount of reading they do may have an adverse effect on not only their responses to literature but also on their intrinsic interest in reading. 3Perhaps disinterest in leisure reading might be the result of varying values. As Purves and Beach (1972) remarked some time ago, the amount of time one would have for reading during leisure time would depend not only on one’s ability to read but also on the rewards one would gain from the experience—to quote Asheim (1956), “when a man can read and has reading materials readily available, he does not necessarily read if the rewards of reading are not apparent to him” (Purves & Beach, 1972, p.87). Whether one discusses adults or children, students “learn to value some activities over others and gradually develop stable beliefs and expectations about their likes and dislikes” (Burroughs, 1991, p.257). Maybe a disinterest in reading during leisure time reflects the lack of support found within the culture. A recent lEA study (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement) involving 30 countries, reported that “Finnish nine-year-olds ranked first in reading books, cartoons, newspapers and magazines” (Ronnholm, 1993, p.14). One principal and reading educator at a school within that country commented that Finland is a highly literate society, publishing books and newspapers at a higher per capital rate than most other industrialized nations. Finland also leads the world in percentage of newspaper subscribers. Public libraries are everywhere, and everyone has free access to books. According to the lEA study, Finns value reading highly as a leisure activity. (Ronnholm, 1993, p.14) In summary, for whatever reason, there seems to be an erosion of intrinsic interest in reading as some children matriculate through elementary school. Whatever the reasons for not reading for leisure might be, the trend seems to be getting worse (Elley, 1992; Foertsch, 1992). This intrinsic interest in reading refers to reading for the delight or joy or satisfaction that one can receive from reading during leisure time. The purpose of this study is to explore why a child either elects to read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. Grade level is one criterion for investigating possible similarities (Athey, 1985; Russell, 1961) for “affective mobilizers”—a term used by Holmes to denote “beliefs, values and attitudes that predispose an individual to persist in a field of endeavor” (Athey, 1985, p.528)—in both frequent- and infrequent readers. This current investigation was conducted at the grade-five level because the general concensus seems to be that at grade five, students are still reading (Duggins, 1989; Greaney, 1980; Lamme, 1976; Maxwell, 1977; Neuman, 1980; Whitehead, 4Capey, Maddren, & Wellings, 1977). Therefore, in order to explore (1) why children who are capable readers do not read during their out-of-school time—aliteracy; (2) what are the rewards, expectations, and values attached to leisure reading for these two groups—frequent- and infrequent readers; and (3) what is the support found in the classroom as well as in the home environment for these leisure activities chosen by students, the proposed study will focus on 53 grade-five students found in three schools with children from similar economic backgrounds. Theoretical Framework Is the individual driven by one’s environment, as some behaviorists believe, or does that individual consciously make decisions and act upon that environment? The latter, being the Organismic approach, asserts that cognitive and affective processes are taking place: a person is consciously aware that one’s behavior will have certain outcomes. Social learning theory tries to integrate these two trends in American psychology, the stimulus response or reinforcement theories, and the cognitive theories. The general formula for behavior is that the potential for a behavior to occur in any specific psychological situation is a function of the expectancy that the behavior will lead to a particular reinforcement in that situation and the value of the reinforcement. (Rotter, 1975, p.57) Applying this theory to the specific behavior of reading, the potential for reading to occur in any specific situation (e.g., leisure time) is a function of the expectancy that reading will lead to a particular reinforcement in that situation and the value of the reward/reason. Although at times Rotter mentions that social learning theory utilizes three constructs—behavior potential, reinforcement values, and expectations—(Rotter, 1954; 1955), he has maintained that the specific psychological situation “plays a role in the determination of” (1955, p.255) all three of these variables. In later writings, Rotter (1975; 1982) describes the theory as having four classes of variables: behavior potential, specific situations, reinforcement values, and expectations. Behavior potential is defined as “the potentiality of any behavior’s [i] occuring in any given situation or situations as calculated in relation to any single reinforcement or set of 5reinforcements” (Rotter, 1954, p.105). Depending on a specific situation, a number of behaviors could take place, but the potential for a particular behavior to take place would depend on the anticipated reward. This anticipation or expectancy is based on previous experience. A student may have a number of choices as to how he/she may spend time outside of school, but this decision on how to spend one’s time, according to this theory, will be influenced by resulting rewards for the various activities based on previous experiences. Since “behaviors vary as the situation does” (Rotter, 1982, p.243), it is imperative to take this variable—the situation—into consideration. A specific “situation provides cues which tell the individual what behaviors he may expect will be followed by what reinforcements” (Rotter, 1955, p.255). Reading in the classroom situation versus the home situation is an example of two different situations. Behaviors, expectancies, and reinforcements all operate within the specific situation. A reinforcement or reward or reason for behaving in a specific situation can differentiate not only between individuals but also reflect varying values. A reinforcement is something that changes behavior in some observable way by either increasing or decreasing the potentiality of its occurrence. Should an event increase the potential for a response, it is by definition a positive reinforcement; should it decrease the potential, it is by definition a negative reinforcement. (Rotter, 1954, p.1l2) Reinforcement value is not just how important this reward is to you, but “the degree of preference for any reinforcement to occur if the possibilities of occurrence of this and other reinforcements are equal” (Rotter, 1955, p.245-255). The value of each reinforcement is a decision that every individual makes based on experience. These values that an individual places on various reinforcements must always be accounted for and have been found to be a missing element in many studies in the past. Expectancy is the final variable mentioned by Rotter and has been defined as a probability or contingency held by the subject that any specific reinforcement or group of reinforcements will occur in any given situation or situations. Expectancy is not a probability determined in actuarial terms but may be considered to be both (1) a function of probability, which can be calculated from past histories of reinforcements, necessitating the consideration of special problems such as patterning and reducing increments; and (2) a generalization of expectancies from other related behavior-reinforcement sequences. (1954, pp. 165-166) 6One interpretation is that expectations are based on experience. When one has experienced a reward during a particular situation, then one will, after so many experiences, generalize that this particular situation provides these rewards. Expectations can also be generalized across situations. When one perceives one situation to be similar to another, then he/she generalizes that what is likely to happen in this new situation will be based on what happened in situations that were perceived to be similar. Whether or not these generalizations of similar situations are relevant to a new situation may or may not be true. Rotter maintains that “the more the subject tends to differentiate a specific situation from other situations as a result of more experience in the specific situation, the less significant the generalization effect from experience in other situations” (1954, p.166). According to this theory then, as students have more experience with leisure reading, their expectancies for certain rewards will become more stable. They will not have to base their expectancies on generalizations founded on similar situations, such as reading in the classroom. Readers eventually will differentiate between reading for leisure and reading for work, school, instruction, etc.. Rotter has also defined expectancy “as the probability held by the individual that a particular reinforcement will occur as a function of a specific behavior on his part [emphasis added] in a specific situation or situations” (1955, p.254; 1954, p.107). One’s belief about whether or not behavior has something to do with the reinforcement received in a specific situation is a fifth variable, according to this author, developed by Rotter to explain how reinforcements affect expectancies. “We were interested in a variable that might correct or help us to refine our prediction of how reinforcements change expectancies” (Rotter, 1975, p.56). “The variable of internal versus external control of reinforcement” (Rotter, 1966, p.3) is the belief one has over the control of reinforcement. The effect of a reinforcement following some behavior on the part of a human subject, in other words, is not a simple stamping-in process but depends upon whether or not the person perceives a causal relationship between his own behavior and the reward. A perception of causal relationship need not be all or none but can vary in degree. (1966, p.1) These beliefs are on a continuum scale ranging from internal to external. People who believe that their own behavior has everything to do with receiving reinforcements are considered to 7have an internal locus of control. Those who believe their behavior has nothing to do with it, that is, the reinforcement is received because of luck, fate, or powerful others, are considered to be external in their locus of control. Julian Rotter is not a behaviorist (Shapira, 1976). He has attempted to integrate the behaviorists’ view of rewards and the cognitive theorists’ belief that individuals make decisions. Individuals make decisions over rewards (intrinsic and extrinsic rewards) based on experience by attaching values to them. If one’s experience is non-existent or limited, then the individual resorts to generalized expectancy based on similar situations, and decides to what degree they expect their behavior to be rewarding. “Both expectancies and reinforcement values may change as a result of thinking” (Rotter, 1982, p.246). Individuals also make decisions as to how they will spend their time when there are a number of alternatives that have rewards of similar value. Deci (1975) has chosen to focus on only one element of Rotter’s theory—locus of control, one’s belief over the control of reinforcement. Reinforcements or rewards can be apparent, that is money, praise, prizes, or unapparent, that is satisfaction, feelings of competence, and self-determination. The former are examples of extrinsic rewards while the latter are examples of intrinsic rewards. A person who is highly internal on locus of control may be motivated intrinsically or extrinsically (Deci, 1975). A person whose locus of control is external will not be motivated intrinsically or extrinsically because of the belief that one’s behavior has nothing to do with the expected reward; rewards are given by powerful others, luck, or fate. An example of a classroom situation reflecting these various beliefs would be a student reading during Undisturbed Sustained Silent Reading (USSR) expecting to be rewarded with praise because one participated as a reader. This is an example of a student with an internal locus of control who is expecting an extrinsic reward. Another student reading during USSR, expecting to be rewarded with the pleasure or enjoyment of reading in itself, is an example of a student with an internal locus of control who is expecting an intrinsic reward. A student reading during USSR, expecting to be rewarded with praise because the teacher likes him/her, is an example of a student with an external locus of control. All three students 8participate in the behavior of reading during USSR. All three expect reinforcements, but two expect this reinforcement because of their behavior and the other expects this reinforcement because of powerful others—the teacher happens to like him/her. Deci (1975) is willing to “view Rotter’s concept of internal locus of control as being a necessary condition for intrinsic motivation” (p.9 1). Deci defines intrinsically motivated behaviors as “behaviors which a person engages in to feel competent and self-determining” (p.61). This matches very well with Rotter’s view that a person decides that one likes to be rewarded with satisfaction, feelings of competence, and self-determination. They have placed a high value on this reinforcement and they expect that their behavior will provide them with this type of reward. Intrinsic motivation is believed by Deci to be the reason a child would strive for success. At the same time, the outcome of this effort could definitely affect one’s expectation. If one’s behavior brought about a reward in a particular situation, one’s expectancy for this reward to repeat itself in the future would increase. If one’s behavior did not result in a reward, then one’s expectancy would, in time, begin to change. Intrinsic motivation and locus of control seem closely tied to one another (Stipek & Weisz, 1981). In summary, the argument has been made that the potential for a behavior (reading) to occur in any specific psychological situation (e.g., leisure time) is a function of the expectancy (two types, expectancy for a certain kind of reinforcement, or expectancy that generalizes from a series of situations) that the behavior (reading) will lead to a particular reinforcement (what is in it for you when you read?), and the value of the reinforcement (how much do you value rewards, feelings of delight, or other reinforcements?). It would seem logical that these areas—leisure time, leisure-time reading, expectancies for certain kinds of reinforcement during reading, as well as the values attached to these reading reinforcements, also known as rewards or reasons for doing things—need to be investigated when exploring intrinsic interest in reading and why children who are able to read choose not to read as a possible activity during their out-of-school time. In an investigation of children who rarely choose to read, it also makes sense to investigate their counterpart: children who do choose to read. Exploring both 9groups will give a more complete picture to this complex question of why a child either elects to read or not to read during their leisure time. Definitions The following definitions will apply to this study: Capable Reader: A student who scored at the 34th percentile (which is one standard deviation below the mean) or above on reading passages found in the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (1992), and was indicated by the teacher as reading at grade level or above. Reading: This includes all reading of books, newspapers, comic books, mail, and magazines not meant for school, and takes place outside of school. Frequent Reader/Infrequent Reader: The sample will be listed in rank order using percents representing approximate proportions of the day reportedly spent leisure reading. With the use of a median split, the decision will arbitrarily be made to call the students above the line frequent readers and the students below the line infrequent readers. Logically, the reasoning follows that one group read for leisure more frequently during their time out of school than the other group. Intrinsic Rewards or Reasons: These are defined as feelings of competence, satisfaction, and self-determination; feelings of delight or other such similar reinforcements for its own sake. Extrinsic Rewards or Reasons: Easily apparent or tangible rewards like money, praise, prizes, tokens, or grades. Statement of the Problem The problem to be investigated in this study is why a capable reader either elects to read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. Since this is an exploratory study the purpose is to generate questions and examine the various answers in order to document the reasons for not reading during time out of school. 10 Research Questions The following questions will be a part of this exploration: 1. Do capable readers read out of school only when intrinsic reasons are present? 2. How does locus of control affect leisure reading? 3. How does attitude affect one’s decision to spend time reading for leisure? 4. Are there similarities and differences in classroom and home practices around leisure reading for frequent and infrequent readers? Significance of the Study Why is it significant to investigate why capable readers choose not to read as a possible activity during their leisure-time? “Aliteracy, a term describing people who can read but choose not to, is a growing problem in American society” (Decker, 1985, p.3). George Steiner (1985), coming from a rather high-brow perspective (Nell, 1988a), gave a lecture in New York stating that ‘it looks as if we are now seeing the gradual end of the classical age of reading” (Steiner, p.44). He believes we know astonishingly little about “the techniques and habits of feeling . . . which surround our reading of a book” (p.44). If educators are serious about the goal of life-long reading for their students, then this area merits investigation. “We know more about how information from a text is stored and retrieved from memory than we do about why an individual might elect to interact with a text in the first place” (Alvermann, 1987, p.25). Knowing the factors that affect why readers choose to read or not to read may assist teachers in planning their programs and providing materials to match or reflect these factors. Psychology as a scientific endeavor relies upon similarities among subjects that can form the basis for generalizations and ultimately scientific laws. If persons who can be grouped on the basis of one criterion, e.g., grade level or reading score, tend to exhibit similar affective mobilizers, then that fact in itself can be significant in furthering our understanding of the psychological processes underlying reading. (Athey, 1985, p.528). This is the kind of information that is lacking in the literature about readers. What are the “affective mobilizers” at this age? “We need to know the intrinsic worth of reading for each person in a group or class” (Russell, 1961, p.112). 11 Organization of the Thesis The thesis is organized in five chapters. Chapter One has presented the problem and the rationale for the study. The questions examined have been outlined, and the terms that are used in the thesis have been defined. Chapter Two presents a review of the related literature concerned with the theoretical aspects of leisure reading, locus of control and intrinsic motivation, attitude toward recreational reading, and other variables—found in the classroom and in the home. Chapter Three describes the research design and methodology of the study. Included in this chapter are a description of the nature and selection of the sample, the instruments, the procedures followed, and the data analyses for the study. Chapter Four presents the results of the data analyses. Chapter Five includes a discussion of the results, as well as conclusions, limitations, and implications for future research. 12 CHAPTER II Literature Review The concept of reading throughout this thesis will be limited to reading for leisure, fun, or pleasure outside of the classroom or school unless otherwise noted. As well, recreational reading and leisure-time reading will also be considered synonymous in this paper. It is not clear at times within the literature whether expressions such as “interest in reading,” “amounts of reading,” “reading behavior”, “voluntary reading,” and “active readers” include reading for school. Reported differences for gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and ability will be discussed in each section and will be limited to those studies mentioned in that section of the review. These findings will then be analyzed to show how they represent the infrequent reader at the grade-five level in the summary section of this chapter. Leisure Reading A review of the literature on recreational reading reveals that there is no shortage of surveys (A. Taylor, 1982) regarding children’s and young people’s leisure-time reading interests. However, there does appear to be a lack of empirical evidence on the development of a leisure-reading habit (Greaney, 1980). The following review has been limited to studies which include intermediate-grade students, with a particular focus on grade five, in Britain and North America during the last twenty-four years (1970 to the present) that focus on the interest in reading—which includes amounts of time spent reading for leisure—rather than reading interests or preferences. There are two reasons for limiting the review to studies that include grade five: first, because it is one of the years of the “reading craze” (Lamme, 1976; Terman & Lima, 1926) before “the rot sets in” (Maxwell, 1977, p.66); and second, because 13 there is a large data base on this group (Allen, Cipielewski, & Stanovich, 1992; Anderson,, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Lamme, 1976; Long & Henderson, 1972; Maxwell, 1977; Rasinski, 1987; B. M. Taylor, Frye, & Maruyama, 1990; Whitehead, Capey, & Maddren, 1975) so that comparisons can be made with the present study. Whitehead et al. (1977) used a questionnaire in 1971 to sample the “extent and kind” of voluntary reading for 7800 children that were 10, 12, and 14 years old in England and Wales. Gender distribution was fairly even. Twenty-seven hundred of these children were age ten, a time when “a good many chidren read quite extensively in their own leisure-time” (Whitehead et al., 1975, p.7). At the primary level (age 10), students were evenly distributed on ability whereas, at the secondary level (age 12 and 14), there was a higher proportion for high ability students. Distribution of ethnicity was not reported, but socioeconomic status was reported by classifying the father’s occupation. For the age 10 group, the predominate socioeconomic status was skilled manual (39%); other representative occupations were semi-skilled (16%), managerial/technical (13%), skilled non-manual (11%), unskilled (4%) and professional (3%); the remaining 14% were either retired, dead, inadquately given by student, or were not given at all. The questionnaire, which was administered in March by the schools, asked respondents to recall “what comics and magazines they read regularly, what books they had read voluntarily, where they obtained the books, and how much they liked them” (Whitehead et al., 1975, p.9) during the previous month. Although the study focused primarily on what reading materials interest children at these different ages, the amount of reading was also reported in numbers of items read. For example, age 10 students reportedly read 2.95 books per month, age 12 students read 2.21 books per month, and age 14 students read 1.95 books per month. There were more non-book readers among the boys than among the girls. Periodical reading, which included both magazines and comic books, also showed a decline as the child matured, but not at the same rate of decline as shown for reading books. Again, girls read more periodicals than boys at all age levels. The authors believe that some factor other than ability is involved, since they found that girls of certain ability groups tended to read more than boys of the same groups. 14 They conclude that “a substantial number of children abandon the book-reading habit as they grow older” (Whitehead et al., 1977, p.53). The number of infrequent readers more than doubles for either gender between the ages of 10 and 12—age 10, 15.8% of the boys versus 9.4% of the girls, age 12, 33.2% of the boys versus 23.3% of the girls, and age 14, 40.0% of the boys versus 32.4% of the girls. “Although the non-book readers include some pupils who are weak, or backward at reading, most of them have the ability to read books if they choose to do so” (p.53). There was also an appreciable minority of children who did not read any periodicals (comics/magazines) during this time frame of one month. The non-periodical readers increase with age but not at the rate of the non-book readers: age 10, 17.0% of the boys versus 12.1% of the girls, age 12, 18.8% of the boys versus 12.6% of the girls, and age 14, 20.8% of the boys versus 12.3% of the girls. In Ireland, Greaney (1980) investigated the amount of time 720 fifth-grade students spent leisure reading for three days (Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday) in June, as well as the type of reading material—book, comics, and newspapers—these students utilized. The population sample was taken from schools stratified by location—city, town, and rural. A standardized reading attainment test was given to each pupil and results showed that the population was similar to the national norm. Students accounted for these three days with the use of a closed or controlled diary with time intervals marked off into 30 minute segments. The proportion of leisure time devoted to leisure reading by these fifth graders during the three days in June was an average of 5.4%: 62% of that time was devoted to books, 31% was devoted to comic books, and 7% was devoted to reading newspapers. Forty-four percent did not read books, and 22.2% did not do any leisure reading. However, it should be noted that some of these students must have been poor readers since the sample was “similar to a national norm”. A book reader was likely to attend a girls’ school in a rural area, was a girl, tended to have a high level of reading attainment, was a member of a relatively small family, had a father whose occupation tended towards the middle and upper socioeconomic levels, and was probably a member of a public library. A comic reader was unlikely to be enrolled in an all girls’ school, tended to attend an urban school, was a boy, had a relatively low level of reading attainment, tended to be a member of a large family which was of low socioeconomic status and was unlikely to be a member of a public library. (p.351) 15 Because there were so few incidents of newspaper reading, what a newspaper reader might look like was not analyzed. Seven years later, to further understand leisure reading in Ireland, Greaney & Hegarty (1987) investigated 127 fifth-graders for four days (Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, and the following Monday) using the same diary technique. The sample consisted of a majority of children of either intermediate professional (30%) or managerial (52%) parents. Reading achievement and verbal ability measures placed the sample population in the fourth quartile (high scores) based on national norms. Ethnicity was not reported. Reading was again categorized into book reading, comic reading, and newspaper reading. This time they found that students devoted 7.2% of their leisure time to reading—125.5 minutes (an average of 96.8 minutes to books, 24.8 minutes to comic books, and 3.8 minutes to newspapers). It was reported that 23.6% did not read books, 66.1% did not read comics, and 18% did not read at all during these four days. Looking at differences between frequent book- readers (one hour or more) (= 69) and infrequent book-readers (less than one hour) (n = 58), the analysis showed that frequent book-readers were more likely to have had books bought for them by their parents during the previous year and their fathers were perceived as having more time to read books. Reading in bed and encouragement to read particular books were more likely features of homes of keen book readers than non-book readers. However, non-book readers were more likely to have received encouragement to read newspapers, though relatively few parents encouraged this form of reading activity. (p.11-12) Although percentages are not given for gender differences, it was noted that this variable correlated significantly—that is, being female—with amount of book reading. Being that this sample population was in the fourth quartile for reading achievement and verbal ability measures, one can assume that these infrequent readers were capable of reading. In Scotland, Maxwell (1977) investigated the progress of reading among 5000 students between the ages of eight and fifteen for several years. There were two groups within this sample population: a younger group, P4 (grade three), and an older group, P7 (grade six). Each group consisted of about 2,500 students, and were followed for three years. Every May, these two groups “were asked to complete a return on their reading out-of-school for a period of seven days” (p.55). Out-of-school reading could include reading for school—whether a project 16 or other classwork, reading for pleasure because of something which interested them in school, as well as reading for none of these reasons. The sample population was of mixed ability, equally representative for gender distribution, and for socioeconomic status. Ethnic background was not reported. Findings were reported for the number of books and ephemera—comic books, newspapers, and magazines—that a student had read over the sample time period of one week. From ages 8 to 15, it was reported that girls read more than boys when it came to books, but when it came to ephemera, girls read less than boys. Large numbers of infrequent readers were reported for the early grades: P4 (similar to grade 3) was reported as having 32% of the sample population not reading any books and 14% not reading any ephemera during that week. Maxwell found fewer infrequent readers in P5 (grade 4) reporting 26% of the students categorized as infrequent readers of books and 9% as infrequent readers of ephemera; P6 (grade 5) had 25% of the sample not reading books and 7% not reading comic books, newspapers, or magazines. P7 (grade 6) was reported in this study as having the smallest proportion of infrequent readers: 19% were infrequent readers of books and 4% were infrequent readers of ephemera. At the next level when students transfer to secondary school—Si (similar to grade 7)—the population of infrequent readers then begins to grow with 23% of the sample not reading any books and 5% not reading any ephemera; S2 (grade 8) had 26% not reading books and 5% not reading ephemera. It must be noted, however, that since this sample population consisted of students of mixed ability, it is conceivable that some of these infrequent readers may have found reading too difficult. An extensive study on out-of-school activities was conducted by Anderson et al. in the early 1980’s in Illinois to find out whether out-of-school activities were related to reading achievement. The investigation took place in two different schools: a small village school for a period of 8 weeks (early March to mid May) and a small city school for a period of 26 weeks (mid November to mid May) (Wilson, Anderson, & Fielding, 1986). The sample population consisted of 158 fifth-graders. The group contained more boys than girls, “some blue collar, low income, and minority children” but “these groups were underrepreserited in terms of their proportions within the U.S.” (Anderson et al., 1988, p.287). Students were to keep track of 17 their out-of-school activities using a daily activity form, posting amounts of time, precise to the minute. Since it was reported that the sample was above the national average on a standardized reading comprehension test, it is reasonable to conclude that this was a group of mostly capable readers. All reading “whether done for enjoyment or not” (p.299) included books, magazines, newspapers, comics, and mail. Reading in this study could conceivably include reading for school since this was not explicitly stated as in the other studies mentioned previously. Most of these children did little or no book reading. A median of 4.6 minutes was considered a typical amount of reading per day on books. Other types of reading—comics, mail, newspapers, and magazines—amounted to a median of 2.6 minutes per day. While gender differences were not reported, it was stated that “girls read more than boys” (p.296). The researchers concluded, after factoring out other possibilities, that based on the fact that “the class that read the most averaged 16.5 minutes per day while the class that read the least averaged only 4.1 minutes per day” (p.296), that the teacher should be considered a “significant influence.” Although these researchers felt that it is possible for some readers to be prolific readers without the influence of their teacher, it was surmised that teachers might be able to help more children to become so. This conclusion was based on interviews with eight avid readers who talked about “teachers having books available in the classroom, reading to the class, recommending books to them, talking to them about books they had read, and requiring them to read a certain number of books” (Fielding, Wilson, & Anderson, 1984, p.155). In answer to the research question, results showed that of all the ways children spent their time, reading books was the best predictor of reading achievement. Other researchers have not been able to substantiate that time spent reading at home is related to reading achievement gains. B. M. Taylor et al. (1990) investigated the effects of time spent reading at school and at home on reading achievement. The sample population included 164 grade-five and grade-six students who kept daily reading logs, at the end of each 50 minute reading class, on their school and home book reading. Both reading at school and reading at home could have been assigned or self-selected. The sample included three classes of above average 18 readers, six classes of average readers, and two classes of below average readers. Descriptions for gender, ethnicity, and SES were not given, nor was the location of the study given in this report. Each school day students completed sentences located in their reading logs which asked for minutes, page numbers, and title of book for assigned reading as well as pleasure reading during reading class, and minutes only for assigned reading and pleasure reading at home on the day before. These records were kept for 17 weeks from mid January to mid May. Students averaged 15.0 (SD = 13.6) minutes of reading per day at home and 15.8 (SD = 4.1) minutes at school. The range in amount of time for home reading was quite large and may have been influenced by reading ability, since it was reported that part of the sample was reading at a below average level. On the other hand, because the data for home reading was combined—minutes for assigned reading and minutes for pleasure reading—this figure would have included time for homework— assigned reading—which could also have had an influence on total time. The significant finding for the study was that the amount of time spent on reading during the reading periods at school contributed significantly to gains in students’ reading achievement, whereas time spent reading at home was not significantly related to reading achievement. Neither gender nor ability differences were reported, nor was there any further descriptive information provided on students who did little reading—the infrequent reader. Allen et al. (1992) designed a study using grade-five students to “assess the convergent validity of a variety of indicators of reading habits and dispositions” (p.489) in order to validate an instrument that would, hopefully, measure exposure to print. Initially, 63 students (38 boys and 25 girls) began the process, but not all students completed the variety of instruments. Some tables indicate that the sample dipped to 43 students. However, 61 students did complete the daily diaries that were an improved version of those used by Anderson et al. (1988). The school was a private university school in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which attempted to include diverse levels of socioeconomic status. Eleven percent of the sample received financial aid. Neither ethnicity nor ability levels were reported in the description of the sample. 19 Students filled out the daily diaries for 15 days from mid April to early May, Sunday through Thursday, during the first few minutes of language arts, which could be in the morning or the afternoon. It was reported that these fifth graders spent a mean of 10.2 minutes per night reading books for pleasure with a median reading time of 5 minutes. When all reading materials were included—comics, books (with or without titles) assigned or unassigned, newspapers, and magazines—it was reported that these students spent an average of 21.3 minutes per night reading with a median reading time of 16 minutes. This figure would have included homework—assigned reading. Because ability levels were not reported in the sample description, it is not known if all of these participants were capable readers. A few significant relationships were noted. The researchers found “negative correlations between watching television and book reading (-.28), and between watching television and all reading (-.34). The correlation between book reading and television watching increased to -.38 (p < .01) when reading comprehension was partialled out’ (p.496). Gender differences were not reported nor was there any mention of the infrequent reader. In the early 1970’s, a three year study was undertaken to investigate the reading habits of 65 children as they matriculated through grade four, five, and six, and the relationship between these habits and achievement on standardized reading tests (Lamme,1 976). The description of the sample does not provide information for gender, ethnicity, SES, or ability. However, it was reported that the sample was from a mixed rural and suburban school located in central New York. For three years, during the school year, students filled Out a reading record each time they read a book. Information is not given as to whether this book was assigned or unassigned, or whether it was read at home or at school. Students were also interviewed once a year. “In fourth grade these children reported reading a mean of 23.5 books. This decreased to 19.5 books in both fifth and sixth grades, but this decrease was not found to be statistically significant” (p.23). Some children did not read any books during these years, but since it was not reported that all children were capable readers, this may be part of the explanation. As for the relationship between reading habits and reading ability measures, only the habit of seeking 20 out books by known authors was found to have a consistently moderate relationship. All other reading habits, such as rereading books, selection of books, and sources of books were either displayed or not displayed in equal proportions by all types of readers. “Reading habits appear to be very diverse in the intermediate grades’ (p.25). It was also reported that critical readers were not always avid readers and that capable readers sometimes were not reading at all. This is not to say that reading level does not play a small role in children’s reading since there was evidence of a relationship between the number of books read and children’s reading test scores for all three years (Lamme, 1976). Long and Henderson (1972), interested in the amount of time students spent reading independently, whether in school or at home, conducted a study with 207 fifth-graders. In two suburban schools near an industrial city, students were given booklets with sheets with sections marked off in 15 minute intervals to record all spare-time activities. These self-reports covered an unspecified two week period. In the end, 57 students were eliminated because it was found that 33 were not reading at grade level according to their comprehension score on the Gates-MacGinitie Test, and 24 had incomplete records due to absentism. The remaining sample population consisted of 75 boys and 75 girls, all Caucasian, with 65% having fathers in white- collar jobs and 35% having fathers in blue-collar jobs. The researchers found a “relative rarity” of reading—i 1/2 hours per week on the average (p.198); and “time spent reading was positively related to socioeconomic status, to intelligence, and to all four scores from the Gates-MacGinitie test” (p.197). There was no significant difference found between boys and girls for the activity of reading. However, the activity of reading was not categorized into various types of leisure reading (books, comics, or newspapers). It was reported that one third of the sample population did not read during the two week period. Rasinski (1987) interviewed 26 third- and 40 fifth-grade students from two elementary schools representing high- and low-socioeconomic neighborhoods, and two ditferent ethnic populations—Caucasian/Black. The purpose of the study was to find out if differences existed in the frequency and the amount of time devoted to reading at home (measured through the use of 21 self-report) by high- and low-performing elementary grade readers, based on performance of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. The interview questions, however, did not delineate between reading materials, but instead were generalized to reading—”how often he or she read at home” (almost every day, 4 or 5 times a week, 2 or 3 times a week, hardly ever), and “estimate the number of minutes spent reading at one time” (10 minutes or less, between 10-30, more than 30). The latter question was given to only the fifth graders. Another confounding factor was that reading at home was not defined; students may have included reading for school as well as for leisure. Evidence revealed that 80% of the high-ability reading students were reading at least four times a week, whereas only 25% of the low-ability reading students were reading that often. There were greater lengths of time spent reading at any given time (more than 30 minutes) at home for the high-ability fifth graders, but this result did not reach statistical significance. Gender differences were not given, nor were they reported when describing the sample population. The reading behaviors of the infrequent reader were reported. In the third-grade group, one subject of the high-ability group reported “hardly ever” reading at home; two subjects used this category from the low-ability group. For the fifth graders, two subjects from the high-ability group reported “hardly ever” reading at home, and six subjects from the low-ability group chose this category. In summary, studies seem to underline the fact that book reading and periodical reading, which includes magazines and comic books, shows an overall decline as children move through the grades (Lamme, 1976; Maxwell, 1977; A. Taylor, 1982; Whitehead et al., 1975), although Moffitt (1992) has reported an exception for this decline in older adolescents. Within this decline, there are reported gender differences. A number of studies have shown that there are more non-book readers among the boys at grade 5 (Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Whitehead et al., 1975), at grade 7 (Whitehead et al., 1975), at grade 9 (Moffitt, 1992; Whitehead et al., 1975), and at grades 10-12 (Moffitt, 1992). Girls not only read more books (Maxwell, 1977) but they also read more periodicals (A. Taylor, 1982; Whitehead et al., 1975). However, when comics are distinguished from magazines, 11-,12-, and 13 year 22 old boys have been found to be reading more comic books than girls (A. Taylor, 1982). This was also true for grade-five boys in Ireland (Greaney, 1980). Other studies have found no significant gender differences in the number of books read, or time spent reading at grade 5 (Long & Henderson, 1972), grade 6 (Picha, 1988), and grade 7 (Covington, 1985). Differences for socioeconomic status have also been reported by some of these researchers. Maxwell (1977) reported that socioeconomic background played a strong part in determining how many books were read. Good readers who had attended primary schools of high socioeconomic status or whose fathers were employed in non-manual occupations were reading more books than were good readers of lower social background by the time they reached Secondary 2 (grade eight). Good readers of lower socioeconomic background were more likely to cut down on books as they grew older. (p.11 8) Others have also found positive correlations between SES and leisure reading (Greaney, 1980; Long & Henderson, 1972; Whitehead et al., 1977). Ethnic differences were not reported for any of these studies, but ability differences were found and reported in a number of them. Greaney (1980), Long and Henderson (1972), and Rasinski (1987) have reported that having a higher level of reading ability seems to be correlated with amounts of time spent leisure reading. However, Lamme (1976) did not find a relationship between reading habits and ability to read, other than seeking out books by known authors, although it was reported that reading level did seem to play a small role in number of books read and reading test scores. B. M. Taylor et al. (1990), on the other hand, reported that amount of time spent on reading at home was not significantly related to reading achievement. Although grade five is one of the years when students are reading, this is not the case for all students. Findings have revealed that students at this age were reading 2.95 books during the month of February/March in England and in Wales in 1 971, but it also revealed that among these capable readers, 15.8% of the boys and 9.4% of the girls were not reading books; as well, 17% of the boys and 12% of the girls were not reading periodicals (magazines/comics) either during this month. In Ireland, in 1980 for three days in June, it was revealed that grade-five students were only spending an average of 5.4% of their leisure time reading; 44% were not reading books during this time, and 22% were not devoting any time to leisure reading (Greaney, 1980). Some of these readers, however, may not have been capable since the sample 23 was similar to national norms. Seven years later, in the same country, but this time over four days, it was found that grade-five students were spending 7.2% of their leisure time reading. Of these capable readers, 24% were not reading books, 66% were not reading comics, and 18% were not doing any reading at all during these four days (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987). In Scotland, it was reported that of the P6 (grade-five) students of mixed ability in 1975, 25% were not reading books, and 7% were not reading ephemera—comic books, newspapers, and magazines—for one week in May (Maxwell, 1977). Lamme (1976) reported that fifth-grade students in the early 1970’s were reading an average of 19.5 books, although some of these books may have been read in school. Some children, however, read virtually nothing. Another study reported fifth-grade students spending on the average one hour and a half per week reading during the two week period of data collection, with one-third of these capable readers not reading during this time frame (Long & Henderson, 1972). In the early 1980’s, it was reported that fifth-graders were spending on the average 4.6 minutes per day reading books, and 2.6 minutes per day reading comics, newspapers, magazines, and mail during the months from November to May, but that most of the children, who placed above the national average on a standardized reading comprehension test, did little or no book reading during this extensive time frame (Anderson et al., 1988). Finally, in the mid 1980’s, from a small sample, it was reported that 80% of high-ability fifth- graders were reading four or more times each week; whereas, 75% of low-ability fifth- graders were reading three times or less each week. How much time students would spend at one time reading at home also varied between these two groups of fifth-graders: 60% of the high ability students would spend more than 30 minutes at one time reading at home, 35% would spend between 10-30 minutes, and 5% would spend 10 minutes or less; 35% of the low ability students would spend more than 30 minutes, 45% between 10-30 minutes, and 20% 10 minutes or less (Rasinski, 1987). There are, of course, criticisms to be made of some of the studies mentioned in the review. Some did not give adequate descriptions of their sample populations for such variables as gender (Allen et al., 1992; Rasinski, 1987; B. M. Taylor et al., 1990) or ethnic background (Allen et 24 al., 1992; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Lamme, 1976; B. M. Taylor et at., 1990; Whitehead et al., 1975). The time of the year may be an important variable and this information was not reported in some studies (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Long & Henderson, 1972; Rasinski, 1987). The term “reading’ was sometimes used in a generic sense not distinguishing the different kinds of leisure reading (Long & Henderson, 1972; Rasinski, 1987). Results did not always report gender differences (Allen et at., 1992; Anderson et at., 1988; Lamme, 1976; Rasinski, 1987; B. M. Taylor et at., 1990). Are students spending more time, or less time, leisure reading? It is very difficult if not impossible to make this judgement due to the various sampling procedures found in these studies. For example, when investigating leisure reading, not only were different times of the year under consideration, but also numerous lengths of time were used for data collection for the activity of reading. General time frames included a specified three days (Greaney, 1980) or four days (Greariey & Hegarty, 1987), one week (Maxwell, 1977) or two weeks (Allen et at., 1992; Long & Henderson, 1972), or one month (Whitehead et at., 1975) to two to six months (Anderson et al., 1988; B. M. Taylor et al., 1990), or over three years (Lamme, 1976). The method of data gathering was also diverse, including questionnaires about reading (Whitehead et at., 1975), interviews (Rasinski, 1987), both a questionnaire and an interview (Lamme, 1976), daily diaries accounting for all leisure activities (Allen et at., 1992; Anderson et at., 1988; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Long & Henderson, 1972), and daily reading logs (B. M. Taylor et al., 1990). Findings were also reported in different forms, such as number of books (Lamme, 1976; Maxwell, 1977; Whitehead et at., 1975), hours (Long & Henderson, 1972), minutes (Allen et al, 1992; Anderson et al., 1988; Rasinski, 1987; B. M. Taylor et al., 1990), and percentage of leisure time (Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987). All of these approaches add to the difficulty of making direct comparisons. Underlying alt of these weaknesses is the major weakness of expecting children to give accurate information when asking them to recall how much time they spend leisure reading through self-report interviews or questionnaires. This is a problem for a few of these studies (Maxwell, 1977; Rasinski, 1987; Whitehead et al., 1975). 25 The present study used the diary-technique (Allen et al, 1992; Anderson et al., 1988; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Long & Henderson, 1972) to establish what children were doing with their leisure time over a period of three weeks, rather than depending on children’s ability to recall these activities. Using these diaries is much more reliable than interview or questionnaire instruments for establishing time spent in activities (Carp & Carp, 1981). This was followed by an indepth interview intended to explore the reasons and values attached to the rewards that one gains from the activities documented in the diaries. Classroom and home variables were also a part of this inquiry. By using both approaches, an indepth analysis was possible and adds to the literature on what contributes to the development of the leisure-reading habit. The focus is on the capable infrequent reader rather than the frequent reader which has been traditionally the focus for all studies mentioned in this review. Grade-five students were chosen as the target population for this study to insure that frequent readers would be found for comparisons when investigating the infrequent reader. Students at this level are more likely to be reading quite extensively in their leisure time (Whitehead et al., 1975), compared to other grade levels, which guaranteed a sizeable population of readers. With the large literature base already established for this age group, findings from the present study can be tallied along with the others, confirming certain variables that possibly contribute to leisure reading behavior. As well, this study investigated one area that has not been investigated at this level or any other level, as far as this author is aware of, the rewards and values associated with the leisure activity of reading. It also fills the gap of what grade-five students do with their leisure time in a representative Canadian sample. Locus of Control and Intrinsic Motivation Locus of control is the belief one has regarding the control of rewards. Having an internal locus of control is believed to be a necessary condition for intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975, p.91). An internal locus of control means that an individual believes that his/her behavior has everything to do with receiving a reward. Intrinsic motivation means that a person likes to participate in a particular activity because when he/she does, feelings of competence, 26 satisfaction, and/or delight are the rewards. Since “interest in children’s locus of control behaviors has remained remarkably substantial and stable” (Strickland, 1989, p.4), this review is limited to studies investigating locus of control and intrinsic motivation, as well as studies investigating locus of control and reading. However, in order to account for gender, economic, ethnic, and ability differences found among children within the locus of control literature, it was necessary to expand the scope of this review to include investigations in areas other than reading and intrinsic motivation. Several studies investigating children’s locus of control in learning situations have reported finding gender differences (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965; Flynn, 1991; Newhouse, 1974; Prawat, Grisson & Parish, 1979); whereas others have not found gender to be a significant intervening variable (Barnett & Kaiser, 1977; D. Brown, Fulkerson, Furr, Ware, & Voight, 1984; Sherman, 1984). Nielsen & Long (1981), however, found no significant difference between males and females in the best reading groups for high school students but did find that, in the poor reading classes, males had significantly higher internal scores than females. Willey (1978) found significant correlations of locus of control with SES for students representing a broad range of SES backgrounds at the elementary and junior-high level (6-14 years old). Bartel (1971) found that the differences between lower- and middle-class children were not significant at first and second grade, but were significant at the fourth-grade level (p=.05) and at the sixth-grade level (p=.O1). Battle and Rotter (1963) and Strodtbeck (1958) reported lower-class individuals (between the ages of 11 and 17) expressed greater externality than middle-class persons. D. Brown et al. (1984) found that “Caucasian leaders” among third and sixth graders had beliefs that indicated that they were more internal than “Black leaders.” On the other hand, Milgram (1971) reported the absence of a difference in locus of control between Black and Caucasian students in first-, fourth-, seventh-, and tenth-grades. Battle and Rotter (1963) found that Blacks (at the grade-six and -eight level) scored higher in an external control direction than Caucasians. 27 “While the first studies relating locus of control orientation to academic achievement were completed at Fels Institute (Crandall, Katkovsky & Preston, 1962), it was the so-called Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966) that focused on locus of control orientation as a significant determinant of academic achievement” (Nowicki & Duke, 1983, p.24). Whether a child was Black or White, according to this report, having an internal orientation for locus of control seemed to predict greater success in academic achievement. Since that report, numerous studies have confirmed that an internal locus of control is related to higher achievement in academic settings for children ranging in age from 7 to 17 years (R. T. Brown, 1980; Cervantes, 1976a; 1976b; Little & Kendall, 1978; Nowicki & Roundtree, 1971; Nowicki & Segal, 1973; Nowicki & Walker, 1974; Ollendick, 1979; Prawatt et al., 1979; Sherman & Hoffman, 1980; Tesiny, Lefkowitz & Gordon, 1980). Studies investigating locus of control and intrinsic motivation with children focus on the effects rewards have on subsequent interest. When a person’s locus of control has an internal orientation, he or she can be motivated either intrinsically and extrinsically. The use of the locus of control dimension in predicting an individual’s intrinsic motivation response to various external rewards is considered at best a complicated prediction (Lonky & Reihman, 1980). Praise, an external reward, can be interpreted as either reinforcement to a person’s competence or as a controlling aspect to keep a student on task. Several studies (Danner & Lonky, 1981; Lonky & Reihman, 1980; Martin, 1977) have found that children with an internal locus of control increase in motivation following praise, whereas those with an external locus of control decrease in motivation in response to praise (Danner & Lonky, 1981; Lonky & Reihman, 1980). Boggiano and Ruble (1979) and Lonky (1975) found that motivation increased when using praise for some children and not for others. Baron and Ganz (1972) and Baron, Cowan, Ganz and McDonald (1974) found externally-oriented children to be more sensitive to the controlling aspect of verbal reinforcement. What affect do rewards have on intrinsic motivation? After reviewing the literature, Condry & Koslowski (1979) concluded that “task extrinsic rewards tend to have detrimental effects on both the performance of a task and the individual’s subsequent interest in the task” 28 (p.255) when it comes to learning. Task extrinsic rewards are similar to non-contingent rewards; rewards are given for just participating. Contingent rewards, on the other hand, are given depending on the quality of the performance. Murphy (1986) concluded that contingent reward exercises, in genera!, an undermining influence on intrinsic motivation, at least in the short term. However, this may be ameliorated when task parameters are considered. Secondly, non-contingent reward tends not to exercise an undermining influence on intrinsic motivation, but neither does it tend to increase it significantly. Thirdly, positive verbal feedback tends to increase intrinsic motivation, but this may be more apparent for adult males than adult females. Fourthly, rewarded subjects choose easier problems and engage in less efficient problem solving strategies than non-rewarded subjects. (p.24) Brewer, Dunn, and Olszewski (1988) have cautioned others to avoid the oversimplification that token programs somehow possess an inherently inimical quality in and of themselves. Instead of focusing exclusively on the token reward system itself, a more productive focus would be on the conditions under which token reward systems undermine intrinsic interest. (p.166) How locus of control affects the learner in a reading situation—all kinds of reading, not just reading for leisure—has not been investigated as heavily as in other learning situations. Differences in locus of control and reading abilities among grade-three students was reported by Pani (1991) when examining the effects of culture and locus of control on reading performance among tribal and nontribal Indian students in India. The poorest performance was evidenced by subjects with external locus of control. Chariton and Terell (1987) reported significant mean gains in reading age for grade-three students after enhancing internal locus of control beliefs through group counselling for 15 weeks. Bartel (1971) found that by second grade, first- grade reading-readiness scores correlated positively with internal locus of control for high- achieving middle-class children. Gains in reading comprehension and language mechanics for grade-five students whose teachers were internal rather than external in their locus of control were reported by Murray and Staebler (1974). Boraks, Brittain, Linder, and Bauer (1993) reportedly found that locus of control scores correlated positively with reading comprehension for their sample of grade-four and grade-five students. Wooster (1974), in his investigation with boys (age 13-15 years) considered by the British to be educationally subnormal, found better results on a measure of reading ability for students whose locus of control scores were internal. Matheny and Edwards (1 974) also found a statistically significant correlation 29 between locus of control scores and reading achievement with students in grades two to seven. Willey (1978), investigating the relationship of locus of control to self-esteem and six measures of reading performance with elementary and junior high students, found the locus of control measure to be a significant predictor of oral reading scores and number of books completed in a six-week summer reading tutorial program. Advanced readers in Nielsen and Long’s study of high school seniors (1981) had significantly higher internal locus of control scores. However, Nielsen and Long also found that in the best reading groups there were no gender differences in locus of control; however, in the poor reading classes males had higher internal locus of control scores. In a study examining locus of control and reading attitude for 431 inner-city children in Columbus, Ohio, D. H. Brown, Engin, and Walbrown (1979) failed to find a relationship between these two variables for a sample of students from grade four, five, and six. They did find, however, a significant relationship for Reading Anxiety and the (1-) scale of the IAR. [The Intellectual Achievement Responsibility (IAR) Questionnaire gives three scores: a total score, a subscore for beliefs in internal responsibility for successes (1+), and a subscore for beliefs in internal responsibility for failures (1-) Lefcourt, 1991.] Three years later Blaha and Chomin (1982), conducting a similar study with 322 inner-city grade-five students using the same instruments, reported five reading attitude scores which significantly related to locus of control: Expressed Reading Difficulty, Reading Anxiety, Reading as Direct Reinforcement, Reading as Enjoyment, and Reading Group. All were with the internality pIus (1+) scale of the IAR. These results suggest that children who report a willingness to assume personal responsibility for successful academic achievement also tend to perceive themselves as free from difficulties with reading, being less anxious about reading activities, valuing reading-type activities for their extrinsic reinforcement value and for their intrinsic values as a source of information, learning, and emotional satisfaction, and valuing their reading group. (p.30) Whitney (1986), investigating the relationship between locus of control and intrinsically motivated reading for grade-six children, found no differences between students with an internal orientation and students with an external orientation. The study examined students’ 30 leisure reading for a period of six weeks and concluded that students felt that they were “too busy” for free-choice reading activities. One variable that might possibly strengthen the prediction of a relationship between intrinsically motivated reading and locus of control might be the value of the reinforcements gained from the activity (Nowicki & Duke, 1983; Rotter, 1975). According to Rotter, the value that an individual places on a reinforcement must always be accounted for, but very few researchers have reported the reinforcement values for their subjects, whether these were studies of achievement (Nowicki & Duke, 1983) or studies in other areas. In its simplest sense, according to social learning theory, reinforcement value is the subjective value the individual holds for the reinforcement he or she is attempting to obtain (Nowicki & Duke, 1983, p.29). “Given the same level of expectancy of achieving each goal object or reinforcement, the object chosen has the greater reinforcement value’ (Feather, 1982, p.412). Over 30 years ago, when investigating the value of intellectual gains with students from grade one, -two, and -three using the Children’s Achievement Wishes Test, Crandall et al. (1962) found this value to be predictive of achievement for girls but not for boys. Much later, Naditch and DeMaio (1975) found that reinforcement value moderated the relationship between locus and control and competence measures when investigating grade-nine students expectancy and reinforcement value on their academic, social, and home behaviors. Other than these two studies, few studies have included the variable of reinforcement value (Nowicki & Duke, 1983) in their investigations of children and locus of control. In summary, it appears that there is a significant correlation between locus of control and socioeconomic status. As well, locus of control orientation appears to be a significant determinant of academic achievement. The debate on how rewards affect intrinsic motivation continues around this controversial topic. Some studies in the field of reading have found locus of control orientation to reach levels of significance for reading achievement, predicting oral reading scores, and reading attitudes, as well as for the number of books read in a summer reading program (Blaha & Chomin, 1982; Matheny & Edwards, 1974; Willey, 1978). Other 31 studies in reading have reported that locus of control correlates positively with reading- readiness scores, reading comprehension, and significant mean gains in reading after enhancing internal locus of control beliefs (Bartel, 1971; Boraks et al., 1993; Charlton & Terell, 1987). As well, advanced readers have been found to have signifcantly higher internal locus of control scores at the grade-twelve level (Nielsen & Long, 1981). Unfortunately, reinforcement value has been ignored by most of these researchers. Although interest in children’s locus of control has remained substantial, with more than 700 studies being reported using the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External (CNSIE) scale (Strickland, 1989) alone, there is relatively little research investigating the relationship of this variable with reading or intrinsic interest in reading. The scale itself has been criticised by Coombs & Schroeder (1988), after reviewing six factor-analytic studies of l-E scales, as “limited to those rare individuals with extreme scores who do seem to have a general expectancy of locus of control” (p.84). On the other hand, Lefcourt (1991), a recognized, experienced researcher in this area (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991), reports that the scale “appears to be one of the better measures of locus of control as a generalized expectancy presently available for children (p.444). This study not only investigated beliefs in control over rewards using the CNSIE scale, but also explored reported reasons for leisure reading. Attitude Toward Recreational Reading Recreational reading of books, magazines, newspapers, and comic books, and how one feels or thinks about this activity would seem to be a necessary component of an investigation into how one spends his/her time out of school. “No theory of social behavior can be complete without incorporation of attitude functioning, and it is doubtful that complex social behavior can be predicted without a knowledge of attitude’ (Shaw and Wright, 1967, p.14). An attitude is defined by Allport (1967) as “a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related” (p.8). 32 By the age of 11 pupils will have formed attitudes towards reading from the influence of the home from early childhood and their experiences in school in the last six years. These attitudes will already be affecting the voluntary use they make of their reading skills. (Gorman, White, Orchard, & Tate, 1981, p.53) Reading attitudes have been investigated by numerous researchers, but not to the degree of other research areas in reading (Alexander & Filler, 1976; Athey, 1985; McKenna & Kear, 1990; Shapiro, 1993; Shapiro & White, 1991). In the area of leisure reading, “far more attention has been focussed in the literature on cognitive factors” (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987, p.16). Only recently has an instrument been constructed which includes measures for recreational- reading attitudes (Mckenna & Kear, 1990). Greaney & Hegarty (1987) referred to several studies which reported that growth in positive reading attitudes parallels growth in levels of reading achievement (Healy, 1965; Roettger, Szymezuk, & Millard, 1979; Rowell, 1972; Walberg & Tsai, 1984); and higher levels of reading achievement correlated significantly with amount of leisure reading (Connor, 1954; Greaney, 1980; Long & Henderson, 1972; Maxwell, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1975). A favorable attitude would appear to be a necessary precondition to a willingness to devote some leisure time to reading; a child who does not have a favorable attitude is likely to select other forms of leisure activity from the wide range of available alternatives. (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987, p.5) This review is limited to those studies that have investigated children’s recreational-reading attitudes, as well as those studies that have investigated nonschool, voluntary, free, leisure, or out-of-school reading, and have included an attitude measure in that investigation. A Survey of Reading Attitudes (Wallbrown, Brown, & Engin, 1975) is one attitude measurement scale that includes a dimension for leisure reading. “Reading as Enjoyment”, one of the eight dimensions of attitude toward reading addressed in this survey, purports to assess one’s preference for reading activities and leisure-time reading (Shapiro & White, 1991). Blaha and Chomin (1982) reported scores for “Reading as Enjoyment” as being significantly related to verbal academic aptitude for grade-five students. It was suggested that children with the greatest verbal academic ability “found reading an intrinsically rewarding activity” (p.29). Shapiro & White (1991), using the “Reading as Enjoyment” dimension for intermediate-grade (grades four to seven) students, found that significantly more children in a 33 school situation where no direct reading instruction took place viewed reading as being an enjoyable way to spend time, as compared to children in a traditional classroom situation using basal reading instruction. The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) (McKenna & Kear, 1990) consists of two subscales: one for academic reading and one for recreational reading. McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, and Jenkins (1992) used this instrument to examine differences in reading attitudes between students in a traditional basal setting and students in a whole language setting from grades one to five. They reported finding a decline in recreational-reading attitudes as students matriculated for both methods of instruction. Significant main effects were observed for grade level (steady decline) and gender (girls had better attitudes), but not for method of instruction. Several recent investigations have used the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) as an instrument for measuring recreational and academic reading attitudes. Allen et al. (1992) investigating the validity of a new instrument—Literature Recognition Measures—reported correlations between the amount of time spent reading books during nonschool time and the ERAS recreational scale for grade-five students. When exploring the relationship between reading comprehension and attitudes toward recreational and school reading, Boraks et al. (1993) found no differences within their sample of grade-four and -five students. Cloer and Pearman (1993) examined gender differences for attitudes toward recreational and academic reading with students from grades one to six in 15 different schools. Using the ERAS with these children as well as their teachers, they found that boys, girls, and teachers all had significantly lower academic reading attitude scores as compared to recreational reading attitude scores. In this study, the boys’ attitude scores toward recreational and academic reading declined with increasing grade level, whereas the girls maintained high attitude scores towards recreational reading throughout the six grades. Duggins (1989), conducting a three-year study on middle school students’ reading attitudes and interest in reading, used the Literature /Reading Survey (California Media & Library Educators Association, 1984) with 753 grade-six students of varying ability, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. This instrument consists of 21 items that focus on attitudes about 34 reading, 16 items on use of free time, 16 items about reading interests, and 19 items on knowledge of literature. Except for gender differences—females were twice as likely as males to be interested in reading—and knowledge of literature, the students were reportedly all alike—whether they were ESL, regular, honors, suburban, urban, or semi-rural—in their interest in reading, their reading interests, and in the way they claim to spend their leisure time. Differences in knowledge of literature was no surprise since this subtest on the survey measured ability as it is defined in schools. “As one might expect, in an urban community with a high percentage of immigrants, suburban children were more knowlegeable about American children’s literature than all but the gifted inner-city sixth graders” (p.1 0). The Reading Attitude Inventory (Lewis, 1979) was used by Reiff (1985) when investigating grade-three students’ learning styles, reading styles, and attitudes. It was found that even though students indicated a generally favorable reading attitude, playtime and television were preferred above reading. Greaney and Hegarty’s (1987) investigation of grade-five students’ leisure-time reading used a slightly modified version of Lewis scale in their study of leisure habits, and reported that “attitude to reading correlated more highly with leisure-time reading than any of the other variables included in the study; the correlation between attitude and time was significant even after controlling for sex, reading achievement and library membership” (p.3). The Assessment of Attitudes toward Reading in Primary Pupils (Askov, 1972) was used by Morrow and Weinstein (1 986) in their examination of grade-two students’ voluntary use of library centers at school and reading attitudes, and whether or not these two variables could be affected by a literature program emphasizing the enjoyment of books. It was reported that teacher-initiated literature activities and enhancement of school library centers had no affect on students’ attitudes toward reading, nor on their reading habits at home. Although observations of behavior during free-choice time at school indicated that attitudes had become more positive, the researchers suspect that “the inventory was not sensitive enough to detect the change” (Morrow & Weinstein, 1986, p.341). 35 Some investigators have either developed their own attitude instruments or made translations of existing scales into other languages. Schon, Hopkins, and Davis (1981) developed and adapted Spanish versions of measures of reading attitudes and academic self concept. They reported that reading attitudes had improved significantly between pre- and post-tests for their experimental groups after providing a great variety of books in Spanish and 60 minutes a week of free-reading time for eight months at the grade-two, -three, and -four level for Hispanic children. Manning and Manning (1984) studied three different models of recreational reading—sustained silent reading, peer interaction, and teacher-student conferences—to determine if any of these models would improve grade-four students’ reading attitude. All but the control group were given 30 minutes of recreational reading each day at school for one year. There was no recreational reading for the control group. The Manning Reading Attitude Inventory was used as a pre- and post-test. Students that had been exposed to the peer interaction model and the teacher-student conference model had significantly higher scores on the post-test. Long and Henderson (1972), describing the reading attitude scale as a Likert-type scale, found that time spent reading was positively related to attitude toward reading for grade-five students. The study focused on independent reading—in school as well as out of school. Hansen (1969) devised a reading attitude questionnaire “which would identify individual differences in reading attitude for the purposes of relating this to the home literary environment” (p.22). Grade-four students participated in the study and findings revealed that “factors in the home environment explain a significant portion of the variance in a child’s reading attitude” (p.22) when it comes to independent reading. Fleming (1953), investigating leisure-time reading habits and attitudes of senior high-school students using an instrument constructed for the purpose of the investigation, found that there were no significant differences in reading attitudes between the groups of upper to lower sociometric status. Other investigators have developed a questionnaire which includes only a few questions on attitude. Lane (1985), using a student questionnaire with 323 grade-seven students to assess attitude toward leisure reading, reported that 93% of the girls found leisure reading to be enjoyable as compared to 65% of the boys. Gorman et al. (1981) developed two instruments, 36 one for information about pupils’ response to voluntary reading, and one for information about pupils’ attitudes to reading in general. After analyzing the answers in these questionnaires for grade-six students, it was reported that reading at home correlated with mean reading performance scores. “The mean reading performance scores were higher for pupils who expressed confident, positive attitudes, but the correlation coefficients, although consistent, were low” (p.81). Whitehead et al. (1977), using a questionnaire that included questions on attitude with students aged 10, 12, and 14, found “an association between ability and attainment and favourable attitude to school” (p.76) while examining voluntary reading. Ability and attainment were strongly linked with amount of book reading; a child’s favorable attitude towards school was positively associated with voluntary reading. Healy (1965) measured attitude toward reading with grade-five students by asking them in a questionnaire how much they liked reading. There were three categories for the data: “liked”, ‘neutral”, and “disliked”. This question was asked at the beginning of the school year before the students were taught reading using an experimental teaching method, and then again at the end of the school year. The purpose was to determine the influence of initial reading experiences—when students first entered school—upon attitudes, and to assess the effects of changing attitudes toward reading after this grade-five experience. A positive change of attitude was reported at this point. At grade seven, 65% of these students were available for a follow-up assessment. This time reading attitude was measured using an achievement test and the number of books read. It was found that there was a significant difference between the experimental group and the matched sample (control group) in total reading achievement gains and in number of books read during the first semester at the grade-seven level. Besides attitude measurements, other instruments have recently been developed to measure reading habits and dispositions, such as those reported by Cunningham and Stanovich (1990; 1991), and Stanovich and West (1989). These studies used literature recognition measures to indicate relative individual differences in exposure to print outside of school (Allen et al., 1992). 37 In summary, there have been a variety of instruments used to investigate reading attitudes and what affect these attitudes have on how much time is spent reading for recreation. The reported findings in these studies seem to be linked with each other. There are factors that seem to have improved students’ reading attitudes: giving students time to read, having books available in a student’s first language, teacher-student conferences, peer interactions around recreational reading, teaching methods, and home literary environments. Positive reading attitudes seem to be linked with higher levels of reading ability. Students with higher reading abilities seem to spend significantly more time reading for recreation, although two studies reported that positive reading attitudes correlate more highly with recreational reading than does achievement. Ability level was reportedly unrelated to library center use in one study. One study found that there is a steady decline in recreational-reading attitudes from grades one to five; another study reported this was only so for boys. According to another study, there were no significant differences in interest for reading and how students spent their leisure time, other than that girls were twice as likely as boys to be interested in reading. In regard to gender differences and reading attitudes, there have been significant differences reported with girls having better attitudes than boys (Duggins, 1989; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Hansen, 1969; Lane, 1985; McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1989; McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, & Jenkins, 1992). Cloer and Pearman (1993) reportedly found that in grades four to six, this significant difference was only in regards to recreational reading; girls still maintained high attitude scores for recreational reading. Gorman et al. (1981), however, found no significant differences between grade-six boys’ and girls’ attitudes towards voluntary reading, except to the question “I don’t like it when I haven’t got anything to read at home.” Girls responded positively to that statement significantly more frequently than did boys. Morrow and Weinstein (1 986) reported that girls engaged in the use of library centers during their free-choice time at school significantly more often than did boys. Socioeconomic status and reading attitudes were investigated by some of these researchers, and it was reported that there were no significant differences between SES and attitude to reading (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), between SES and the linked variables of ability and 38 attainment with a favourable attitude to school which was positively associated with voluntary reading (Whitehead et aL, 1977), or between SES and the reported degree of interest in reading, the kinds of books read, or the use of free/leisure time (Duggins, 1989). Duggins’ study was the only one to report on any possible ethnic differences for reading attitude, and no significant differences were to be found. Does attitude influence one’s decision to spend time reading for recreation? The answer seems to be a tentative “yes”. Tentative because while some have found it to be, not all studies have found this to be true. This is one of the questions investigated in this study by using the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) (McKenna & Kear, 1990). Without the knowledge of each student’s recreational-reading attitude, it would seemingly be impossible to understand their choices for activities during out-of-school time. Other Variables Students spend time in at least two environments during the day—the classroom, and the home. What impact these two environments have on each individual’s decision to read is difficult to measure—perhaps impossible—but they need to be accounted for in order to ascertain what effect either environment might have. Although there have been numerous theoretical discussions throughout the literature, there have been very few studies which have included these environments as variables of interest. This review will be limited to those studies that have investigated either classroom practices around reading, home practices around reading, or both, and whether or not these environments affect the amount of time a student spends reading for leisure. “A great deal has been written about techniques to encourage recreational reading, but little research has been conducted to document their effectiveness” (Manning & Manning, 1984, p.376). Quite often one finds such sweeping statements as The amount of independent reading for both boys and girls is positively correlated with the availability of printed material, ownership of a library card, reading achievement level, methods of reading instruction, recreational interests, language/literacy interactions, parental example, and home values. (Guthrie & Greaney, 1991, p.90) 39 Although some of these findings may be true in some studies, it is not the case for all investigations. As well, some studies that have reported these claims have had some serious shortcomings in their methodologies. How these variables might possibly relate to the classroom and leisure reading will be considered first, followed by those that might be related to the home. One of the most extensive surveys investigating school organization and methods was conducted by Whitehead et al. (1977) in England and Wales. School questionnaires were completed by 381 schools—i 93 primary schools where the head teacher or principal filled out the questionnaire, and 188 secondary schools where the head of the English department answered the questions. Since this was a study designed to sample the “extent and kind” of voluntary reading for 7800 children between the ages of 10 and 15, it was decided to compare 50 schools with the highest average for amount of book reading with 50 schools with the lowest average for amount of book reading. The investigation “failed to produce clear indications as to the characteristics which differentiated the two sets of schools” (p.86). Because of these disappointing results, another statistical approach was used by “taking each school variable separately and considering its relevance to book reading by means of cross-tabulations with amount of reading” (p.86), and again results were inconclusive on such variables as listening to the teacher read stories, being allowed to take books home from the school library, or the ratio between the number of books available in the school library and the classroom library and the number of pupils. What did they find? First, how the schools organized their classes seems to have affected the amount of voluntary reading out of school. Schools which organized their students according to ability had the most nonreaders. Schools which had vertical groupings (variety of ages) had significantly more readers. Even after lumping vertical groupings with mixed ability groupings, the schools that had streamed their pupils by ability had far more non- and light readers. Whitehead et al. suspect this may be part of the explanation for the lack of voluntary reading as the child matures, since this kind of organization begins in the junior schools. Second, how the schools structured their curriculum—structured versus integrated 40 timetables—seems to have an impact on voluntary reading. Schools that had implemented an integrated curriculum had more readers as compared to schools with partly integrated/partly structured curriculum or schools with curriculum structured by the usual subject divisions. This finding was significant for boys, but not for girls. Third, the last school variable that Whitehead et al. found to have a significant impact on voluntary reading was at the secondary level when they compared the use of teaching materials—class sets of course books, comprehension books, thematic anthologies, novels, short stories, other prose books, and a reading list of titles of books available in the classroom or school library—on the amount of reading. “The amount of voluntary book reading was lower in schools that used class sets of course books, comprehension books or thematic anthologies” (Whitehead et al., 1977, p.96). Although the difference was not statistically significant for boys, it was for girls. About ten years later, Anderson et al. (1988) concluded, after factoring out other possibilities, that based on the fact that “the class that read the most averaged 16.5 minutes per day while the class that read the least averaged only 4.1 minutes per day” (p.296), that the teacher was considered a “significant influence.” Since this study included all reading, whether for enjoyment or not, it is possible that leisure reading included reading for school when out of school. These researchers felt that it was possible for some readers to be prolific readers out of school without the influence of their teacher, but it was surmised that teachers might be able to help more children to become so. This conclusion, however, was based on interviews with only eight avid readers who talked about “teachers having books available in the classroom, reading out loud to the class, recommending books to them, talking to them about books they had read, and requiring them to read a certain number of books” (Fielding et aL, 1984, p.155). “Favorable school conditions will increase the amount of reading children do” (Fielding et al., 1984, p.158). What are some of these practices in the classroom that may contribute to spending time leisure reading? What does it mean to have an influential teacher? Findings are not always in agreement. Teachers having books available in the classroom has been found to be an influence on children’s reading in one study (Wilson et al., 1986), but not others. Morrow 41 and Weinstein (1 986) found that classroom libraries do affect school reading, but not home reading. Whitehead et al. (1 977) found these libraries not to be a significant differentiator in regard to amount of voluntary book reading at the primary or the secondary level. Lamme (1976) reported that “only when their contents changed periodically and teachers encouraged their use” did students actually use this source (p.24). When surveying students on the books available in the classroom or school library, Lane (1985) found that the available books do not always satisfy the needs and interests of the students” (p.48). This investigation on leisure reading also included leisure reading at school. Teachers taking the time to recommend books to students has been reported as a factor contributing to time spent reading by students (Fielding et al., 1984; Lamme, 1976). In addition, teachers talking to children about books the students had read is another supported factor contributing to amounts of time students spend reading (Fielding et al., 1984). Schwenn, Klausmeier, and Sorenson (1970), exploring the effectiveness of individual adult- child conferences on increasing the independent reading of students in second, fourth, and sixth grade, reported that subjects receiving conferences significantly increased in the number of books that they read, and this was true for all grade levels and ability levels. Although this study focused on independent reading, it was not reported if this reading took place at school, at home, or both. In one study, junior-high school students claimed that more class discussion of certain books would improve their leisure reading (Lane, 1985). Another classroom practice that was found to be influential in fostering an interest in reading was the teacher reading aloud to the class (Fielding et al., 1984; Sirota, 1971). However, this does not seem to be the case for all readers (Landy, 1977; Whitehead et aL, 1977). Requiring students to read a certain number of books has also been reported (Fielding et al., 1984; Squire & Applebee, 1968) as a factor influencing amounts of time spent reading out of school, but this would seem to fall under the category of homework rather than reading for pleasure. Squire and Applebee (1968) were able to tease out assigned reading outside of school from unassigned personal reading, and reported that British high school students spent more time per week than American high school students on unassigned personal reading. 42 Providing time in the classroom for reading seems to carry over to home reading in some studies (Lane, 1985; Wilson et al., 1986), but not in all cases (Morrow & Weinstein, 1986). Although Whitehead et al. (1977) found significant differences for school organization, curriculum arrangement, and types of materials on amount of voluntary reading, they did not find any conclusive evidence for the influence of method of instruction on voluntary reading. Nor did Mervar and Hiebert (1989) when comparing the effects of the skills oriented approach and the literature based approach on the amount of home reading, or McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, and Jenkins (1992) when comparing the basal approach to reading with the whole language approach while investigating leisure-reading attitudes. Moffitt (1992), when comparing the high schools that participated in a study that measured the importance of leisure reading, found that the religiously affiliated high school had the fewest readers (40% did not read) whereas, the university high school reported only 17% not reading, with the remaining three regular high schools at 23%, 27%, and 24% of students not reading in their leisure time. Picha (1988), investigating how much leisure reading grade-six anglophone children in early French immersion did in English and in French, reported that the language preference for the children’s leisure reading was English. The children who read a great deal in English also read significatly more than the other children in French. Leisure reading in this study, however, was defined as reading done in a person’s free time which could be at school during USSR or at home. Two studies where the researcher was also the teacher (Greaney, 1970; Healy, 1965) did report a significant effect for their method of instruction. Healy (1965) followed a program where the children were allowed to choose reading groups according to interest, select reading materials from a wide variety, elect child leaders on a rotating basis, and plan creative activities. A combination of small group instruction, flexible grouping, reading partners, and individualized instruction was used. Reading skills were inventoried and remedied through other language arts instruction using small groups, partners, games and clinical teaching. (p.269) Although it was not reported what happened in the control group, other than they “were subjected to the same climate of learning prior to fifth grade and subsequently” (p.272), Healy found that there was a significant difference in the number of books read by the time these students were at the junior high level (the experimental group). Since it was not explicitly 43 stated where these books were read or for what purposes, it must be assumed that some of these books were read in school and possibly for school purposes. Greaney (1970) compared boys who were assigned to either the basal reader approach or the individualized reading approach in grade six. Both groups used the same classroom library and were taught by Greaney. After eight months, the experimental group—using the individualized approach—read more books and devoted significantly more time to book reading during leisure time. However, the amount of time spent reading for leisure when all materials were taken into account was not significantly different between the two groups. Six years later, about 90% of these participants were contacted and findings revealed that differences in the amount of time spent reading for leisure was not significant, but the number of books read or proportion of books read, was significant for a greater number of subjects in the experimental group (Greaney & Clarke, 1975). Two studies reported school related reasons for not reading for grade-seven students. Both Healy (1965) and Landy (1977) found that some of their nonreaders had experienced difficulties in learning to read, and had experienced difficulties in their early school years. Landy (1977) also found that many of the nonreaders had conceptions of reading that Shapiro (1981) has discussed in regard to instructional practices in the classroom. Landy (1977) describes nonreaders as those students who have “associated reading with school related projects and for that reason have negative or work connotation associated with it” (p.262). Ability differences has been one variable consistently reported in investigations of leisure reading behavior. Studies reviewed in this section for school and home practices that have reported differences are somewhat mixed in their results, however. These results have ranged from finding that ability is strongly linked to amounts of time spent reading for leisure (Covington, 1985; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Landy, 1977; Long & Henderson, 1972; Moffitt, 1992; Sirota, 1971; Whitehead et al., 1977), to playing a small role (Lamme, 1976), to having no difference (Hansen, 1969; Mervar & Hiebert, 1989). Turning to the home environment, where children spend more time than at school, what happens at home that might encourage reading for leisure also needs to be explored. Examining home practices related to reading, and whether or not these practices affect the amount of time 44 a student spends reading for leisure out of school, seems more reasonable than reporting levels of socioeconomic status or levels of education for the parents when investigating how students might develop the leisure reading habit (Dave, 1963; Greaney, 1980; Hansen, 1969; Neuman 1986a; 1986b). As pointed out in a publication by the Nation’s Report Card (Foertsch, 1992), it is important to understand “the extent to which home support is available for reading” (p.21). Levels of socioeconomic status or education levels of parents do not by themselves provide answers. Greaney and Hegarty (1987) found that “considerable variation in patterns of leisure reading occurs within individual SES categories” (p.15). However, traditionally, socioeconomic status has been reported in the literature and continues to be included along with other variables more sensitive to the home environment. Most studies have found that SES correlates positively with leisure reading (Greaney, 1980; Heyns, 1978; Landy, 1977; Long & Henderson, 1972; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Whitehead et al., 1977; Wiseman, 1967), although, Hansen (1969) found no significant relationship with father’s occupation and independent reading, and Greaney and Hegarty (1987) found “in general, the amount of time given to book reading correlated more highly with the home press variables than with SES” (p.11). Levels of education for the parents and its affect on leisure reading for high school students was reported by Moffitt (1992) as being statistically significant for the mothers’ level of education but not for the fathers’. Hansen (1969) also found no significant relationship between fathers’ education and independent reading for grade-four students. The evolution of home press variables, considered more sensitive to amounts of time spent reading for leisure than to levels of SES or education of parents, seems to have surfaced heavily in the area of reading achievement (Bloom, 1964; Durkin, 1960/61; 1963; Milner, 1951; Plessas & Oakes, 1964; Sheldon & Carrillo, 1952; Sutton, 1964; Van Alstyne, 1929); and in the area of reading interest (Cutright & Brueckner, 1928; Dave, 1963; WolfIe, 1961). Based on the findings of these studies in the literature, Hansen (1969), investigating grade-four students’ independent reading attitude, devised a questionnaire to measure the home literary environment: “1) availability of literary materials in the home, 2) amount of reading done 45 with the child, 3) reading guidance and encouragement, and 4) parents as model reading examples” (p.21-22). This home literary environment variable was found to be “the only significant contribution to independent reading. Father’s occupation and education as well as the child’s test I. Q. showed no significant relationship” (Hansen, 1969, p.22). In a second publication, Hansen (1973) reported on further analyses of the home literary environment variable to tease out which of the four factors were possibly contributing to the significance of the home environment, the analyses revealed that reading guidance and encouragement, which included amount of reading done with the child, stood out from the other two components. Availability of reading materials, and parents as reading models ranked much lower. Greaney and Hegarty (1987) also included a press for reading in their investigation of leisure reading for grade-five students. This press for reading included: parental interest in reading, provision of space or opportunity for reading, availability of reading materials, parental reading, reading with the child, purchasing of reading materials, and encouragement to read. As mentioned above, the authors found this home press variable to correlate much more with amount of time given to book reading during leisure time than with socioeconomic status. After a series of chi-square analyses on these different components of the home press variable, they reported that heavy readers—defined as reading more than one hour for four days—were more likely to have had books bought for them by parents during the previous year, were more likely to have fathers who were perceived as having more time to read books, were more likely to read in bed, and were more likely to have received encouragement to read particular books. Identifying variables in the home environment that might influence children’s leisure reading at the grade-five level was the sole objective in an investigation by Neuman (1986a; 1986b). The study was reported from two perspectives: answers obtained from parent interviews (1 986a); identifying and representing students in quartiles based on TV viewing and leisure reading, and then comparing home environments (1986b). Data was assembled from one hour telephone interviews with the parents of 84 students in the first analyses (1986a) and 59 in the second (1986b), from the Boston area of the United States. The sample 46 was 64% Caucasian, 14% Hispanic, 13% Black, and 7% other. Mean socioeconomic class was slightly lower middle, with 24% of the sample being single parents (Neuman, 1986a). Based on the interviews, it was estimated that the grade-five students of these parents spent an average of 15 minutes per day reading for leisure. All participants were members of a public library. Neuman reported that family socioeconomic status correlated positively with the reading process variables. “Children’s leisure reading behavior, including the number of books read, the time spent reading, and family discussions of books and magazines, were significantly and positively correlated with higher status” (Neuman, 1986a, p.338; 1986b). The home variables which had significant correlations with leisure reading, even after controlling for gender and SES, indicated that the parents of children who read more provided diverse leisure activities for exploring the environment outside of the home, gave their children the space to develop independence and responsibility, and encouraged their children to read. This last variable was the strongest of the three correlates. Parents of readers “were inclined to help children relate their reading of newspapers, magazines, and books to everyday events” (Neuman, 1986a, p.339), read themselves, and read often to their sons and daughters. After controlling for gender and SES, parental reading did not seem to correlate with leisure reading. However, “the frequency of being read to as a young child” and the “availability of daily newspapers and magazines” were both significantly associated with reading (p.340). Although the same findings are reported where students are placed into quartiles representing heavy to light TV viewing, and heavy to light readers of leisure, there are some interesting patterns. Parents of light TV viewers--light readers required their children to do more household chores than others in the sample; . . . children in the light reading groups were also expected to spend more time on homework each night than the heavy reading groups. (Neuman, 1986b, p.179) Apparently, parents of heavy readers read to their children when they were young on a daily basis, whereas parents of light readers did not establish a regular routine. As well, parents of light readers read fewer books themselves than did the parents of heavy readers. “Encouragement” means “discussing his reading; reading to him” (p.98) according to Hansen (1973); means “encouragement to read a particular book’ (p.11) for Greaney and Hegarty 47 (1987); and to Neuman (1986a), it means to be “inclined to help children relate their reading of newspapers, magazines, and books to everyday events” (p.339); reading themselves; and reading often to their Sons and daughters. Separating these components of encouragement, there is support for some, and contrary findings for others within the literature. First, “discussing the child’s leisure reading” has been found to have a significant effect on the amount of independent reading (Hansen, 1973; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). Greaney and Hegarty (1987) reported that heavy readers were more likely to be encouraged to read a particular book. Second, the amount of reading to a child, while the child was young, was also found to have a significant effect on the amount of time spent reading for leisure (American Federation of Teachers & Chrysler Corp., 1992; Covington, 1985; Hansen, 1973; Neuman 1986a; 1986b). Third, providing newspapers and magazines was significantly associated with leisure reading in one study (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b), while other studies (Landy, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1977) reported a positive association between amount of book reading and the ownership of a significant number of books—more than ten—but found no relationship between the number of newspapers and amount of book reading, unless these were “quality” newspapers (Whitehead et aL, 1977). Some studies have found that frequent readers were provided books by their parents (Clark, 1976; Covington, 1985; Fielding et al., 1984; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), while others found this not significant to independent reading (Hansen, 1973; Pluck, Ghafari, Glynn, & McNaughton, 1984). Fourth, several studies have found that “parents as reading models” was found to be the best predictor of time spent reading for leisure (Clark, 1976; Landy, 1977; Pluck et al., 1984; Whitehead et al., 1977; Wiseman, 1967), while others have not found this to be statistically significant (Hansen, 1973; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). Frequent readers seem to be more likely to perceive their fathers (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), or a parent of the same sex (Lancly, 1977), as having more time for reading books. Besides the idea of encouragement, other home variables that have been reported as having a significant affect on leisure reading are the provision of diverse leisure activities (Landy, 1977; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b), and the space to develop independence and responsibility (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). Providing a space in the home for reading has been documented by 48 several studies as having an impact on the amount of time spent reading for leisure (Fielding et al., 1984; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Landy, 1977). Reading in bed or the bedroom seems to be the most popular place with all these studies but one. Family size has been included in several studies on leisure reading, and although some have found amount of book reading to be positively associated with small families—about three children—(Greaney, 1980; Landy, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1977), one study reported no significant relationship (Hansen, 1969). Birth order was found to correlate negatively with amounts of time spent reading in one study (Greaney, 1980) but not in another (Hansen, 1969). There is agreement over the influence of membership in a public library and how it correlates with reading outside of school or one’s attitude toward recreational reading (Greaney, 1980; Heyns, 1978; Holmes, 1932; Landy, 1977; McKenna & Kear, 1990), although, some have limited this finding to the number of books borrowed (Long & Henderson, 1972), and others to the regularity of library visits—every ten days—(Whitehead et al., 1977). Distance between the home and the library (Heyns, 1978), and between the school and the library (Holmes, 1932) also has been reported to have an impact on the amount of reading. Heyns (1978) found that sixth and seventh grade students who lived less than seven blocks from the library read more books in the summer than those who lived beyond walking distance. Apparently at the time that Holmes (1932) conducted an investigation on the voluntary reading of students from grade five to eight, schools were providing reading materials for their students. Since it was not stated that this voluntary reading only took place out of school, it may have been possible that some of this reading took place at school. Over the time period of a year it was reported that the students who possessed library cards at the school that was farthest from the public library had read the least number of books. In conclusion, only one study reported any differences for ethnicity. Landy (1977) found that leisure readers tended to be less likely to have mothers who spoke another language although, 22% of the avid readers commonly spoke another language at home. Gender differences continue to indicate that girls do the most reading (Anderson et al., 1988; Greaney, 1980; Hansen, 1969; Heyns, 1978; Holmes, 1932; Landy, 1977; Lane, 49 1985; Moffitt, 1992; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Whitehead et aL, 1977); discuss their reading material more often with other family members (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b); are less dependent on library use for reading outside of school (Heyns, 1978); and read fewer books of their own as they get older, resorting instead to borrowing books from friends or other family members (Whitehead et al., 1977). Covington (1985) found little difference between boys and girls in the number of books read and time spent on reading at the grade-seven level. Whitehead et al. (1977) have noted that of the three significant school related reasons for voluntary reading, only two of these reasons indicated gender differences. One of these reasons was the arrangement of the curriculum, where schools having a fully integrated timetable had fewer nonbook-readers—this was significant for boys. The other reason had to do with the types of book provisions in English lessons. Schools using class sets of either course books, comprehension books, or thematic anthologies had more nonreaders—this was significant for girls. The findings from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. For example, some of the studies reported in this section could be criticised for being based on small samples (Fielding et al., 1984; Pluck et al., 1984), the lack of information about the control group (Healy, 1965), or the use of the instrument itself (Whitehead et al., 1977). By their own admission, Whitehead et al. were so disappointed in their lack of conclusive evidence for the schools, that they suspected that perhaps “the features of school life which are most important in regard to reading are singularly resistant to probing by means of a written questionnaire” (p.98). Data concerning practices in the home environment around reading were collected through the use of questionnaires or interviews except for one study, where the study was conducted in the researcher’s own home (Pluck et al., 1984). Sometimes the students themselves provided the answers (Covington, 1985; Greaney, 1980; Landy, 1977; Moffitt, 1992; Whitehead et al., 1977), and sometimes the parents did (American Federation of Teachers & Chrysler Corp., 1992; Clark, 1976; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Heyns, 1978; Neuman, 1986a; Wiseman, 1967), or only the mothers did (Hansen, 1969). Some studies report how these interviews 50 happen, others do not. One study reported that the students provided this information, but failed to say what method was used to elicit the answers (Long & Henderson, 1972). Both of these approaches fall under the category of self-report and have several limitations. For one thing, they are often based on recall. Second, the respondent sometimes does not really have access to the information required, such as realistic amounts of time their youngster spends reading. Third, there is the social desirability factor which can operate for children as well as adults in wanting to please their interviewer. Because of these limitations, readers need to be cautious about the findings of studies relying only on self-report. Referring back to the sweeping statement at the beginning of this section by Guthrie and Greaney (1991) that “the amount of independent reading for both boys and girls is positively related to” (p.90) . . . there are only a few parts of their statement that seem to have unanimous support: the ownership of a library card, recreational interests, and home values (which would include literacy interactions). The remaining parts of their statement are not supported by all studies, and whether these effects are significant for both boys and girls is also up for debate. What are some of the practices in the classroom and in the home that may contribute to spending time leisure reading? One practice that both environments share is literacy interactions. In the school, it seems to be that discussions concerning leisure materials, how these relate to everyday events, and recommendations arising from these discussions seem to have a significant impact on time spent reading. In the home, it seems that these discussions within the family about leisure materials, and recommending materials have also been shown to make a difference in the amount of time spent leisure reading. Reading frequently to children could conceivably be an element of literacy interactions and has been reported to make a significant difference within the home environment, but not in school. Providing newspapers and magazines, a space for reading, and developing a positive library habit also seem to have made a significant difference on the amount of time spent reading for leisure. Practices around reading in both of these environments are examined in this study. Data were collected using self-report methods but were assembled from a variety of sources. 51 Classroom practices around reading were confirmed through personal interviews with the teachers and students, as well as by telephone interviews with the parents. Home practices around reading were verified through these same telephone interviews with the parents, as well as through the personal interviews with the students. Levels of socioeconomic status and education levels for both parents were also documented. By using these techniques, these variables were taken into account and add to the growing body of literature regarding leisure reading. Summary We do not know why children who are able to read do not choose to read as a possible activity during their out-of-school time. We have a fairly good idea what they are doing out of school, but not jj they choose not to read. Since the literature supports the notion that there is a decline in leisure reading as the child matures, this is an important question. Some children even start this decline during the years of the “reading craze,” age 10 to 13. Traditionally, prGviding rewards for reading were thought to be the answer, but it is apparent that the use of rewards has some serious side-effects. In essence, it seems to be that the conditions under which rewards are given is what increases or decreases intrinsic motivation. Contingent rewards (depending on the quality of the performance) initially undermine intrinsic motivation, whereas non-contingent rewards (performance only) tend not to undermine intrinsic motivation. However, subjects who receive rewards subsequently tend to choose easier tasks. Two pieces of the puzzle that may help explain why children who are capable of reading choose not to read may be found in locus of control, and/or recreational reading attitudes. “Many studies that have attempted to explain leisure reading have in the main lacked an affective component” (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987, p.5). While not all studies have found a relationship between locus of control and reading, some have reported that children with an internal orientation seem to exhibit higher reading readiness scores (Bartel, 1971), better reading ability or achievement (Boraks et al., 1993; 52 Charlton & Terell, 1987; Matheny & Edwards, 1974; Nielsen & Long, 1981; Pani, 1991; Willey, 1978; Wooster, 1974), more positive reading attitudes (Blaha & Chomin, 1982), as well as completing a greater number of books in a summer program (Willey, 1978). Murray and Staebler (1974) found that students made greater gains in reading comprehension and language mechanics if their teacher had an internal orientation. It would seem safe to say that there is something going on with subjects who feel that their behavior has something to do with gaining rewards—whether intrinsic or extrinsic. One certainly can not make a prediction about how children will spend their time out of school if one has not also examined certain attitudes. Many studies that investigated students’ out-of-school activities did not examine reading attitudes. Hansen (1969) found that factors in the home environment explain a significant portion of the variance in a child’s reading attitude. The review indicates that there is some kind of interaction among positive attitudes, achievement, and time spent leisure reading. Some studies have found correlations with either high achievement and time spent reading for recreation (Gorman et al., 1981), or positive attitudes and higher achievement (Blaha & Chomin, 1982), or positive attitudes and time spent leisure reading (Allen et al., 1992; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987, Long & Henderson, 1972). Whitehead et al. (1977) found correlations for both variables. Duggins (1989) reported no significant differences at the grade-six level for interest in reading, reading interests, and in the way students claim to spend their leisure time regardless of whether the student was ESL, honors, suburban, urban or semi-rural. McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, and Jenkins (1992) reported that there is a steady decline of recreational-reading attitudes from grades one through five, although Cloer and Pearman (1993) reported this finding only to be true for boys. It seems that the two environments where children spend each day can have an affect on how they choose to spend their time. Choosing to spend time reading is supported by literacy interactions that take place not only in the home but also in the school. Discussions with and recommendations from adults and peers (Fielding et al., 1984; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Hansen, 1973; Lamme, 1976; Lane, 1985; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Schwenn et al., 1970), 53 and how materials relate to everyday life (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b) have been shown to have a significant impact on the amount of time spent reading for leisure. Being a member of the public library (Greaney, 1980; Heyns, 1978; Holmes, 1932; Landy, 1977; McKenna & Kear, 1990)), and using it (Long & Henderson, 1972; Whitehead et aL, 1977), having a quiet space at home to read (Fielding et al., 1984; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Landy, 1977), plus having various types of materials available also provide support to pursue the activity of leisure reading (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). Throughout this review, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, and ability differences have been reported. These variables have been discussed in relation to leisure reading, locus of control, reading attitudes, and school and home variables. How would these differences relate to the infrequent reader who is capable of reading in Grade five? It would seem that when it comes to book or periodical reading, the infrequent reader would tend to be a boy (Anderson et al., 1988; Greaney, 1980; Hansen, 1969; Heyns, 1978; Holmes, 1932; Landy, 1977; Lane, 1985; Moffitt, 1992; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Whitehead et al., 1977). If comic books were being analyzed, the infrequent reader would tend to be a girl (Greaney, 1980; Maxwell, 1977). However, Long and Henderson (1972) found no significant differences in the number of books read or time spent reading at this grade level for boys and girls. The infrequent reader would also tend to be from a lower level of socioeconomic status (Greaney, 1980; Long & Henderson, 1972; Maxwell, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1977). Duggins (1989) found that the infrequent reader could be from any ethnic background. Locus of control correlates significantly with SES (Bartel, 1971; Battle & Rotter, 1963; Strodtbeck, 1958; Willey, 1978), and ability (R. T. Brown, 1980; Cervantes, 1976a; 1976b; Little & Kendall, 1978; Nowicki & Roundtree, 1971; Nowicki & Segal, 1973; Nowicki & Walker, 1974; Ollendick, 1979; Prawatt et al., 1979; Sherman & Hoffman, 1980; Tesiny, Lefkowitz & Gordon, 1980), but how this fits in with the reader—whether frequent or infrequent—is a very recent field of research, and no comment can be made from this perspective at this time. Since boys tend to exhibit lower scores on measures of reading attitude (Duggins, 1989; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Hansen, 1969; Lane, 1985; McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1989; 54 McKenria, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, & Jenkins, 1992), this may explain why they are also the ones more likely to be reading fewer books at this grade level. In this review, SES (Duggins, 1989; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Whitehead et al., 1977), and ethnicity (Duggins, 1989) have been found to have no relationship with reading attitudes. In the home, it seems that boys of this age tend not to discuss their leisure reading material as often as girls (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). Not having the frequency of this literacy interaction may be one reason for boys not spending as much time as do girls reading for leisure. Schools that follow a structured timetable for usual subject divisions were found to be more likely to have infrequent male readers (Whitehead et al., 1977). And finally, Landy (1977) reported that infrequent readers tended to have mothers who speak more than one language. In conclusion, only a few studies mentioned in this review have investigated time spent reading for leisure and reading attitudes (Allen et al., 1992; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Long & Henderson, 1972; Whitehead et al., 1977), although Manning and Manning (1984) investigated reading attitudes and recreational reading at school. There have been no investigations of locus of control and leisure reading other than by this author (Whitney, 1986). No evidence has been found to indicate that a study has been conducted which investigates all these variables—locus of control, recreational-reading attitudes, and school and home variables—and the impact these may or may not have on a grade-five student’s decision on how to spend time out of school. Understanding what might contribute to the decision to spend time leisure reading should provide some interesting pieces to the literacy puzzle. 55 CHAPTER III Method The purpose of this study was to investigate why a child who can read either elects to read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. Frequent readers are defined as students who are capable of reading at the level of their peers and choose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-school time. Infrequent readers are students that are capable of reading at the eveI of their peers but rarely choose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-school time. This chapter describes the design, the subjects, the instruments, and the procedures used to investigate this question. Design The research problem being investigated was why a capable reader either elects to read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. This problem was investigated through an exploratory study using a survey design. The group measured was a sample of grade-five students selected from four classrooms who had volunteered to participate in the study. The method of data collection included closed diaries, available measuring instruments, and personal interviews. A pilot study had been conducted a year earlier using these same methods with a grade-five sample found in one classroom. Subjects The subjects were students selected from four grade-five classrooms in three different schools which served families with similar economic backgrounds in a suburban area of British Columbia, Canada. Parents occupations were coded according to guidelines from Statistics Canada—Census Canada 1986: Occupation: population and dwelling characteristics (1986a). 56 Families had fathers who worked predominately in the trades (56%); however some fathers (23%) did work in service, sales, and clerical occupations, as well as some fathers who worked in managerial positions (19%). A small percent (2%) of these occupations were not classified either because of missing data or were homemakers. Twenty-five percent of the mothers worked as homemakers, while the predominate occupation for mothers outside the home was a clerical position (42%). The remaining mothers worked in managerial occupations (17%), in sales or service occupations (15%), and in the trades (1%). Economic backgrounds were assigned using socioeconomic status scores (SES) established in an index that “locates individuals in the Canadian occupational hierarchy” (Blishen, Carroll, & Moore, 1987, p.473). The scores on this index reflect a composite of the prevailing income and education levels in each occupation rather than a measure of occupational prestige. The average socioeconomic score for this group of fathers, based on a socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada (Blishen et al., 1987), was 41.70 (Q 13.47), and the average score for this group of mothers was 31.15 (fl 19.64). Like other investigators reporting SES scores, but not necessarily using this instrument, the higher score of the two parents, or in some cases the only score given, was used to establish the SES score for each subject (Farmer, 1985; Hannah & Kahn, 1989; Johnston, 1992; Super & Nevell, 1984). Using this technique of assigning the higher score of the parents inflates the average SES score for the group. The average SES score for this group of grade-five students was 45.31 ( 12.16). The sensitive issue of whether the families of students were single parent or two-parent was not investigated. If there was only one score to report for the family, that was the score assigned to the subject. The three schools were located in a school district just outside a major metropolitan area in British Columbia, Canada. This particular school district was chosen because there was no policy in place limiting intact classrooms. Another school district had approved the study but could only provide “split” grade-five classrooms that contained either grade-four, or -six, students. The enrollment for the participating district was 17, 313 students as of June, 1993. The three schools had current enrollments of 539 students, 388 students, and 444 students. These three schools are adjacent to each other—no further apart than eight blocks—having 57 overlapping catchment areas, and they enrolled students in kindergarten through grade seven. The three schools were selected because of the number of grade-five students enrolled and the belief that students would be coming from similar economic backgrounds. One hundred and five children in the four classrooms were invited to participate in this voluntary study. Five students had not been invited due to the teacher’s decision that because of autism (1), social learning (2), and foreign language (2), these students would find participation in a study too frustrating. Sixty-nine students elected to participate and were given permission to do so by their parents or guardians. Since the study was designed to investigate only capable readers, ten students were eliminated from the sample group because both teacher judgement and the comprehension scores from the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (1992) found them to be low on their reading ability. An additional six students were eliminated for various reasons: three, because their parents did not speak English and would not be able to participate in the telephone interview; one because permission was not granted for the child to be interviewed; one because the parent refused to be interviewed; and one child contracted chicken pox. Consequently, the final sample group was reduced to 53 students (21 boys and 32 girls). The mean age for this sample was 1 0 years and 6 months. The ethnic origins were Caucasian (83% or 44 students), Asian (13% or 7 students), Aboriginal (2% or 1 student), and one family that could not decide from what part of the world their ancestors came from. The educational backgrounds of the fathers included individuals with professional degree—MD, JD, DDS—to less than high school; for the mothers, educational levels ranged from a masters degree to less than high school. The average educational level was high school completion (12 years) for both fathers and mothers. Demographics were established for each subject through the parent interview which included questions concerning occupation for both parents, the ancestry of each parent, as well as the educational background for each parent. While this group does not represent any particular universe, it is a diversified suburban sample of children whose out of-school activities presumably reflect normal grade-five students’ lives. 58 All 53 students participated in providing information about their out-of-school activities, completed a locus of control scale and an attitude toward recreational reading scale, answered comprehension questions from standardized reading passages, participated in an indepth interview, and had one parent interviewed over the telephone. Instruments To help students account for their time out of school, CLOCK-SHEETS (Appendices 1, 2, 3) were developed by the researcher with the assistance of a graphic artist. There were clock- sheets alloted for an after school day, a weekend day, and a weekend night. The clock-sheet consisted of a clockface with each hour sector having four circles of approximately 15 minutes. Using this format allows for the advantages of the closed or controlled diary technique (Smalley, 1958) where “lost time” is avoided and recording is simplified. The circles are used to insert codes which represent a large variety of activities. These activities, expanded from Anderson et al. (1988), are grouped under several categories namely, “I played”, “I did”, “I watched/listened’, “I”, “what else did I do”, and “I went to”. The activities within each category are assigned codes and written in the clock diagram for the appropiate time. Some of these activities, as reported in Anderson et al. (1 988), need some additional information from the student: title of book, game played, and lesson/practice for, in order to be a more valid indicator of actual participation. There is space provided on the form for this information. A supply of sheets remained in a student’s folder at school since students were provided with time in school to fill them out on a daily basis for three weeks. These folders had been pre stuffed with 17 “After School Day” clock-sheets, and six of each “Weekend Day” and “Weekend Night” clock-sheets. Students could take a clock-sheet home if they desired during the week; on Fridays, all students took the sheets home since they needed to account for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday when they returned to school on Monday (Curr, Hallworth, & Wilkinson, 1962). Confidentiality was stressed, with each student being assigned a code number (Curr et al., 1962) to be recorded on their clock-sheets, and assurances were given that teachers or parents would not have access to, nor be questioned about a student’s out-of-school activities. 59 The clock-sheets were piloted on one grade-five class, and were found to be an effective instrument for this purpose. There were some minor changes after the pHot-study; special codes were added for bathing, dressing, eating, sleeping, and transportation. Although these activities were not tallied, the pilot study brought out the unnecessary conferencing between researcher and student over omissions in the clock that were due to these daily occurrences. As suggested by the students, more space was also provided for games, sports, and “what else I did”. If the use of your physical body was required to play the game, then this was the deciding factor for determining a sport; otherwise the activity was considered a game. Another addition, due to findings in the pilot study, was to place a “T” for ‘transportation” into one of the circles at three o’clock to account for getting home from school, since many students would start putting codes into all four circles at three o’clock. Finally, the decision was also made to divide the time equally if two activities were going on at the same time; for example, television/homework, listening to music/doing chores, or game playing/television (Greaney, 1980). The Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale(Nowicki & Strickland, 1973), was used to measure locus of control. This scale had been reviewed by Lefcourt (1991) as one of the better measures of locus of control for children currently available. It was constructed and published in 1973 and is considered appropriate for ages nine to eighteen. Estimates of internal consistency via the split-half method, corrected by Spearman-Brown are r = .63 (grades 3, 4, 5); L =.68 (grades 6, 7, 8); c =.74 (grades 9, 10, 11); L = .71 (grade 12); test-retest reliabilities samples at three grade levels, six weeks apart were .63 for the third grade, .66 for the seventh grade, and .71 for the tenth grade. (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973, p.152) While these reliability estimates are not particularly high, they represent the best available. As such, the instrument was used for this study, but the reader should be aware of the shortcomings of this instrument. Strickland (1989) has stated that the scale is “not related to social desirability, intelligence measures, or gender” (p.4). The scale has 40 declarative statements that require a “yes” or “no” response circled by the subject. High scores reflect an external locus of control orientation and low scores reflect an internal locus of control orientation. The administrator of the scale reads the questions twice to the students while students read from their own copies. The instrument takes about ten minutes to administer. 60 The Student Interview((Appendix 4) was developed by the researcher to clarify what reinforcements or rewards each student derived from his/her most frequent leisure activities, and what values he/she attached to these rewards. There are a series of questions which repeat through three different activities identified by the clock-sheets: a student’s number one activity, that which had the most amount of time over the last three weeks; as well as the number two activity; and finally, the activity of leisure reading. After these three were explored in the interview, questions that centered on reading classroom practices, and home reading practices were elicited. The interview was first piloted on ten students from a grade-five class. Using procedures suggested in Sudman & Bradburn (1983), one question was eliminated because it failed to discriminate among respondents. There were some minor changes due to formating, precoding, wording, and sequencing. Two new questions were added: one to strengthen the exploration of intrinsic rewards, and one to explore sociability. This final draft was then piloted on ten different students from the same class. Again, there were adjustments made to the interview, namely, sequencing of questions—due to two questions where the answer of the first would possibly influence the answer of the second, adding a question requiring the use of cue cards for measuring reinforcement-values, and eliminating eight questions which appeared to be redundant. The interview took about 22-52 minutes to administer, averaging 33 minutes. Students were asked at the end of the interview what they thought the study centered on (Anderson et al., 1988; Greaney, 1970; 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), and not one student suspected that the researchers interest was reading. The Teacher Interview(Appendix 5) was developed by the researcher as an instrument to account for the possible impact of classroom practices around reading on the out-of-school activities of the students. The questions focus on the reading programs, reading materials and reading activities within the classroom, as well as on the personal reading habits of each teacher. The interview was piloted on one grade-five teacher, and took about 15 minutes to administer. Some minor changes were then made due to formating, precoding, wording and sequencing. There was one new question added for clarification and three questions were 61 dropped because the answers were redundant or inapplicable to the research question. During data collection it became apparent that the procedures used for filling out the clock-sheets, documenting reading progress, and the use of journals in each classroom should be verified and noted. Five new questions were added to the Teacher Interview in order to accomplish this, and another two questions describing the characteristics of the student population within the class and the school were posed. The Parent Interview (Appendix 6) was developed by the researcher as an instrument to account for any support or encouragement that students might receive in the home for the activities that they choose to do out of school. The questions center on the parent’s leisure activities—ones that were similar to the student’s, reading in the home and at school, as well as some questions about family background. The interview was piloted on 20 parents of a grade-five class and took about 10 to 25 minutes to administer over the telephone, averaging about 17 minutes. Three questions were eliminated because they did not appear to provide the kind of information required, and the stem of one question was dropped because it did not discriminate among respondents. There were some minor changes due to formating, precoding, wording, and sequencing. Six new questions were added: two to continue the triangular exploration of classroom practices around reading, one to explore the child’s sociability, and three to specify kinds of reading materials. Ethnic categories were coded according to guidelines from Statistics Canada (1986a), as well as occupational classifications (1986b). Coding for educational backgrounds as well as follow- up questions on class of worker were taken from Sudman & Bradburn (1983). Socioeconomic status categories were established using an index that “locates indivduals in the Canadian occupational hierarchy” (Blishen et aI., 1987, p.473). The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey((McKenna, & Kear, 1990), is intended for grades one to six, and consists of two subscales: one for recreational reading, and one for academic reading. “Each item presents a brief, simply-worded statement about reading, followed by four pictures of Garfield. Each pose is designed to depict a different emotional state, ranging from very positive to very negative” (p.636). These statements are read aloud twice by the 62 examiner as the students think and circle one of the pose’s of Garfield that is closest to their own feelings about that particular statement about reading. The entire scale Consists of 20 items; 10 for recreational reading, and 10 for academic reading, and can be administered in about 10 minutes. Reliability was established using Cronbachs alpha to calculate at each grade level for both subscales, and for the composite score. These coefficients ranged from .74 to .89 which were judged to be sufficiently large to use the instrument for this study. At the grade five level, the coefficient was .86 for the recreational subscale. Validity was also established for both the recreational subscale and the academic subscale, as well as the relationship between the subscales by administering this instrument to a national sample of over 18,000 children in grades one to six. Since this study investigated leisure reading, it was decided to give only the subscale for recreational reading. McKenna, Stratton, and Grindler (1992) conducted further research with this instrument to determine if a social desirability bias might exist. A total of 1,142 children in grades one to six participated in this study and it was found that only “9 to 11 .6 percent of the variance in ERAS subscale scores can be accounted for by social desirability” (p.6). Procedure So as not to bias this study, the principals, teachers, parents, and students were told that the researcher’s interest was to document out-of-school activities—what grade-five students spend their time doing out of school, and why they choose to participate in these activities. A. Taylor (1982) has pointed out that it is difficult in ‘obtainin a true report from children who tend to supply the answer they think the investigator expects, or the answer their teacher would like them to give, rather than admit to low taste or to no reading at all” (p.2). This is supported by Nell (1988a) who talks about respondents “ever willing to please interviewers” (p.24). In an effort to avoid some of these methodological difficulties, students accounted for what they did during their out-of-school time on a clock-sheet (Appendices 1, 2, 3). These daily clock sheets solve the brief time interval probes of single questions pointed out by Anderson et at. (1988) and McEady-Gillead (1989), as well as the indeterminate interval probes of vague 63 response options, which can both be found in surveys. Greaney (1980) has also suggested “that the amount or proportion of the total leisure time a pupil allots to reading is a more appropriate and sensitive measure of the leisure reading habit” (p.342). During the month of May, an application for the conducting of research” was submitted to the school district. In September, a letter was sent by the district to all elementary-school principals within the district announcing that a study on children’s out-of-school activities had been given district approval and asked principals if they would be interested in volunteering their schools. Two principals indicated an interest. These two schools were several miles apart and had populations of students whose socioeconomic backgrounds were dissimilar. The larger school was chosen by the researcher to participate because it contained two complete grade-five classes and it was in close proximity to several other schools with large populations of grade-five students. A second school within blocks of this school was telephoned by the researcher and appointments were made with the grade-five teachers to determine if they might be interested in participating. All teachers agreed to join the study with the condition that the date be postponed from January to February. The researcher agreed to their request. Later, a third school was added to the study (discussion to follow). At an appointed meeting with the principals, more details were given about the study— namely that the study was one which investigates grade-five students’ activities out-of-school— what rewards children gain from these activities, and what might possibly influence these decisions as to how they spend their time. Principals were given a copy of the permission letter to be sent home with each student, copies of all instruments that would be administered, and a schedule of events indicating not only when the researcher would be at the school site, as well as the Monday-assistant—a graduate student hired for these purposes, but also the various phases that the study would follow. Time was also available to answer any questions that they may have had in regard to the study. The daily schedule for the school was confirmed at this meeting— commencement, recess, lunch, dismissal—as well as any holidays or early dismissals scheduled for this time of the year. Permission was sought and given to administer a standardized reading 64 test for the research purpose of establishing ability levels. A space for interviews was also considered since it was found in the pilot study that when this space shifted, both the interviewer and the interviewee were distracted, not only with interruptions, but also with the unfamiliar surroundings. During the meetings with teachers, the study was introduced in the same fashion as it was with the principal—each teacher receiving a copy of the permission letter, and the various clock-sheets. After discussing the clock-sheets and what role was expected of them as teachers, mainly providing time first thing each morning for three weeks and supplying extra clock- sheets to students when necessary, the proposed schedule of events was examined. This schedule included not only when they could expect the researcher to be in their classrooms initiating the study and answering inquiries from the students or themselves, but also times during the day that would be best for them during their class schedules for the researcher, or Monday- assistant, and students to discuss any discrepancies found on their clock-sheets. Administering the two scales and the reading test, as well as the scheduling of student interviews following the completion of the clock-sheets was also discussed. Arrangements were then made to provide participating teachers with envelopes for collection and extra clock-sheets, as well as to establish dates for the researcher to meet with their classes in order to disperse permission letters, and to follow up with a demonstration of the clock-sheets after all the permission letters were returned. The week that permission letters were to be sent home the researcher was introduced to the class by the teacher. Students were invited at that time by the researcher to participate in a study which would investigate their activities out of school, what they do with their time, and why they choose these activities. Details were given as to what was involved, namely, the filling in of clock-sheets and possibly taking part in an interview, how much time they could expect that this would take, what they might possibly learn from this experience, and to answer any of their questions. The students were reminded that their participation was voluntary and would have no impact on their grades or standing in the class and that they could withdraw from the project at any point of time. Confidentiality was also stressed, that is, they would be assigned 65 code numbers and that no one but the researcher would have access to the data. Assurances were also given that if they were chosen to be interviewed, how they spent their time out of school would not be revealed to their parents, and that the purpose of the parent interview was to find out how they—the parent—spent some of their leisure time. Permission letters were then handed out to be taken home, and to be returned the next day indicating whether or not they had been given permission by their parent or guardian to participate in the study. A week was given for these letters to be returned. At the end of that week, the researcher returned to the schools to collect these signed permission slips, and was told by one classroom teacher that it had been decided to withdraw from the study since only a few students had replied favorably to participating in the study. A third school, located within the same neighborhood area as the other two schools, was contacted, and both the grade-five teacher and the principal agreed to join in the study. The responses to this invitation were mixed at the first two schools: 44% replied favorably, 30% replied negatively, and 26% did not reply at all. The decision was made to make contact with the group of students that had not responded. Each principal had their own idea as to how to go about this. One principal suggested that the researcher telephone the parents and ask if there were any questions that they may have in regard to the study, and to relay the message that it was important that their child participate. The other principal decided to personally contact each student and require that they bring back the permission slip signed the next day stating, one way or the other, whether or not they would be participating. Both approaches produced about the same results for this group (26%) that had not responded: 42% responded favorably to telephone calls by the researcher, and 40% responded favorably to the principal. Students were given instructions on how to use the clock-sheets on the day that the study was to begin. Before starting the demonstration of the clock-sheets, however, students were given a brief lesson on using a clock-face when telling time, since the pilot study had revealed that students were more accustomed to using digital clocks. All participating students that had permission were then given a pocket-folder, marked with their names and assigned code 66 numbers, which contained the clock-sheets. The other students were given a practice clock- sheet in hopes that they would decide to start the study the following day. Students were asked to take out a clock-sheet entitled “After School Day”. With the students working at their desks and the researcher working at the overhead projector, students were asked to fill in the clock-sheet for their out-of-school activities from the day before. As each category was considered, clarifications were made as to how to use the categories and their codes within the clock. Primarily, there were three steps: (1) checking off the boxes that indicated what they did the day before out of school; (2) thinking of the time of day this activity occurred and approximately how much time was spent doing it and placing that code within the clock, remembering that each circle within the hour sector equalled approximately 15 minutes; and (3) completing the information line for those categories asking for completion, for example, a sport called—or a practice/lesson for—etc.. It was pointed out that there were special codes for bathing, dressing, eating, sleeping, and transportation; that the difference between a game and a sport is determined by whether or not you would need the use of your physical body to play the game; that a T for transportation had been placed into one of the circles at three o’clock to account for getting home from school; and finally, if two activities were going on at the same time for example, television/homework, listening to music/doing chores, game playing/television, that they should put both codes near the circle. Students were encouraged to report whatever they were doing, that it was all acceptable. If you were staring out the window, or lying on your bed, or just walking around, that was acceptable. Students were also asked to fill in spaces for additional information required of some activities: such as, sports—what sport?, games—name of the game, books—title or author, reading a newspaper—what was the article about? This step was added in order to have a more valid indicator of actual participation (Allen et al., 1992; Anderson et al., 1988). They were reminded that they needed to leave their folders at school since they would be given time first thing each morning to fill out these clock-sheets. It was certainly acceptable for them to take a clock-sheet home with them if they wanted to, but the folder needed to stay at school so that they would have a supply of clock-sheets to use. On Fridays, they would be 67 reminded by their teacher to take home five clock-sheets for the weekend to help them account for the weekend. To make it easier, the five clock-sheets needed for the weekend were stapled together. After reviewing the clock-sheets that students had initially tried to fill in from the demonstration, the researcher met with each class the following day to clear-up any problem areas that were discovered and to help students with any problems that they may be having filling out their clock-sheet for the first day of the study. The students filled out a clock-sheet on a daily basis for three weeks. A four week time frame was chosen initially because out-of-school activities probably follow persistent behavior patterns (Anderson et al., 1988; A. Taylor, 1982), as well as allowing for some activities that may be intermittent, for example, book reading (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987). However, due to a delayed start, data collection was reduced to three weeks. Five to ten minutes was alloted first thing each morning, except Mondays which took about 20 minutes, for filling out and collecting these forms which were then placed into an envelope to be sealed. These envelopes were collected each day, and the clock-sheets were checked that morning by the researcher for any omissions or other possible clarifications by questioning individual pupils privately (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Smalley, 1958). On Monday mornings, clarifying data collected from the weekend proved to be a time consuming task in the pilot study. The decision was made to hire an assistant to help in one of the schools with this task on Mondays, alternating between schools, with the researcher during the three weeks. On a designated day during this three week period, a locus of control scale—Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973)—was administered to all participating students in each classroom. This scale took approximately 12 minutes to administer and was given by the researcher. Due to absentism, four students were administered the scale individually or in a small group. In order to determine reading ability (Rasinski, 1987; Long & Henderson, 1972), the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (MacGinitie & MacGinitie,1992) and teacher judgment were used to determine whether or not a student was reading at the level of their grade-five peers. 68 Each teacher had been given a copy of their class list and asked to categorize each student into one of two categories: reading at grade level or above, or below grade level. Based on Canadian norms for the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (1992), students who scored at the 34th percentile (which is one standard deviation below the mean based on the forming population on which the test was standardized> or above on the reading passages, as well as those students who were indicated by their teacher as reading at grade level or above, were considered capable readers. Students who were designated by their teachers as reading below grade level, but scored at the 34th percentile or above were also considered capable readers. Students who were designated by their teachers as reading below grade level, and scored below the 34th percentile participated as much as they were able to. They filled out the activity forms and completed the locus of control and attitude towards recreational reading scales, but their data were not included in the analyses. Students who scored below the 34th percentile on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (1 992) but were designated by their teacher as reading at grade level or above were assessed by a third instrument either given by the reading specialist or by the teacher sometime during the school year. There were 10 students eliminated from the sample because they were not capable of reading at the level of their grade-five peers. Limiting the study to only students who are capable of reading solves the problem raised by Spaulding (1992), namely that if one is not capable or not in control, then intrinsic interest is also likely to be missing. The issue of capability was addressed by including only students who could read at the level of their peers; the issue of control was examined by using the locus of control instrument. “Both constructs are necessary to account fully for the psychological state of intrinsic motivation” (Spaulding, 1992, p.181). After the clock-sheets had been completed, collected, and analyzed for amounts of time spent on the different activities, all 53 students participated in individual interviews. The interview schedule (or protocol)(Appendix 4) not only consisted of questions designed to clarify what reinforcements each student derived from the activities and what values they attached to the rewards, but also attempted to account for any possible influences the school environment, as well as the home environment might have had on a student’s out-of-school activities. Neuman 69 (1980) has suggested that open-ended interviews along with records of leisure reading behavior might assist in uncovering ‘the real factors influencing children’s interestsTM pointed out by Huus (1979) after analyzing studies of children’s interests. This is supported by McEady-Gillead (1989) who has ‘resolved that a more definitive view of adolescents’ use of out-of-school time might be gleaned from one-to-one interviews” (p.15). The interviews were conducted at the schools in a room set aside by the principal. Students were informed that the purpose of the interview is to explore with you why you spend time out of school doing some of the things that you do. It’s going to take about 25-30 minutes, and I’m going to ask you some questions about some of your out-of-school activities, some questions about your classroom, and some questions about your home. These are thinking questions, not test questions. There are no right or wrong answers. So, I might ask you something you haven’t thought about before, and that’s what takes a little bit of time. It’s like a talking survey, so take your time, we are not in a rush. The reason I’m using this tape-recorder is so that I can get your complete answer rather than just a part of it. This is confidential, I will not tell anyone who (108) is or what (108) said. I’m just going to talk about grade-five students in the lower Mainland. I’d like you, when students ask you “what the questions are?,” to say that it is confidential. I don’t care if you talk to your mom and dad about it, but I don’t want the other students to know the questions until everyone is interviewed. All 53 interviews were completed within a two week period and were recorded on audio tape. During the student interviews, students were given a clarification scale which they could refer to when it was necessary to answer questions that had such subjective answers as “often”, “sometimes”, and “rarely”. It was explained to each student that “often” meant “almost everyday” , “sometimes” was “about two or three times a week”, and “rarely” meant “once a week or less”. These definitions were chosen before the study began by a group of grade-five students, that had discussed these terms among themselves during a class with their teacher, and decided that this was what these terms meant to them. Classroom practices around reading were also explored through interviews with the teachers (Appendix 5) and the parents (Appendix 6). After all participating students had been interviewed at a particular school, the teachers were interviewed at their school about their classroom practices around reading, as well as about their own personal reading habits. These interviews were audio taped and used for coding and filling in open-ended questions. Home practices around reading were investigated through the parent interviews. After the student had 70 been interviewed, the parent was interviewed over the telephone about their own leisure activities, and reading practices at home and at school; they also responded to some questions about family background. These interviews were not audio taped, so consequently they were coded at the time of the interview. When the interview was completed, the researcher immediately read through the interview, double checking for readability and final coding of ethnic, educational, and occupational categories. After interviews were completed, a recreational reading attitude survey, a subscale of the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey(McKenna & Kear, 1990) was given to all participating students. This instrument, because of its reading nature, was given after all other data had been collected so as not to bias any responses given for other items and instruments. The scale, administered by the researcher in each classroom, required approximately five minutes to complete. Analyses Analyses of the means for the various out-of-school activities were conducted using SPSSX— a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (University of British Columbia, Computing Centre, 1986)—as well as through checks on the rate of compliance, outliers, and the shape of the distributions. Variation in the amount of time spent reading for leisure, which includes books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail, was also analyzed with this statistical package. Since the skewness for book reading time (1 .45), and for reading time of all materials (1.07), was low, it was decided that a logarithmic transformation was not necessary (Anderson et al., 1988). In order to explore the question of how leisure reading may be affected by such variables as gender, socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, and ability, three statistical procedures were used: t-tests and analyses of variance for the categorical data of gender and ethnicity, and multiple regression analyses for the continuous data of SES and ability. The dependent variables—minutes spent book reading and total minutes spent reading all materials, as well as percentage of leisure time spent book reading and percentage of leisure time spent reading all 71 materials—were measured with the clock-sheets which reported approximate times in minutes over 17 days in February and in March. Both the percentage of leisure time and the minutes were reported in order that readers would know what those percentages actually meant in time. The independent variables were measured in several ways. Gender was established at the time of the student interview. Socioeconomic status was established using an index for occupations in Canada (Blishen et al., 1987). The index is not considered a prestige measure of occupation but rather “a composite of prevailing income and education levels in each occupation” (Blishen et al., 1987, p. 471). Occupations were indicated at the time of the parent interview, and then coded using classifications from Statistics Canada (1986b). If both parents were employed, the higher SES rating was used (Farmer, 1985; Johnston, 1992; Hannah & Kahn, 1989; Super & NeviII, 1984). Ethnicity was also noted during the parent interview with the question concerning ancestors—”from what countries or part of the world did your ancestors come?” Responses were coded into categories according to Statistics Canada (1 986a). Ability was measured using the raw scores from the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (1992). The possibility of any relationship between locus of control and socioeconomic status, ability, minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials, attitude toward recreational reading, gender, and ethnicity was investigated with a series of t-tests and chi-square analyses. The dependent variable, locus of control, contained categorical data; consequently t-tests were used with the independent variables containing continuous data (SES, ability, time spent reading books, total time spent reading all materials, and attitude), and chi square analyses were used with the independent variables containing categorical data—gender and ethnicity. The dependent variable—locus of control—was measured with the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale (1973) which provides raw scores, and uses median splits to determine the internals and the externals. The independent variables—SES, ability, minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials, gender, 72 and ethnicity—were measured in the fashion mentioned previously, and the final independent variable—attitude toward recreational reading—was measured using the Elementary Reading Attitude Suivey (1990) which provides both raw scores and percentile rankings. Raw scores were used in the analyses. Another question to be examined was attitude toward recreational reading. This time attitude was made the dependent variable. The independent variables included categorical data—gender, ethnicity, reading aloud to students, providing materials in the classroom for leisure reading, the use of a school library and a classroom library, teaching methods for reading, the use of rewards in school for leisure reading, time in school for reading (USSR), and students’ observations of the teacher reading for pleasure, as well as continuous data—SES, minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of time spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials, and ability. The dependent variable— attitude toward recreational reading—consisted of continuous data. In order to analyze for an effect between the home environment and attitude toward recreational reading, a separate run of analyses were conducted with 40 independent variables representing practices around reading in the home, and the dependent variable—attitude toward recreational reading. A series of analyses of variance and t-tests, with each cluster of variables representing previous claims in the literature were used with the categorical data, and multiple regression analyses were used with the continuous data. How the dependent variable was measured has been mentioned, as well as the methods used for most of the independent variables. Some of the influences that the classroom may have had on spending time reading for leisure for these students were investigated and analyzed. The independent variables included reading aloud to students, providing materials in the classroom for leisure reading, the use of a school library and a classroom library, teaching methods for reading, the use of rewards in the classroom for leisure reading, time provided for leisure reading (USSR), and the students’ observations of the teacher reading for pleasure. The independent variables contained categorical data, except the variable for the amount of time for USSR. This independent variable contained continuous data; therefore multiple regression analyses were possible with the 73 dependent variables—minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials—which also contained continuous data. T-tests and analyses of variance were used with the independent variables containing categorical data. The independent variables were established through the interviews with the students, parents, and teachers; the dependent variables were established with the clock-sheets. Some of the influences that the home may have had on the leisure reading time for these students were analyzed with 40 independent variables which included: encouraging your child to read books, magazines, newspapers, and comic books; reading together; listening to your child read; talking with him/her about leisure materials; reading aloud to your child; providing materials; providing a space to read; time spent reading by the parent; use of the library; use of rewards for leisure reading; students observations of parents’ and siblings’ reading and reading a variety of materials; distance of the home from the library; education levels of parents; languages used in the home; the number of playmates of the child; the size of the family; and the birth order position of the student. Most of these independent variables contained categorical data except the variables for the ages parents started and stopped reading aloud to their child, number of languages spoken in the home, the size of the family, and the birth order position of the student. Since these independent variables contained continuous data, multiple regression analyses were possible with the dependent variables—minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials—since these variables contained continuous data. T tests and analyses of variance were used with the independent variables containing categorical data. The independent variables were established through the interviews with the students and parents; the dependent variables were documented with the clock-sheets. The initial section of the student interview (Appendix 4) explored “likes,” “dislikes,” “encouragement by others,” “what would make it more fun?,”” feelings,” “reasons,” what if anything would get you to spend more time in the activity?,” as well as values and expectations that each student may have attached to their answers for “likes,” “feelings,” and “reasons for 74 leisure reading, as well as the two activities that they had spent the most amount of time participating in during their time out of school. Expectations were measured on a unipolar scale from “not at all sure” (0) to “extremely sure’ (+3) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1981). At the time these questions were asked, each student was given an expectation-scale (values attached to the response were not included) which they could refer to when asked the question, “how sure are you that when you (activity #1) during your time out of school that it will lead to (the rewards/reasons mentioned during the previous questions)?” Cue cards were used for measuring values. Some cards were written up ahead of time, others were made during the interview. The previously made cards reflected rewards/reasons which predominated in the pilot study. These included “You will not be bored,” “You will learn something,” “You will experience enjoyment,” and “You will receive encouragement from others.” A student was only given the cue cards which they had mentioned as reasons for participating in a particular activity. Each student was given the cards to place on a large chart which asked, “how important is this reason to you?” The chart showed a scale with the descriptors “very important (really),” “important,” “a little bit (somewhat),” “not important at all,” and was large enough to place the cards side by side horizontally within the same category if a student felt the same way about all the reasons. Again, this was a unipolar scale. Unipolar response scales were used for scoring these “beliefs” since each student was asked questions about his/her own salient beliefs rather than given a series of ‘modal behavioural beliefs’ (Sparks, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1991, p.262). Both response scales were also designed as ratio scales to validate multiplying numerical measures (Sparks et al., 1991). Since the student-interviews were taped at the time of the interview, each tape was used for coding and filling in open-ended questions (Sudman & Bradburn, 1983). Each interview tape was transcribed so that the responses for the open-ended questions could be categorized by two independent raters. Raters were given 5x8 cards, each card representing one category. The categories included “relief from boredom,” “to learn,” “availability,” “enjoyment,” “encouragement,” “avoidance of negative consequences,” “other,” “don’t know,” and were designated for the interview questions that focused on “likes,” “feelings,” and “reasons.’ The 75 questions on “dislikes” were assigned the following categories: “unenjoyable,” “time,” “availability,” “other things are available and allowed,” “something is missing,” “other,” “satisfied,” “don’t know.” The questions that explored “what would make the activity more fun?,” and “what if anything would get you to do more during your leisure time?” were assigned categories having to do with “format,” “content,” “availability,” “interactive,” “other things are available and allowed,” “something is missing,” “time,” “other,” “satisfied,” and “don’t know.” Each card included the definition for each category, sample responses taken from the pilot study, and a letter from the alphabet. By using the letters P, Q, R, S, T, U, and cards rather than a list, it was felt that this procedure would eliminate prioritizing; sample responses would assist in clarification. Raters were introduced to the procedure by the author. As demonstrated in Feifel and Lorge (1950), the rate of agreement was 79%. When there was disagreement between the two raters, these responses were categorized by a third independent rater. In the end, only one percent of the students’ responses had to be thrown out due to lack of agreement between the three raters. Analyses of the means for the various responses were conducted using sPSSx. Table 1 displays a summary of the statistical procedures used with the different variables. Analyses of variance were used when analyzing for any possible effects that gender, ethnicity, particular classroom factors or home factors may have had on time spent reading. As well, this same statistical procedure was used when analyzing for any possible effects that these same variables may have had on attitude toward recreational reading. T-tests were used to analyze any effects that particular classroom factors or home factors may have had on time spent reading or attitude toward recreational reading. This statistical procedure was also used to find possible effects that time spent reading, socioeconomic status, ability, or attitude may have had on locus of control. Chi-square analyses were used to examine any effects that gender or ethnicity may have had on locus of control. Multiple regression analyses were used to examine any effects that socioeconomic status, ability, amount of time for Undisturbed Sustained Silent Reading (USSR), and certain home factors may have had on time spent reading. Multiple regression analyses were also used to detect any effects that time spent reading, socioeconomic 76 Table 1 Summary of Statistical Procedures Used with Different Variables Statistical Procedure Variable I’EWA Time Spent Reading & (Gender, Ethnicity, Classroom Factorsa, Home Factorsb) Attitude & (Gender, Ethnicity, Classroom Factorsa, Home Factorsb) T-Test Time Spent Reading & (Classroom FactorsC, Home Factorsd) Attitude & (Classroom Factorse, Home Factors) Locus of Control & (Time Spent Reading, SES, Ability, Attitude) Chi-Square Locus of Control & (Gender, Ethnicity) 77 (Table 1 continued) Statistical Procedure Variable Multiple Regression Time Spent Reading & (SES, Ability, Amt. of Time for USSR, Home Factors9) Attitude & (Time Spent Reading, SES, Ability, Amt. of Time for USSR, Home FactorsQ) aClassroom factors included reading aloud to students, providing materials for leisure reading, use of school and classroom library, use of rewards for leisure reading, USSR, and observations of the teacher reading for pleasure. bHome factors included encouraging reading materials, reading together1 listening and conversing about reading, parents reading aloud, providing reading materials, providing a space to read, time parents spent reading at home, use of the library, use of rewards for leisure reading, observations of parents’ and siblings’ reading, distance of the home from the library, education levels, and number of playmates. CClassroom factors included reading aloud to students, teaching methods for reading, and observations of the teacher during USSR. dHome factors included observations of parents’ and siblings’ reading materials, and parents reading aloud. eClassroom factors included teaching methods for reading, and observations of the teacher during USSR. Home factors included observations of parents’ and siblings’ reading materials. QHorne factors included age of student when parents started and stopped reading aloud, as well as the number of languages spoken in the home. 78 status, ability, USSR, and certain home factors may have had on attitude toward recreational reading. The results for these procedures will be reported in the next chapter. 79 CHAPTER IV Results The purpose of this study was to investigate why a child who is a capable reader either elects to read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. Frequent readers are defined as students who choose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-school time; infrequent readers are students who are capable of reading at the level of their peers but rarely choose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-school time. As a part of this investigation, the following questions were examined: 1) Do capable readers read out of school only when intrinsic reasons are present? 2) How does locus of control affect leisure reading? 3) How does attitude affect one’s decision to spend time reading for leisure? 4) Are there similarities and differences in classroom and home practices around leisure reading for frequent and infrequent readers? This chapter will report the results for the various instruments used to investigate these questions. Sixty-nine grade-five students agreed to participate in a study which investigated how a grade-five student spends his/her time out of school. Participation included not only keeping a daily record of activities during one’s time out of school, but also completing two attitude scales, answering questions from a selection of reading passages, being interviewed at school, as well as having one parent interviewed over the telephone. Since the study was designed to investigate only capable readers, ten students were eliminated from the sample group based on a combination of two factors: the teacher’s judgment of reading ability and the comprehension score from the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, 1992. An additional six students were eliminated for various reasons: three, because their parents did not speak English and would not be able to participate in the telephone interview; one student was eliminated because permission was not granted to be interviewed; one parent refused to be interviewed, and one 80 student contracted chicken pox. Consequently, the final sample group was reduced to 53 students; 21 males and 32 females. Preliminary Analyses Clock-sheets. The period of time for which all out-of-school activities were to be reported was 17 days during the months of February and March (last week of February and first two weeks of March) 1993. Over this collection period, the rate of compliance for completing the daily clock-sheets was 93% of total time for all students. The time frame on school days began 15 minutes after dismissal, or when the student actually departed from the school grounds, until going to sleep; on weekends, from waking in the morning until bedtime. One school had an early dismissal every Wednesday at 1:45, as well as one holiday during this time. Data for these days were included beginning at 3:15 p.m. on each Wednesday, and at 3:15 p.m. on that holiday. Students who were absent from school and kept a diary for their out-of-school activities were also treated in this fashion: data were included beginning at 3:15 p.m.. Activities were reported on a clock-sheet (Appendices 1, 2, 3) which was collected each morning at school, and reviewed by the researcher. If necessary, a consultation followed daily submission to clarify any questions. Clarifications were necessary not only for missing codes or illegible codes, but also activities that seemed out of the ordinary such as playing hockey and listening to music simultaneously, or not having time for meals, or not qualifying some of the activities such as “playing.” Entering the amount of time for every activity on a student’s data sheet each evening, provided further opportunities to discover any discrepancies reported on the clock-sheet for that day. If necessary, the student could then be consulted the following day concerning any clarifications. If a student had indicated that he/she had gone visiting, a consultation verified what activities happened during that visit and these were included in the appropriate categories; otherwise, it was counted under the category of “what else I did,” as “visiting,” or “talking.” If a student indicated that they were working on the computer, they were consulted to ascertain if this work was a game, writing—whether for school or their own 81 interest—drawing, math problems, or anything else, and categorized appropriately. On the average, consultations were needed everyday with about one third of the subjects. The time allotments entered on the data sheets were in increments of 15 minutes (Curr et aL, 1962; Long & Henderson, 1972; Smalley, 1958), except when two activities happened simultaneously. On these occasions, times were split between the two activities (Greaney, 1980) unless one of the activities fell under the category of daily maintenance: dressing, eating, bathing, sleeping, transportation. For example, if a student was eating and watching television, the activity of watching television was given the full 15 minutes. If on the other hand, a student was watching television and reading a magazine, eight minutes was given to television, and eight minutes was given to reading. It was felt that this procedure of giving an extra half minute would not necessarily inflate the amount of time spent in the various activities since daily maintenance activities were given a full 15 minutes when these activities occurred on their own. Fifteen minutes spent brushing your teeth, or driving to the store may have been somewhat inflated but it was felt that this would balance the half minute given to split times. Although time was noted for dressing, eating, bathing, sleeping, and transportation, time spent in these activities is not reported. The amount of time for the various activities requiring additional information was only included if the student had, in fact, provided this information. For example, students were given space on the clock-sheet to stipulate the hobby, the sport, and the name of the book or author. If this information was missing, or could not be provided through consultation, credit was not given. The codes for “what else I did were reviewed to determine the possibility of these activities falling under other categories, such as dancing being placed within the category of “sports”; cleaning one’s room being placed within the category of “helping around the house”; or cooking being placed within the category of helping around the house.” This was also true for the activity of “playing.” If the activity during ‘playing’ could be grouped under “sports,” or “games,” that amount of time was transferred to that activity; otherwise, it was calculated under the category of “playing.” Although the deciding factor between a game and a sport was 82 determined by whether or not the activity was of a purely physical nature, it was decided that “tag” and “hide/go seek” would fall under the category of games since historically these activities have been known as games not sports. If a student was unable to remember what it was he/she did the day before, this was counted under the category of “what else I did” as “couldn’t remember.” Likewise, if a time slot was lost due to the researcher (such as failing to make a necessary clarification with a student), this was counted under the category of ‘what else I did” as “missing data.” The number of occasions that students could not remember how they spent their time out of school amounted to thirteen times, and equalled 750 minutes or 12 1/2 hours for the 17 days; the number of occasions that the data were missing due to the researcher was six times, and equalled 180 minutes, or 3 hours for the 17 days. Daily activities were entered in minutes on a data sheet for each student. Twenty percent of the data sheets were calculated by an independent rater, and the rate of agreement was 99%. Disagreement entailed two instances of splitting times—between listening to music and bathing, bowling and reading; one instance of a student mingling book reading and comic book reading; and one instance of a straight miscalculation. The reported daily figures were summed at the end of the week, and these weekly totals for each category were entered for each student. At the end of the 17 days, three weekly tabulations had been made, and these were summed giving a reported total time spent in minutes for each out-of-school activity. The sums for all the various activities provided a calculation for total time spent out of school, not counting dressing, eating, bathing, sleeping, and transportation. Thus, one could calculate the percentage of time each student had spent participating in the various activities. Using percents representing approximate proportions of the day spent leisure reading, the sample was rank ordered. This percentage of time included all reading of books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail not meant for school. One class was required by the teacher to read for 20 minutes each school night for homework. If reading was reported on the clock sheet by these students in this class for these days, 20 minutes was deducted—or 15 minutes was deducted it only 15 minutes occurred—and included under the category of “homework.” 83 Students’ times ranged from spending 19% of their out-of-school time reading for leisure to zero time spent reading for leisure out of school. A median split was made at 5%, creating a group of 27 frequent readers—il boys and 16 girls—who spent at least 5% of their out-of- school time (averaging approximately 34 minutes per day) reading for leisure, and a group of 26 infrequent readers—lO boys and 16 girls—who spent 4% or less of their out-of-school time (averaging approximately 6 minutes per day) reading for leisure. Looking at book reading only, frequent readers read approximately an average of 23 minutes per day, and infrequent readers read approximately an average of four minutes per day. Among the four classes which participated in the study, all but one class was relatively equal in the division between frequent and infrequent readers. One class, however, had twice as many infrequent readers as it did frequent readers. Table 2 displays the average time in minutes and percentage of time spent per activity over all 17 days for male and female, for frequent and infrequent readers, as well as for the entire sample. Activities have been rank ordered based on the amount of time from “watching television” to “going to the library.” Tables 3 and 4 further this information by presenting these minutes and percentages per school day and per weekend day respectively. All of the categories for activities are self-explanatory except “other” which represents all the “what else I did” activities. This category included such things as “lying in bed,” “talking,” “taking care of pets,” “being in a play,” “going to a craft show,” “attending meetings for Guides or Cubs,” “going to a party,” “visiting,” “not remembering,” “doing art,” “filling out the clock- sheet,” “going to church”—to name a few. This category was used as a catch-all for activities that did not fall within the realm of the listed categories. On the average, these grade-five students reported approximately 351 minutes or about 6 hours of leisure time out of school per day, approximately 5 hours per school day and 10 hours per weekend day. The one group that seems to spend a bit more leisure time are the male infrequent readers. Conjectures about why this is so would be purely speculative, but it may be due to not spending as much time in one of the daily maintenance activities: sleeping, eating, dressing, bathing, or transportation. On weekend days more time was spent in every activity 84 Table 2 Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per Activity Over All 17 Days Activity Freq. Reader lnfreq. Reader Freq. Reader lnfreq. Reader Boys Girls Total Watch 1V 1751 (29%) 2088 (32%) 1681 (29%) 1807 (31%) 1814 (30%) Sports 1230 (22%) 1081 (16%) 527 (9%) 622 (11%) 801 (14%) Other 364 (7%) 670 (10%) 798 (14%) 828 (15%) 698 (12%) Hmwork 450 (8%) 520 (8%) 276 (5%) 331 (6%) 375 (6%) Rec.Read 506 (8%) 111 (2%) 634 (11%) 96 (2%) 349 (6%) Vid.Games 440 (6%) 552 (8%) 191 (3%) 235 (4%) 326 (5%) To Store 116 (2%) 197 (3%) 241 (4%) 370 (6%) 245 (4%) HomeHeip 189 (3%) 204 (3%) 244 (4%) 272 (4%) 233 (4%) Watch Vid. 179 (3%) 292 (4%) 222 (4%) 151 (3%) 208 (3%) List.Music 146 (3%) 124 (2%) 188 (3%) 276 (5%) 192 (3%) Games 154 (3%) 179 (3%) 255 (4%) 154 (3%) 191 (3%) Prac/Less. 167 (3%) 203 (3%) 153 (3%) 115 (2%) 155 (3%) Play/Pals 68 (1%) 113 (2%) 214 (3%) 173 (4%) 154 (3%) Telephone 35 (1%) 47 (1%) 117 (2%) 125 (2%) 89 (2%) Rec.Write 39 (1%) 101 (2%) 67 (1%) 49 (1%) 64 (1%) Hobbies 109 (2%) 34 (1%) 8 (0%) 96 (2%) 57 (1%) Lib. Use 18 (0%) 35 (1%) 21 (0%) 9 (0%) 20 (0%) 85 Table 3 AveraQe Time in Minutes & Percentace of Time Spent per Activity per School Day Boys Girls Total Activity Freq. Reader lnfreq. Reader Freq. Reader lnfreq. Reader Watch TV 98 (30%) 94 (33%) 84 (32%) 94 (35%) 92 (33%) Sports 55 (18%) 41 (15%) 20 (8%) 28 (10%) 33 (12%) Other 16 (5%) 28 (10%) 33 (13%) 36 (14%) 30 (12%) Hmwork 34 (11%) 28 (10%) 17 (7%) 20 (7%) 23 (8%) Rec.Read 33 (10%) 7 (3%) 28 (11%) 6 (2%) 17 (6%) Vid.Games 21 (6%) 21 (7%) 10 (4%) 8 (3%) 14 (5%) List. Music 9 (2%) 7 (3%) 9 (4%) 14 (5%) 10 (4%) Prac/Less. 14 (4%) 11 (4%) 9 (3%) 8 (3%) 10 (4%) HomeHelp 7 (2%) 6 (2%) 12 (4%) 12 (4%) 10 (3%) To Store 6 (2%) 7 (3%) 7 (3%) 10 (4%) 8 (3%) Ges 9 (3%) 5 (2%) 6 (3%) 8 (3%) 7 (3%) Watch Vid. 9 (3%) 8 (3%) 5 (2%) 4 (2%) 6 (2%) Play/Pals 3 (1%) 3 (1%) 7 (3%) 9 (4%) 6 (2%) Telephone 2 (1%) 3 (1%) 6 (2%) 6 (2%) 5 (2%) Rec. Write 3 (1%) 6 (2%) 4 (1%) 3 (1%) 4 (1%) Hobbies 6 (2%) 2 (1%) 1 (0%) 5 (2%) 3 (1%) Lib. Use 1 (0%) 2 (1%) 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 86 Table 4 Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per Activity per Weekend Day Boys Girls Total Activity Freq. Reader lnfreq. Reader Freq. Reader lnfreq. Reader Watch TV 180 (27%) 166 (28%) 136 (24%) 155 (28%) 156 (26%) Sports 171 (29%) 118 (20%) 67 (11%) 62 (11%) 94 (16%) Other 50 (9%) 58 (10%) 92 (15%) 90 (16%) 77 (13%) Vid.Games 70 (10%) 49 (7%) 18 (3%) 29 (5%) 37 (6%) To Store 9 (1%) 25 (5%) 40 (7%) 56 (10%) 36 (6%) Rec.Read 43 (7%) 7 (1%) 72 (13%) 8 (2%) 33 (6%) Watch Vid. 24 (4%) 37 (6%) 41 (6%) 23 (4%) 32 (5%) HomeHeip 27 (4%) 27 (5%) 20 (3%) 29 (5%) 26 (4%) Games 15 (3%) 24 (4%) 31 (5%) 21 (4%) 24 (4%) Hmwork 16 (3%) 27 (5%) 15 (2%) 18 (3%) 19 (3%) Play/Pals 8 (1%) 18 (3%) 22 (3%) 22 (5%) 19 (3%) List. Music 4 (1%) 13 (2%) 20 (3%) 21 (4%) 16 (3%) Prac/Less. 3 (1%) 9 (2%) 10 (2%) 4 (1%) 7 (1%) Telephone 1 (0%) 3 (1%) 11 (2%) 10 (2%) 7 (1%) Hobbies 7 (1%) 7 (2%) 0 (0%) 6 (1%) 5 (1%) Rec. Write 1 (0%) 4 (1%) 6 (1%) 2 (0%) 4 (1%) Lib.Use 2 (0%) 2 (0%) 4 (1%) 1 (0%) 2 (0%) 87 except recreational writing which remained the same, and practice for a lesson and doing homework which decreased in the amount of time. Watching television, participating in sports, and doing Nother remained the top three actMties whether it was a week day or a weekend day. Activities which became more popular on the weekends as compared to weekdays were video games (increased by 23 minutes per day), going to the store (increased by 28 minutes per day), reading (increased by 16 minutes per day), and watching videos (increased by 26 minutes per day). Television was by far the number one activity, clocking in an average of 107 minutes per day—about 1 1/2 hours per school day, and two hours and 36 minutes per weekend day. There were virtually no gender differences to report for the percentage of out-of-school time spent watching television. However, frequent readers did watch slightly less (2%) than the infrequent readers. When looking at the number of minutes spent watching television, it seems that the boys were spending more minutes watching television than did the girls (3839 vs. 3488), and that the male frequent readers watched television the most minutes, approximately one hour and 38 minutes per school day and three hours per weekend day. It also appears that boys spent a greater percentage of their time in sports than girls, spending twice as many minutes—with the male frequent readers spending the most time—approximately 55 minutes per school day, and about 3 hours per weekend day. As for gender differences, the remaining activities do in fact reflect some differences but not at the level of significance. Boys reported a greater percentage of their time, as well as number of minutes, doing homework (8% vs. 6%), playing video games (7% vs. 4%), writing for recreation (2% vs. 1%), doing hobbies (2% vs. 1%), and going to the library (1% vs. 0%) as compared to the girls in this sample. They also spent more minutes practicing for lessons of various kinds (185 vs. 134), and watching movie videos (236 vs. 187). Girls, on the other hand, reported spending a greater percentage of their time, as well as number of minutes, doing “other” activities (15% vs. 6%), reading for recreation (7% vs. 5%), helping around the house (4% vs. 3%), listening to music (4% vs. 3%), going to the store (5% vs. 3%), playing 88 games (4% vs. 3%), playing with friends (4% vs. 2%), and talking on the phone (2% vs. 1%) than the boys. Reported differences between the frequent and infrequent readers reveal that the infrequent reader spent a greater percentage of his/her out-of-school time, as well as number of minutes watching television (32% vs. 29%), doing “other” activities (13% vs. 11%), playing video games (6% vs. 5%), listening to music (4% vs. 3%), going to the store (5% vs. 3%), playing with friends (3% vs. 2%), writing for recreation (2% vs. 1%), and going to the library (1% vs. 0%) than the frequent reader. The frequent reader exceeded percentage of time and the minutes of the infrequent reader when it came to playing sports (16% vs. 14%), reading for recreation (10% vs. 2%), and playing games (4% vs. 3%). Table 5 displays means, standard deviations, and medians for minutes per day spent leisure reading for male and female, for frequent and infrequent readers, as well as for the entire sample. Reading includes books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail that one has read for recreation. The total reading time spent out of school for books, magazines, newspapers, comic books and mail was recorded for each student (Anderson et al., 1988; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), if the student had written down on the clock-sheet the title of the book, magazine or comic book; what the newspaper article was about; or who they had read mail from. Allen et al. (1992) and Anderson et al. (1988) found this practice to be a more valid indicator of actual reading. Table 6 presents the average percentage of out-of-school time spent reading over all 17 days for male and female, for frequent and infrequent readers as well as totals for the entire sample. Figure 1 graphically displays these percentages translated into average minutes spent reading various materials for male and female, frequent and infrequent readers. These grade five students (N. = 53) spent a daily average of approximately 21 minutes reading when all materials were taken into account. Considering the materials separately, the students spent an average of approximately 15 minutes per day reading books, 4 minutes reading comic books, 1 minute reading newspapers and magazines, and seconds reading mail. Frequent readers spent an 89 Table 5 Mean. Standard Deviation, and Median for Time per Day in Minutes Spent Leisure Reading Boys Girls Total Materials Frequent Infrequent Frequent Infrequent Reader Reader Reader Reader Books M 14 3 32 5 15 22 3 14 3 17 hid 7 4 34 4 7 Magazines M 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 5 1 3 hId 0 0 0 0 0 Newspapers M 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 Comic Books M 13 1 3 0 4 17 1 5 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 Mail M 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 mcI 0 0 0 0 0 90 (Table 5 cOntinued) Boys Girls Total Materials Frequent Infrequent Frequent Infrequent Reader Reader Reader Reader All Rec. Reading M 30 7 37 6 21 22 4 13 4 19 23 5 36 7 13 Numbers have been rounded which may cause some discrepancies. 91 Table 6 Percentage of Out-of-School Time Spent on the Average Reading Over All 17 Days Boys Girls Total Materials Frequent Infrequent Frequent Infrequent Reader Reader Reader Reader Books 4 1 9 1 4 Magazines 0 0 0 0 0 Newspapers 1 1 0 0 0 ComicBooks 3 0 1 0 1 Mail 0 0 0 0 0 All Rec. Reading 8 2 11 2 6 Note. Numbers in the table columns may not add up correctly due to rounding. 92 Mail Mail: Comics Comics News News Mgz Mgz Bks Bks — — — A I ‘ ‘ ‘ .. \I _ _ — F / F F F — F F F F F F — F F F F 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Minutes Over 17 Days FiQure 1. Average minutes spent reading various materials. Z Male FR Female FR MaleiR Female IR 93 average of approximately 34 minutes reading each day when all materials were taken into account: 23 minutes for books, 8 minutes for comic books, 1 minute for newspapers and magazines, and about a half of a minute reading mail. The boys in this group spent on the average approximately 30 minutes per day leisure reading. They spent 14 minutes reading books, 13 minutes reading comic books, two minutes reading newspapers, one minute reading magazines, and one minute reading mail. The girls spent on the average approximately 37 minutes per day leisure reading: 32 minutes reading books, three minutes reading comic books, two minutes reading magazines, one minute reading newspapers, and seconds reading mail. Infrequent readers spent an average of approximately six minutes reading each day when all materials were taken into account: four minutes for books, one minute for newspapers, a half of a minute for comic books, and seconds for magazines and mail. The boys in this group spent on the average approximately seven minutes per day leisure reading. They spent three minutes reading books, two minutes reading newspapers, one minute reading comic books, and seconds reading magazines and mail. The girls spent on the average approximately six minutes per day leisure reading: five minutes reading books, one minute reading newspapers, and seconds reading comic books, magazines and mail. Figure 2 presents the total minutes reading for leisure on school days and weekends for this group of grade-five students in February and March. The amount of time spent leisure reading for this group of grade-five students almost doubles on a weekend day. During the week, approximately 17 minutes a day was spent on the average, whereas on a weekend day, approximately 33 minutes was reported to be the average amount of time spent reading. Both frequent and infrequent readers’ times increase for the weekend; however, in the frequent reader, the girls time increased almost two and a half times (28 mm. vs. 72 mm.), and the boys’ time in the infrequent reading group remained the same (7 mm. vs. 7 mm.). Table 7 provides still another picture of the variation in the amount of reading for this sample by displaying percentile rankings for total reading time, which is further broken down by category. For each type of reading material, time is given in minutes. The amount of time represents total time in minutes spent over the 17 days. The student or students at the highest 94 80 70 60 50 Time 40 30 20 10 0 School Days Weekends Male FR 2 Female FR MaleIR Female FR Figure 2. Average minutes spent reading on school days and weekends. 95 Table 7 V2ritinn in Amount of Iicuir Rr1inn Percentile Total rank Books Magazines News Comics Mail Reading 98 90 0 150 893 0 1133 93 791 60 0 35 0 886 87 720 0 0 0 0 720 83 590 30 0 30 0 650 79 585 0 0 0 15 600 74 485 0 0 0 10 495 70 420 0 0 0 0 420 64 150 0 0 240 0 390 57 0 0 0 330 15 345 47 105 75 0 0 0 180 26 83 0 0 0 15 98 15 45 0 0 0 0 45 6 10 0 0 0 0 10 Note. Amount of reading time is given in minutes. 96 rank (98) spent 90 minutes reading books, 0 minutes reading magazines, 150 minutes reading newspapers, 893 minutes reading comic books, and 0 minutes reading mail. Over the 17 days in February and March, this reader(s) spent 1,133 minutes reading. These grade-five students are reading on the average 21 minutes per day. However, closer inspection reveals that it was the frequent readers who were pulling this average up with the boys reading 30 minutes per day, and the girls reading 37 minutes per day. Infrequent readers were doing much less: 7 minutes for the boys, and 6 minutes for the girls. Materials included books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail. Over the 17 days during the months of February and March, 85% of this population of grade-five students (J = 53) used books, 40% used comic books, 26% used newspapers, 17% used mail, and 13% used magazines. Frequent readers spent on the average 10% of their out-of-school time reading, as compared to 2% for the infrequent readers. Boys found in the group of frequent readers spent 8% of their out-of- school time reading, as compared to the girls who spent 11% of their time reading. In the group of infrequent readers, boys and girls both spent 2% of their out-of-school time reading. Examination of the data for all of the participants during this time frame of 17 days indicates that this population of grade-five students from British Columbia, Canada spent 6% (5 hours and 49 minutes) of their leisure time reading. Reading books topped the list at 4% (4 hours and 11 minutes), followed by comic books at 1% (1 hour); the remaining materials were given a minuscule amount of time—newspapers (.03) (21 minutes), magazines (.02) (13 minutes), and mail (.01) (5 minutes). The frequent readers devoted on the average approximately 7% (6 hours and 29 minutes) of their time to reading books, 2% (2 hours and 12 minutes) to comic books, .04 (23 minutes) to newspapers, .04 (19 minutes) to magazines, and .02 (9 minutes) to mail. Breaking this group down even further, boys devoted on the average 4% (3 hours and 55 minutes) of their leisure time to reading books, 3% (3 hours and 36 minutes) to comic books, 1% (29 minutes) to newspapers, .03 (12 minutes) to magazines, and .02 (14 minutes) to reading mail. The girls devoted 9% (9 hours and 2 minutes) of their leisure time to reading books, 1% (47 minutes) to comic books, .04 (25 minutes) to magazInes, .03 (16 minutes) to newspapers, and .01 (4 minutes) reading mail. The infrequent 97 readers devoted approximately 1% (1 hour and 5 minutes) of their leisure time to reading books, .04 (23 minutes) to newspapers, .02 (9 minutes) to comic books, .01 (5 minutes) to magazines, and apparently received very little mail. Infrequent-reader boys devoted 1% (54 minutes) to books, 1% (35 minutes) to newspapers, .03 (16 minutes) to comic books, .01 (4 minutes) to magazines, and one minute to reading mail. Girls devoted 1% (1 hour and 16 minutes) to books, .02 (12 minutes) to newspapers, .01 (5 minutes) to magazines, two minutes to reading mail, and only one minute reading comic books. In summary both frequent and infrequent readers have spent the most of their leisure- reading time reading books. Frequent readers have spent more time reading all of the other materials except for newspapers for which both groups spent the same amount of time. Ninety percent of this sample (N. = 53) never received any mail to read, 87% never reported reading from any magazines, 74% never reported reading from any newspapers, 60% never reported reading from any comic books, and 15% never reported reading from any books. Locus of Control. Following the same procedure for scoring as Nowicki and Walker (1973), median splits were made for each gender. The median for girls was 15 and for boys 16. Five girls and three boys were eliminated since their scores fell within the median score. The mean and standard deviation for girls was 15.59 (3.16); for boys, it was 16.95 (4.77). The mean of internal scores was 12.5 with a standard deviation of .90 for girls, and the mean of internal scores for boys was 12.13 with a standard deviation of 2.47. The mean of external scores was 18.27 with a standard deviation of 2.34 for the girls, and for the boys, the mean of external scores was 21.1 with a standard deviation of 2.38. With as gross a measure as median splits to determine the internals and externals, it was necessary to compare the sample population to the norming population. Median splits may have the effect of the sample setting its own standard for locus of control. To avoid this effect, the sample group was compared to the population on which Nowicki and Strickland (1973) standardized the locus of control scale. A confidence level of 95% was constructed, and it was 98 found that the males were not significantly different from the forming population. While the female mean (15.59), based on the construction of 95% confidence intervals, for this study is significantly different from the population mean for grade-five females (17.00) in 1973, this may be due to the fact that 20 years later, the social environment has changed. Attitude Toward Recreational Reading. The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) (McKenria & Kear, 1990) was scored according to the directions given by the authors. A scoring sheet was used for each student, and only recreational reading scores were used since only that subscale was administered. The range of possible scores on the recreational subscale is 0 to 40. The scores for the grade-five students in this study ranged from 17 to 40. The mean was 30.68 with a standard deviation of 4.91. The median was 31 with skewness at -.54. Classroom Factors. The groups of grade-five students found in four classrooms, in three separate schools, from one suburban school district near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, were similar in regard to gender distribution, ability, ethnicity, and economic backgrounds, however, the students all had different teachers. Two classroom teachers did not require reading for leisure at home— encouraged but not required—and two did require children to read at home. One of these teachers required 20 minutes of reading each school night, with bookmarkers signed by his/her parent that their child had in fact read that night for the required time. Each morning at school, the row that had all their bookmarkers signed were given points, and then rewarded at the end of the year with a small token gift. The other teacher requiring students to read at home, felt that this was being accomplished by taking the students to the library on a weekly basis and insisting that each student check out a novel, and read it during that week. The results of these three approaches—encouraged, signed bookmarkers, weekly trips to the library—are of interest. The two classrooms that were encouraged but not required to read out of school for leisure read on the average for 24 minutes per day during this 17 day period in 99 February and March. This represented 7% of their out-of-school time. Frequent readers from these two classrooms read 38 minutes per day, representing 12% of their out-of-school time. And infrequent readers read 6 minutes per day, representing 2% of their out-of-school time. The students that were required to read for 20 minutes each school night with signed bookmarkers, after deducting the first 20 minutes for those school nights and tabulating those minutes as homework, continued to read an additional 21 minutes per day, representing 6% of their out-of-school time. Frequent readers from this classroom read an additional 33 minutes per day, representing 9% of their out-of-school time, and infrequent readers read an additional 8 minutes per day, representing 2% of their out-of-school time. The students that were required to read at home for leisure by checking out at least one novel from the school library read 14 minutes per day, representing 4% of their out-of-school time. Frequent readers in this classroom read 30 minutes per day, representing 8% of their out-of- school time, and infrequent readers read 4 minutes per day, representing 1% of their out-of- school time. It would appear that students who came from the classrooms that were encouraged to read for recreational purposes rather than required, spent more time reading during their out-of- school time for the 1 7 days during the months of February and March than the other students. This finding continued to hold even when students were categorized as frequent readers. Frequent readers who were encouraged to read for leisure spent the most time reading. However, students referred to as infrequent readers that were in the classroom that required parents to sign a bookmarker spent more time on the average reading during their out-of school time. Infrequent readers from three classrooms spent 2% of their out-of-school time reading for leisure, and infrequent readers from the class that had weekly trips to the library spent 1% of their out-of-school time reading for leisure. When considering actual minutes spent reading, the infrequent readers from the classroom requiring 20 minutes of reading on school nights read an additional eight minutes as compared to the other classrooms where the infrequent reader read from four to six minutes for leisure. 100 Main Analyses Leisure Reading. Two different statistical procedures were used to explore the question of how leisure reading may be affected by the independent variables of gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and ability. Results of the analyses of variance indicated a significant gender effect for minutes spent book reading (.Ei 52 = 5.26, p. = .03), percentage of leisure time spent book reading (Ei 52 = 9•43 = .00), and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials (Ej 52 = 4.42, p. = .04). There were no significant gender effects (Ei 52 = 1.68, p. = .20) to report for the dependent variable of total minutes spent reading all materials—books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail. Whether minutes spent reading or percentage of leisure time spent reading were analyzed, no ethnic differences could be found at the .05 level of significance for book reading or for reading all materials. A multiple classification analysis indicated a .411 correlation of the dependent variable—minutes spent book reading—with a combination of these independent variables. In other words, gender and ethnicity accounted for 17% of the variance in the amount of minutes spent book reading. When percentage of leisure time spent book reading was analyzed, a multiple classification analysis indicated a .536 correlation of the dependent variable with a combination of the independent variables—gender and ethnicity accounted for 29% of the variance. A multiple classification analysis for minutes spent reading all materials produced a correlation of .363, indicating that gender and ethnicity accounted for 13% of the variance in total minutes spent reading, and a second multiple classification analysis produced a correlation of .459, indicating that gender and ethnicity accounted for 21% of the variance in percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. Results of the multiple regression analyses conducted with the two independent variables— SES and ability, and the dependent variables—minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of time spent book reading, and percentage of time spent reading all materials indicated a significant negative correlation (-.26) between socioeconomic status and minutes spent reading all materials (p. = .03). This finding continued to be true when analyzing for percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials (-.27, p. = .03). This 101 finding did not hold, however, when only book reading was analyzed. Multiple regression analyses found no correlations among ability—as measured by the comprehension scores on the Gates-MacGinitie (1992)—and minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, or percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. Locus of Control. The possibility of any relationships among locus of control and socioeconomic status, ability, minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials, attitude toward recreational reading, gender, and ethnicity was investigated using t-tests and chi-square analyses. All procedures revealed no relationships with locus of control at predetermined levels of significance ( = .05). Attitude Toward Recreational Reading. How does attitude affect one’s decision to spend time reading for leisure? How did the independent variables affect the dependent variable? Multiple regression analyses were conducted, and within the correlation matrix significant positive correlations were found between minutes spent book reading (.28, = .02), total minutes spent reading all materials (.46, p = .00), and attitude. Negative correlations were found for SES (-.26, = .03) and attitude for recreational reading. A second set of multiple regression analyses used percentage of leisure time spent book reading and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials as the dependent variables. Within the correlation matrix, significant positive correlations were found between percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials and attitude (.44, p = .00), and percentage of leisure time spent book reading and attitude (.26, = .04). Negative correlations were found between SES and attitude for recreational reading (-.29, p = .02). 102 Classroom practices around reading were also a part of this exploratory study with attitude, and included reading aloud to students, providing materials in the classroom for leisure reading, use of a school library and a classroom library, teaching methods for reading, the use of rewards in the classroom for leisure reading, time provided for leisure reading (USSR), and the students’ observations of the teacher reading for pleasure. A series of t-tests and analyses of variance indicated no differences between gender, ethnicity, teaching methods for reading, school library use or classroom library use, providing materials in the classroom for leisure reading, reading aloud to students, using rewards for recreational reading, or the students’ observations of the teacher reading for pleasure and attitude toward recreational reading at predetermined levels of significance (p = .05). No significant correlations were found between ability and attitude toward recreational reading when either minutes or percentage of leisure time were analyzed, nor between time in school for reading (USSR) and attitude toward recreational reading. Variables representing the home environment included encouraging your child to read books, magazines, newspapers, and comic books; reading together; listening to your child read; talking with him/her about leisure materials; reading aloud to your child; providing materials; providing a space to read; time spent reading by the parent; use of the library; use of rewards for leisure reading; students’ observations of parents’ and siblings’ reading and reading a variety of materials; distance of the home from the library; education levels of parents; languages used in the home; number of playmates of the child; the size of the family; and the ordinal position of the student. Only two independent variables had a significant effect on the dependent variable—attitude toward recreational reading. Analyses of variance found a significant effect between seeing parents read and attitude toward recreational reading (E2 52 = 4.52, p. = .02). T-tests also found a significant difference between observing one’s parents reading newspapers and attitude toward recreational reading (j = 2.55, p. = .01). 1 03 Classroom Factors. The influences that the classroom may have had on time spent reading for leisure for this group of students were investigated by analyzing a variety of school variables explored through the use of interviews. These variables included reading aloud to students, provision of materials in the classroom for leisure reading, the use of a school library and a classroom library, teaching methods for reading, the use of rewards in the classroom for leisure reading, time provided for leisure reading (USSR), and the students’ observations of their teacher reading for pleasure. A series of t-tests were conducted analyzing the independent variable of what the teacher was doing during USSR. Only students were asked this question during the interview. Although this was as an open-ended question, possible responses had been precoded based on the pilot study. These categories consisted of “paperwork,” “errands,” “talk,” “read,” “don’t know,” and “no answer.” A significant difference was found between seeing the teacher read during this time and the dependent variables—minutes spent reading books (I = 2.01, p. = .05), total minutes spent reading all materials (I = 2.33, p. = .02), percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials (1 = 2.27, p. = .03), but not percentage of leisure time spent book reading (j = 1.61, p. = .11). T-tests and analyses of variance revealed no significant differences with the remaining independent variables—teacher reading aloud to the students, various leisure reading materials in the classroom, use of the school library and a classroom library, teaching methods for reading, and the use of rewards for leisure reading in the classroom—and the dependent variables—minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. Except for the variable of teaching methods for reading, these independent variables were explored through the student interview, the parent interview, and the teacher interview. The answers for these questions, except for going to the school library, had been precoded into the following categories: “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “often.” Only the students were given a scale indicating these possible choices. The responses given by the parents and the teacher were also coded into 1 04 these categories but not until after the interviews were completed. Going to the library was asked as an open-ended question, however responses had been precoded to allow for all possible answers. Teaching methods for reading were only explored with the teachers, and was asked as an open-ended question. Some expected responses had been precoded, but space was left for additional answers. Multiple regression analyses were conducted for the amount of time provided for USSR, and again no significant effects were found. This open-ended question was asked in all three interviews. Home Factors. Some of the influences that the home may have had on time spent reading for leisure were analyzed with 40 variables found in 13 clusters. These included encouraging your child to read books, magazines, newspapers, and comic books; reading together; listening to your child read; talking with him/her about leisure materials; reading aloud to your child; providing materials; providing a space to read; time spent reading by the parent; use of the library; use of rewards for leisure reading; students’ observations of parents’ and siblings’ reading and reading a variety of materials; distance of the home from the library; education levels of parents; languages used in the home; number of playmates of the child; the size of the family; and the birth position of the student. Those that turned out to have significant effects included students’ observations of siblings’ use of various reading materials, and the parents’ report of provision of a space for reading in the home. A series of t-tests were used on the independent variables representing a student’s reported observation of a sibling’s various reading behaviors. Each student was specifically asked if his/her sibling read books, magazines, newspapers, mail, or comics. The observation by the student of siblings’ reading books had a significant effect with the dependent variable of minutes spent reading books (t = 4.71, p... = .00). This was not the case for the other dependent variables—total minutes spent reading all materials (I = 1 .54, = .13), percentage of leisure 1 05 time spent book reading (j = 1.52, p. = .13), or percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials (1 = 1 .62, p. = .11). The observation of siblings reading comic books had a signficant effect on all the dependent variables: minutes spent reading books (j = 2.27, p. = .03); total minutes spent reading all materials (1 = 2.65, p. = .01); percentage of leisure time spent book reading (1 = 2.12, p. = .04); and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials (1 = 2.96, p. = .01). After inspecting the data closely for comic book reading, it was evident that these findings were a factor for girls who were frequent readers. The observation of siblings reading newspapers had a significant negative effect with the dependent variable of percentage of leisure time spent book reading (1 = -2.01, p. = .05). It seems that the more newspaper reading by the sibling observed, the less time a student spent reading books for leisure. This finding was not true for the other dependent variables—minutes spent reading books (I = -1.50, p. = .14); total minutes spent reading all materials (1 = -.53, p. = .60); and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials (1 = -.82, p. = .42). A series of t-tests were used with the independent variables representing the various reading materials that a student would observe his/her parent reading. Each student was specifically asked if his/her parent read books, magazines, newspapers, or mail. A significant negative effect was found between the independent variable of observing one’s parent reading books, and the dependent variable of percentage of leisure time spent book reading (1 = -2.14, p. = .04). However, upon closer inspection, this result appears to be due to an outlier. There were no significant effects or trends, positively or negatively, for the other dependent variables—minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, and percentage of leisure time reading all materials. A series of analyses of variance were used to analyze how the independent variable—distance of the home to the library—might effect the dependent variable—time spent reading. A significant effect was found between this independent variable and the dependent variable— percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials (.E 3 52 = 2.78, p. = .05). Again, this appeared to be due to an outlier. These effects were not noted for the dependent variables of 106 minutes spent reading books, total minutes spent reading all materials, or percentage of leisure time spent book reading. A series of anaylses of variance found a significant effect between the independent variable of the parents’ report to providing a place in their home for reading and the dependent variables— percentage of leisure time spent book reading (E3 51 = 3.30, = .03), and percentage of leisure time reading all materials (E3 51 = 3.69, , = .02). No significant findings occured for the other two dependent variables—minutes spent book reading (E3 51 = 1.92, = .14), and total minutes spent reading all materials (E3 51 = 2.05, = .12). Through the use of multiple regression analyses and analyses of variance, there were no real differences to report for the remaining variables encouraging your child to read books, magazines, newspapers, and comic books; reading together; listening to your child read; talking with him/her about leisure materials; reading aloud to your child; providing materials; time spent reading by the parent; use of the library (parents’ membership, students’ membership, or taking the child to the library at this age); the use of rewards for leisure reading; distance of the home from the library; education levels of parents; languages used in the home; number of playmates of the child; size of family; or birth order position. Reasons for Activities The first part of the student interview (Appendix 4) explored reasons, feelings, encouragement, likes and dislikes, other possibilities—such as what would make the activity more fun, and what if anything would get one to spend more time—as well as values and expectations for these reasons. A series of questions repeated through three different activites identified by the clock-sheets as the student’s number one activity, that which had the most amount of time over the last three weeks; his/her number two activity, the next most amount of time; and finally, the activity of leisure reading. Out of 53 students, no one had reading as their number one activity; 10 had reading as their number two activity. The reading data for these individuals were treated with all the other reading data. During the interview, Activity 107 Two questions were skipped for these ten students. Activity One was television for 83% of the students, followed by sports (13%), watching videos (2%), and doing homework (2%). Activity Two was sports for 34% of the students, followed by reading (19%), television (15%), playing Nintendo (8%), listening to music, shopping, and doing chores at 6% each, and writing, playing games, doing homework, and watching videos at 2% each. Reasons, likes, and feelings were collapsed into one category since the purpose of these questions was to get at what rewards might be gained from the activity by each individual. Asking the question from these three different approaches seemed to help the student being interviewed to get at “the why” for doing these things. Reasons given by these grade-five students for participating in their particular leisure activities are shown in Table 8. These responses were given by the students and are listed in the order of magnitude found in the frequencies for each activity provided by SPSSX—a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Most of these reasons have common connotations with the exception, perhaps, of availability, encouragement, and avoidance of negative consequences. In this study, availability means accessible; encouragement means to receive help, or be given support—such as prizes, money, praise, or example of others participating in the activity; avoidance of negative consequences refers to participating in order to avoid problems—”it keeps me out of trouble.” As can be seen, the question—”were students getting the same results from the three activities?,” seems to be “yes.” Receiving encouragement means to receive help, or be given support. This support can be oral (praise, etc.), as well as visual (observing someone participating), or physical (participating together). The amounts of encouragement that all of these 53 students received for their activities during these 17 days in February and in March are displayed in Table 9. The amounts of encouragement that all of these 53 students received for their activites during the 17 days were predominately in reading. Sixty-four percent of the students admitted that someone did try to get them to spend more time reading for leisure. This person was usually their mother—62% mentioned this person, 26% of the students mentioned their father, followed by. 6% mentioning their teacher, and 2% referred to a sibling. Only 17% of the 108 Table 8 Reasons for Participating in Leisure ActMties Activity One Activity Two Leisure Reading Enjoyment Enjoyment Enjoyment Relief from Boredom Relief from Boredom Relief from Boredom Avoid Neg. Conseq. Encouragement To Learn Availability Other Availability Encouragement Avoid Neg. Conseq. Encouragement To Learn To Learn Other Other Availability 109 Table 9 EricouraQement for Leisure Activities Activity One Activity Two Leisure Reading Oral Support Who 1 7% Sibling (9%) Father (6%) Mother (4%) Teacher (2%) Peers (2%) Daily Participation by Parent 2 hrs. or more (23%) 1-2 hrs. (51%) Together Hour or less (17%) Not at all (9%) 49% Mother (17%) Father (13%) Peers (6%) Sibling (4%) Extended Family (2%) 2 hrs. or more (11%) 1-2 hrs. (25%) Hour or less (26%) Not at all (19%) 64% Mother (62%) Father (26%) Teacher (6%) Sibling (2%) 2 hrs. or more (6%) 1-2 hrs. (51%) Hour or less (42%) Not at all (2%) Rarely (42%) Sometimes (25%) Often (34%) Rarely (51%) Sometimes (15%) Often (15%) Rarely (66%) Sometimes (19%) Often (15%) Note. “Rarely” means “once a week or less’; “sometimes” means “about two or three times a week’; and “often” means “almost everyday.’ 110 students acknowledged during the interview that someone tried to get them to spend time in their first activity. The person mentioned most for this small group was a sibling, followed by their father, mother, teacher, and friend. Verbal encouragement for the second activity was true for 49% of the group. This time the mother is mentioned as the person giving this support most of the time, followed by the father, peers, sibling, and extended family. All of these findings had to do with oral support. Parents spending time participating in the activity on a daily basis is another type of encouragement. In leisure reading, most parents (51%) reported spending 1-2 hours each day reading for leisure; 42% reported spending less than an hour; 6% spent more than two hours, and 2% reported not reading at all. During the interview, parents were asked for a specific amount of time, and during the coding, answers were placed into these categories. The students’ first activity also had parents spending 1-2 hours (51%), but more were spending more than 2 hours (23%) in this activity than in reading, which only had 6% spending more than two hours. Less than an hour was reported by 17% of the parents, and 9% reported not participating at all in the first activity. The students’ second activity had a more even distribution for parents’ time among the categories: 26% spent less than an hour; 25% spent 1-2 hours; 19% did not participate at all; and 11% spent more than two hours in activity two. Do parents and students spend time together in these activities? Keeping in mind that “rarely” means “once a week or less,” this was the predominate answer across all three activities. This response, however, was used by more parents in leisure reading. Sixty-six percent gave an answer that would fall under the category of “rarely” when asked how often they read with their child. Only 42% responded “rarely” for Activity One, and 51% responded “rarely” for Activity Two. “Sometimes” which means “about two or three times a week,” was true for 19% of the parents in leisure reading, 25% of the parents for Activity One, and 15% of the parents for Activity Two. “Often” which means “almost everyday” was true for 15% of the parents in leisure reading, 25% of the parents for Activity One, and 15% of the parents for Activity Two. 111 Have students received encouragement for all their activities? In leisure reading, the answer is “yes” for 64% of the students when it comes to oral or verbal support. This support was given by the mother in 62% of the cases. As for actually doing it—visual support—51% of the parents participated from 1-2 hours everyday in leisure reading. Physical support—doing it together—predominately had very little support. Sixty-six percent of the parents were reading with their children once a week or less. In regard to the other activities, this finding of spending time together once a week or less was also true in Activity Two; however, Activity One had twice as many parents participating on a daily basis than for Activity Two or leisure reading. Visual support was provided by 51% of the parents in the first activity. Activity Two had a more even distribution, but it also had more parents spending more than two hours each day (11%) on the activity with their child. Reasons for Reading or Not Reading For the analyses of reasons around reading, it was decided to observe the frequencies for the two. extreme groups of frequent and infrequent readers. Instead of looking at all 53 students, only the extreme quartiles were examined. Frequent readers were those who had spent 10% or more of their leisure time reading, and the infrequent readers had spent 1% or less reading. Each group consisted of 13 students. There were 2 boys and 11 girls in the frequent reading group, and 6 boys and 7 girls in the infrequent reading group. The most popular reason that these frequent readers expressed for reading during their leisure time was “enjoyment”—ll of these readers made statements that came under this category. “To learn” was mentioned by four of the students, “relief from boredom” was mentioned by three of them, and having books “available” and “being encouraged by others” to read was each mentioned by at least one of the frequent readers. The reasons that infrequent readers gave for not reading during their leisure time were categorized as “other things were available and allowed” for six of the students; that reading was “not enjoyable” was mentioned by five of them; that “something was missing for the activity” of reading was mentioned by two of the students; and that books or materials were “not available” was each mentioned by at least one of the infrequent readers. 112 In order to make reading more fun for infrequent readers, “content” and “format” were mentioned. “Content”—referring to style, characters, or plot—was mentioned by six of the infrequent readers. “Format”—referring to physical characteristics such as length, the inclusion of visuals or auditory effects—was mentioned by five of the students. Having more “time,” and having “a preferred element or feature” was each mentioned by at least one of the students for making reading more fun for them. On the other hand, one of the infrequent readers was satisfied with reading, and one could not think of anything to make it more fun. Four of the frequent readers also said that the content could be improved to make reading more fun; but three already found reading to be satisfactory. Two of the frequent readers mentioned that if reading materials were more “available” that this would make reading more fun; whereas at least one student each mentioned having more “time”; having “a preferred element or feature”; and comments that fell under the category of “other.” The idea of what if anything would get you to spend more time reading was explored with these students and the predominate answer for frequent readers was that of satisfaction—six mentioned that really nothing would get them to spend more time. However, three students mentioned that having materials more “available” would get them to spend more time reading during their leisure. Two mentioned not having “other things available and allowed,” or having more “time” would get them to spend more time reading. The most popular response for the infrequent readers came under the category of “other.” Four of the infrequent readers had a variety of answers that could not be categorized under any of the existing categories. Three mentioned “content”; another three mentioned that nothing would get them to spend more time. Two verbalized that they would participate in leisure reading if there was more “time”; having reading materials “available,” and not having “other things available and allowed” for them to do was each mentioned by at least one of the infrequent readers. The use of rewards for leisure reading was investigated through interviews with the teachers, parents, and students. Whether or not these rewards were given presently or in the past, in school or at home, was asked in all three interviews except for that of the teacher. Teachers were only asked about the grade they were presently teaching. Only students were 113 asked who sponsored these rewards in the school. Table 10 shows responses for these 26 students—frequent readers and infrequent readers. Observing the frequencies for the two extremes, apparently five of the frequent readers were presently being given some kind of reward for leisure reading by the teacher on a daily basis. Also, three of these frequent readers were being given rewards by their parents on a daily basis at home for leisure reading. There was a discrepancy between students and parents on this matter since none of the latter reported anything but “rarely.” This discrepancy might result from differing perceptions of rewards. In order to explore the components of social learning theory—rewards or reasons, expectations, and values—students were asked questions about these aspects during the interview. The results for the questions that explored the reasons, expectations, and values around reading are shown for the 13 frequent readers in Table 11, and the 13 infrequent readers in Table 12. The responses listed under the heading of Reason represent the category which the independent raters had chosen for each answer given by the students for reasons, likes, and feelings for leisure reading. The Expectation could range from “extremely sure,” “quite sure,” “slightly sure,” to “not at all sure.” The Value could range from “really important,” “important,” “somewhat important,” to “not at all important.” Expectations and values around reading were explored with these two extreme groups of frequent and infrequent readers. Both groups seem to be predominately interested in reading for enjoyment. However, expectations for enjoyment were stronger for the frequent readers than the infrequent readers. Seven of these frequent readers were “quite sure” that reading would be enjoyable, and the value they placed on enjoyment was much higher—”very important.” In contrast, infrequent readers were “slightly sure” that reading would be enjoyable, and they felt that enjoyment was “not at all important.” It was also noted that frequent readers had more reasons to read than infrequent readers. Frequent readers mentioned “enjoyment,” “learning,” “relief from boredom,” “encouragement,” “other,” and “availability”; whereas infrequent readers mentioned “enjoyment,” “other,” “learning,” and “relief from boredom.” Values placed on these outcomes were also much higher for more of the frequent readers. 114 Table 10 Use of Rewards in the School and in the Home for Leisure Reading School Home Present Past Present Past FR Rarely (85%) No (85%) Rarely (77%) No (77%) Sometimes (15%) Often (23%) (Teacher) Rarely (62%) (Parents) Rarely (100%) No (85%) Often (39%) I R Rarely (85%) No (62%) Rarely (92%) No (69%) Sometimes (15%) Sometimes (8%) (Teacher) Rarely (92%) (Parents) Rarely (100%) No (77%) Often (8%) FR = frequent readers IR = infrequent readers 115 Table 11 Reasons. Expectations. and Values for Reading of Frequent Readers Reason Expectation Value 1 3 ENJOYMENT Not at all sure (2) Really important (8) Slightly sure (4) Somewhat important (3) Quite sure (7) Not at all important (2) 6 LEARNING Not at all sure (3) Really important (2) Slightly sure (2) Somewhat important (2) Quite sure (1) Not at all important (2) 3 REUEF FROM Not at all sure (2) Really important (1) BOREDOM Slightly sure (1) Somewhat important (1) Not at all important (1) 2 B1DOIJD Not at all sure (1) a Quite sure (1) 2 OTHER Not at all sure (j)a a 1 AVAILABILITY Slightly sure (1) Not at all important (1) aMissing data. 116 Table 12 Reasons. Exoectations. and Values for Reading of Infrecuent Readers . Reason Expectation Value 1 0 ENJOYMENT Not at all sure (4) Really important (4) Slightly sure (5) Somewhat important (1) Quite sure (1) Not at all important (5) 5 OTHER Not at all sure (4) Not at all important (3)a Slightly sure (1) 3 LEARNING Not at all sure (1) Really important (1) Slightly sure (2) Somewhat important (2) 2 RELIEF FROM Slightly sure (2) Somewhat important (1)a BOREDOM aMissing data. 117 Summary In summary, the major findings for this study are listed below. 1. This sample of grade-five students (N. 53) spent 6% (5 hours and 49 minutes) of their leisure time reading over 17 days in February and March. Reading books topped the list at 4% (4 hours and 11 minutes), followed by comic books at 1% (1 hour); the remaining materials accounted for a minuscule amount of time—newspapers (.03) (20 minutes), magazines (.02) (13 minutes), and mail (.01) (5 minutes). Percentage of students’ times ranged from spending 19% of their out-of-school time reading for leisure to zero time. These grade-five students spent a daily average of approximately 21 minutes reading, when all materials were taken into account. Students spent an average of approximately 15 minutes per day reading books, 4 minutes reading comic books, 1 minute reading newspapers and magazines, and seconds reading mail. Eighty-five percent of this sample used books, 40% used comic books, 26% used newspapers, 17% used mail, and 13% used magazines. Frequent readers spent, on the average, 10% of their out-of-school time reading, as compared to 2% for the infrequent readers. Boys found in the group of frequent readers spent 8% of their out-of-school time reading, while girls spent 11% of their time reading; within the group of infrequent readers, boys and girls both spent 2% of their out-of-school time reading. 2. Significant gender effects for minutes spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials—books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail—were found. Girls spent more time reading. 3. A significant negative correlation was found between socioeconomic status—within one economic group—and total minutes spent reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. The higher the SES score, the less time was spent reading. 4. Positive correlations were found between minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials and recreational reading attitude. Negative correlations were found between socioeconomic status—within one economic group—and attitude for recreational reading and for both minutes spent reading and percentage of time spent reading, whether for books only 118 or for all reading materials. A significant effect was found between seeing parents read, as well as observing one’s parents reading newspapers, and attitude toward recreational reading. 5. Significant relationships were found between seeing the teacher read during Undisturbed Sustained Silent Reading and minutes spent reading books, total minutes spent reading all materials, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. 6. Observation by the student of siblings’ reading books had a significant effect on the number of minutes the student spent reading books. The observation of siblings reading comic books also had a signficant effect on minutes spent reading books, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. The observation by the student of siblings reading newspapers had a significant negative effect with the percentage of leisure time spent book reading. Significant effects were found between the parents’ report of providing a place in their home for reading and the percentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. 7. The number one reason for participating in a leisure activity was enjoyment, while the number two reason was relief from boredom. 8. The amount of encouragement that all of these 53 students received for their activities during the 17 days was predominately in leisure reading. This person providing the encouragement was the mother for 62% of the students; the father for 26%; the teacher for 6%; a sibling for 2%, and 4% stated that “no one” tried to get them to spend time reading. While 6% of the parents spent more than two hours each day reading, most parents (51%) reported spending 1-2 hours each day reading for leisure; 42% reported spending less than an hour, and 2% reported not reading at all. Reading together had very little support. Sixty-six percent of the parents were reading with their children once a week or less. When observing the frequencies for the two extremes—i 3 frequent readers and 13 infrequent readers— apparently five of the frequent readers were presently being given some kind of reward for leisure reading by the teacher on a daily basis. Also, three of these frequent readers were being given rewards by their parents on a daily basis at home for leisure reading. 119 9. The most popular reason that these frequent readers expressed for reading during their leisure time was “enjoyment.” Both groups—frequent and infrequent readers—seem to be predominately interested in reading for enjoyment; however, expectations for enjoyment were stronger, and the value students placed on enjoyment was much higher for the frequent readers than for the infrequent readers. It was also noted that frequent readers expressed more reasons to read than did infrequent readers, and the values placed on these outcomes were much higher for the frequent readers. 10. The reasons that infrequent readers gave for not reading during their leisure time were categorized as “other things were available and allowed”; that reading was “not enjoyable”; that “something was missing for the activity” of reading; and that books or materials were “not available.” 11. Content and format were the most frequently mentioned in order to make reading more fun for infrequent readers. “Content”—referring to style, characters, or plot; “format”—referring to physical characteristics such as length, the inclusion of visuals or auditory effects. Frequent readers also said that the content could be improved to make reading more fun; but some already found reading to be satisfactory or better. 12. Satisfaction was found to be the predominate answer for frequent readers for the question of “what if anything would get you to spend more time reading?” Other frequent readers mentioned, however, that having materials more “available” would get them to spend more time reading during their leisure, not having “other things available and allowed,” or having more “time” would also get them to spend more time reading. The most frequent response for the infrequent readers came under the category of “other”—answers that could not be categorized under any of the existing categories. Other infrequent readers mentioned “content,” that nothing would get them to spend more time, if there was more “time,” having reading materials “available,” and not having “other things available and allowed” for them to do. Interpretations of these findings in relation to the questions raised in this study will be discussed in the following chapter. 120 CHAPTER V Discussion The problem to be investigated in this study is why children who can read either elect to read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. The ability to read is defined as reading at the level of one’s peers in grade five. This was arrived at by scoring at the 34th percentile or above on the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (1992), as well as being rated by the teacher as reading at grade level or above. Leisure reading is defined as out-of- school reading of books, magazines, newspapers, comic books or mail. Students were divided into two groups: frequent readers, defined as students who are capable of reading at the level of their peers and who choose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-school time, and infrequent readers—students who are capable of reading at the level of their peers but rarely choose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-school time. These groups were formed by listing the sample in rank order using percents for the reported amounts of time spent reading out of school. This included all reading of books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail not meant for school. Students’ times ranged from spending 0 to 19% of their out-of-school time reading for leisure. A median split was made at 5% creating two groups— frequent readers and infrequent readers. Considering only book reading, frequent readers read on the average 23 minutes per day; infrequent readers read on the average less than 5 minutes per day. Clock-sheets Students reported their out-of-school activities daily using a clock-sheet (Appendices 1, 2, 3). These sheets were not only relatively easy to use, but 240 students so far have found them fun to work with (J. Shapiro, personal communication, July 13, 1993; Whitney, 1992). Upon 121 first viewing the clock-sheets, they seemed complicated. However, once the student experienced a trial run of filling out a clock-sheet, he/she usually found them to be intriguing. Some students, observing others using the instrument, changed their minds about not participating in the study. If this happened on the first day, they were allowed to join the study if they came back with signed permission slips the next day when the clock-sheets were first collected. Other students who had asked to join the study throughout the three weeks, were denied because of the data that would have been missing. Students found the clock-sheets were simple to use, and in addition, the clock-sheets did initiate a certain amount of student learning. This included, but was not limited to, using long- term memory, synthesizing activities into time slots, transfering corresponding codes, possibly accounting for long period of times—but no longer than 18 hours later, and learning to focus on small details during a fairly large chunk of time. Students with low-reading abilities, as well as students whose first language was not English, were able to successfully use this instrument. Daily clarifications were necessary not only for missing codes or illegible codes, but also to verify activities that seemed out of the ordinary, such as playing hockey and listening to music simultaneously (this is possible when one wears a Walkman); not having time for meals; or not qualifying some of the activities such as “playing,” “visiting,” or “working on a computer.” Even with these varying types of clarifications, only 36% of the sample needed consultations everyday over the 17 days. These meetings were usually short, about a minute or less. How reliable are these reportings? Rather than using questionnaires (Covington, 1985; Cunningham, 1973; Maxwell, 1977; McEady-Gillead, 1989; Moffitt, 1992; Picha, 1988; A. Taylor, 1982; Whitehead et al., 1975) or interviews (Heyns, 1978; Rasinski, 1987) to verify reading activities out of school, this study used the diary-technique (Allen et al., 1992; Anderson et al., 1988; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Long & Henderson, 1972) to establish what children were doing with their out-of-school time over a period of three weeks, rather than depending on children’s ability to recall these activities. Although keeping a daily diary is considered a self-report method, it would seem to be much more reliable than a self report interview or questionnaire if one expects children to give accurate information (Carp & 1 22 Carp, 1981). This view is based on the fact that the time frame has been lessened between when the individual participated in the activity, and when the individual documents this participation. When a student does not suspect what might be the interests of the researcher, there are really no incentives to misrepresent their activities except perhaps due to laziness. One of the final questions of the student’s interview directly asks “what do you think this study is about?” All students answered “what we do outside of school,” or reasonably close to that statement. No one mentioned reading for leisure. Students had numerous types of categories to use for reporting all their activities including the category “what else I did.” When one observes such entries as “I barfed,” “I lost a tooth,” “mum looked at my arm,” “I cried,” “I had an argument,” it’s difficult to believe that such activities did not happen. There were times when it was somewhat difficult to decipher what was actually written on the clock-sheet. For example, one student reported “having a snake” after schoo!, and “a snake” in the night; another student reported “playing with my tenese raker; and one youngster “got my elouence (10.00).” There were times of sadness reported: a student kills her hamster; crys; holds her other hamster; can’t sleep that night. Each of these stages was documented in the “what else I did” section (El to E4) of the instrument. There were humorous times too: El “I got an egg thrown at me”; E2 “I had to talk to the principal”; E3 “I had to wipe the egg off.” One student reported on a Saturday Weekend Night clock-sheet, “junk food night” which started at 8 p.m. and ended at 11 p.m.; the Sunday Weekend Day clock-sheet indicated “not feeling well” from 9 a.m. to noon. Playing with Barbies seemed to be an activity that some of these grade-five students found difficult to admit in writing. Through consultation, it was decided that the code that they could use for this activity would be “Bb”. However, throughout the data collection, some students would write “Bb (Barbies)” for that activity space. There were also reported incidents that were somewhat novel, all of which were explained to the researcher during a consultation time: “sitting in line-ups”—--children sit in lines according to their age at Daycare; “rocked”—wasn’t rocked as a baby so student presently rocks themself on the floor; “quality time”—family discussion time. 1 23 Leisure Reading Comparisons. The question that needs to be addressed is how did this group of grade-five students compare to other samples reported in the literature in regard to how much time was spent reading out of school? This group spent on the average 21 minutes per day reading out of school for leisure for 17 days during the months of February and March. This figure was qualified even more when it was reported for a school day, an average of 17 minutes, and a weekend day, an average of 33 minutes. This time frame—21 minutes—represents on the average 6% of a student’s time out of school. From this sample of grade-five students (Ij. = 53), 85% read books, 40% read comic books, 26% read newspapers, 17% read mail, and 13% read magazines. Frequent readers spent an average of 10% of their out-of-school time reading, as compared to 2% for the infrequent readers. Boys found in the group of frequent readers spent, an average of 8% of their out-of-school time reading, as compared to the girls who spent an average of 11% of their time reading. In the group of infrequent readers, boys and girls both spent an average of 2% of their out-of-school time reading. Are these students spending more time, or less time, reading out of school as compared to the other grade-five sample groups from around the world? It is very difficult to make this judgment due to the various procedures found in the literature. For example, when investigating leisure reading not only were different times of the year under consideration, but also numerous lengths of time for the activity of reading. Time frames varied from a specified three days (Greaney, 1980), four days (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), to one week (Maxwell, 1977), two weeks (Allen et al., 1992; Long & Henderson, 1972), one month (Whitehead et aI., 1975), two to six months (Anderson et al., 1988; B. M. Taylor et aI., 1990), or for three years (Lamme, 1 976). Findings throughout the literature were reported in different forms, such as number of books (Lamme, 1976; Maxwell, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1975), hours (Long & Henderson, 1972), minutes (Allen et al., 1992; Anderson et al., 1988; Rasinski, 1987; B. M. Taylor et al., 1990), and percentage of leisure time (Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987). Since this study’s findings are based on percentage of out-of-school time, as well as in minutes, comparisons will only be made with the studies that did likewise. 1 24 The most recent studies that comparisons can be made took place in the early 1990’s (Allen et al., 1992; B. M Taylor et al., 1990), and early 1980’s (Anderson et al., 1988) within the United States. In the former group (Allen et aL, 1992), fifth graders were estimating about 5 minutes per night reading books for pleasure, and 16 minutes if all reading was considered (assigned book reading, book reading not assigned, magagzines, newspapers, comic books) between mid April and early May. Reading abilities and data for infrequent readers were not reported. The other group of fifth and sixth graders (B. M. Taylor et al., 1990) read books for 15 minutes each night from mid January to mid May, but this figure included assigned reading and leisure.reading. Other types of reading were not investigated, and data for infrequent readers were not reported. In the 1980’s, it was reported that fifth graders were spending a median of 4.6 minutes per day reading books (Anderson et al., 1988), and 2.6 minutes per day reading magazines, newspapers, comics, and mail during the months of November to May, but that most of the children, who placed above the national average on a standardized reading comprehension test, did little or no book reading during this extensive time frame. In 1987, in Ireland, over four days—when during the year was not reported—it was found that grade-five students were spending 7.2% (125.5 minutes over four school days) of their leisure time reading; of these capable readers, 24% were not reading books, 66% were not reading comics, and 18% were not doing any reading at all during these four days (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987). In an earlier study, for three days in June, Greaney (1980) found that grade-five students were only spending an average of 5.4% of their leisure time reading; 44% were not reading books during this time, and 22% were not devoting any time to leisure reading (Greaney, 1980). Some of these readers, however, may not have been capable since the sample was similar to national norms. Considering the time element only, it appears that these grade-five students in British Columbia, Canada, during the early 1990’s were spending more time leisure reading out of school than the fifth-grade children who participated in the two studies in the United States in the 1990’s, as well as the fifth-grade children who participated in the one study in the 1980’s. 1 25 Incidentally, one of the studies that took place in the 1990’s, as well as the one study in the 1980’s, happened during the same time of the year as the present study. Considering the percentage of time spent out-of-school reading for leisure, the students in British Columbia, Canada, are spending less of their time reading than the students in Ireland during the late 1980’s, but more than the Irish students in the early 1980’s. The figure of 7.2% of one’s leisure time for Irish students in the late 1980’s equalled 125.5 minutes over four days, which would equal 31 minutes per day, as compared to students in Canada reading 21 minutes per day or spending 6% of their leisure time. It was not reported what those percents in Ireland in the early 1980’s represented in minutes. The time of year was not reported for the former study, whereas June was the month for the latter study. The readers that participated in the June study were not necessarily all capable readers either, since it was reported that participants represented the national norms. These differences—time of year and ability—could have had an affect on the outcome which in turn affects the ability to make absolute comparisons between the studies. With the focus of this study being on the capable infrequent reader, it seems appropriate to make the statement that not all grade-five students are “crazy” about reading. Grade-five students were chosen for the target population to insure that frequent readers would be found for comparison purposes when investigating the infrequent reader. It has been a long standing belief that students at this level are more likely to be reading quite extensively in their leisure time (Duggins, 1989; Greaney, 1980; Lamme, 1976; Maxwell, 1977; Neuman, 1980; Terman & Lima, 1926; Whitehead et al., 1975), compared to other grade levels, and would therefore guarantee a sizeable population of readers for the comparison. Information on the infrequent reader, however, is not always reported: some studies do not report this at all (Allen et al., 1992; B. M. Taylor et al., 1990); one found that most children did little or no book reading (Anderson et al.,1 988); one reported that one-third of the capable readers were not reading during their two weeks of data collection (Long & Henderson, 1972); and one reported that some children did virtually no book reading during an entire school year (Lamme, 1976). 1 26 Greaney & Hegarty (1987) reported that 18% of the capable readers did not do any reading; whereas earlier, Greaney (1980) reported that 22% did not devote any time to leisure reading. Maxwell (1977) reported that 25% of the P6 (grade-five) students of mixed ability in 1975 were not reading books, and 7% were not reading ephemera—comic books, newspapers, and magazines for one week in May. Whitehead et al. (1975) reported that students at this age— among the capable readers—during the months of February and March were not reading books (15.8% of the boys and 9.4% of the girls); nor were 17% of the boys and 12% of the girls reading periodicals (magazines/comics) during a four week period. In British Columbia, Canada, only 4% of the sample (N. = 53)—all capable readers—did not report any leisure reading during the 17 days of February and March. Fifteen percent of the entire sample did not report any book reading, and 4% did not report any reading of newspapers, comic books, magazines, or mail. There is some controversy within the literature over gender differences. A number of studies have shown that there are more non-book readers among the boys at grade 5 (Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Whitehead et al., 1975). Girls. not only read more books (Maxwell, 1977), but they also read more periodicals (Whitehead et al., 1975). When comics are distinguished from magazines, grade-five boys in Ireland have been found to be reading more comic books than girls (Greaney, 1980). Other studies have found no significant gender differences in the number of books read, or time spent reading at grade 5 (Long & Henderson, 1972). The results for this present study support the argument that there are gender differences. A significant gender effect was found for minutes spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time for both book reading and for reading all of the various materials—books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail. There were no differences to report, however, for total minutes spent reading all materials. When all reading materials were analyzed, the boys—being heavy comic book readers, as well as spending twice as much time reading newspapers—had gained on the minutes spent reading. This group of grade-five students from British Columbia, Canada, spent on the average approximately 21 minutes per day reading out of school for leisure 1 27 over 17 days during the months of February and March (boys = 18 minutes; girls = 22 minutes). This figure is qualified even more when it is reported for a school day, 17 minutes (boys = 20 minutes; girls = 17 minutes), and a weekend day, 33 minutes (boys = 25 minutes; girls = 40 minutes). These findings can be further described as representing on the average 6% of a student’s time out of school (boys = 5%; girls = 6%). However, when the data are broken down between frequent and infrequent readers, boys found in the group of frequent readers spent approximately 8%—or 30 minutes on the average—of their out-of-school time reading as compared to the girls who spent 11%—or 37 minutes on the average—of their time reading. Boys in the frequent reading group devoted 4% of their leisure time to reading books, 3% to reading comic books, 1% to reading newspapers, and minuscule amounts of time to reading magazines and mail. Girls devoted 9% of their leisure time to reading books, 1% to comic books, and minuscule amounts of time to reading magazines, newspapers, and mail. Within the group of infrequent readers, boys and girls both spent on the average approximately 2% of their out-of-school time reading. Because the boys in this group seem to have more out- of-school time, they spent about seven minutes on the average as compared to the girls who were spending six minutes on the average per day reading for leisure. Boys found in the infrequent readers devoted 1% to reading books and newspapers, minuscule amounts of time to reading magazines and comic books, and no time to mail. Girls devoted 1% to reading books, minuscule amounts of time to reading magazines and newspapers, and no time to reading comic books or mail. Whether one inspects the data for the entire group, or the two sub-groups, there are gender differences to be reported. There are differences in the amounts of time spent reading—whether reading time is expressed in actual minutes or percentage of one’s leisure time—differences in types of materials, and differences in days of the week spent reading—school days versus a weekend days. The literature on leisure reading has reported positive correlations between socioeconomic status and leisure reading (Greaney, 1980; Heyns, 1978; Landy, 1977; Long & Henderson, 1972; Maxwell, 1977; Moffitt, 1992; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Whitehead et al., 1977; 128 Wiseman, 1967). The only controversy to be found was that Greaney (1980) had reported that a student was a frequent book reader when the father’s occupation tended to be of the middle and upper SES levels at grade 5, whereas Moffltt (1992) had reported that SES levels for book readers were when the mother’s and the father’s occupation groups tended to be of high and low SES levels for grades 9-12 rather than at the middle level. Hansen (1969) found no significant relationship with father’s occupation and independent reading. Unlike other findings in the literature, the present study found a significant negative correlation between socioeconomic status and total minutes spent reading for leisure which included all reading—books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail. The reader needs to be cautioned though that this sample was from a similar economic background and would have restricted the variance for SES. The explanation for this relationship would be purely speculative at this point and warrants further study at a later time. However, data from the clock-sheets was not speculative and documented evidence was provided as to what these students were doing during the 17 days of their leisure time in February and March. The top 25% of the SES scores were selected, and out of 14 students in this group, three were frequent readers. The data for the 11 remaining students were inspected for all activities, and the percentage of time for each individual was tabulated. The student with the highest SES score was very different from the rest of the group. The percentage of time spent in the various categories seemed fairly balanced for this individual: under “other”—spending time with the family, doing art, going to church, being a spectator, waiting, talking, spending time with a pet was 19%; playing sports—18%; helping around the house, watching television, and watching movie videos—13% each; playing with pals—9%; playing games—6%; and doing homework, and going to the store—4% each. No time was spent writing or reading for leisure. The rest of the students, except for one, had television as their number one activity. Time spent watching television ranged from 30-45% of one’s leisure time. The number two activity for this group of students was either playing sports which ranged from 16-20% of their leisure time, or doing “other” which ranged from 18- 25% of their leisure time. One student’s second activity was going to the store, which took up 20% of their leisure time. “Other” included such things as attending meetings, spending time 129 with pets, being a spectator at an event, spending time with the family, going to a party, going to church, talking, visiting, being in a school play, lying in bed, or going to commercial events. Spending time reading for leisure ranged from no time, mentioned above for the one student, to 4% of one’s leisure time. Most of the group spent between 1-3% of their leisure time reading. It would seem that television has taken a big bite out of the leisure time of these children who come from families with higher incomes and higher education levels, as well as attending events outside of the home. Having a higher level of reading ability (Covington, 1985; Greaney, 1980; Long & Henderson, 1972; Rasinski, 1987), or being academically better (Moffitt, 1992), has been reported to correlate with amounts of time spent leisure reading by some researchers, although Lamme (1976) and B. M. Taylor (1990) did not find a relationship. The present study supports these latter researchers since there was no correlation found between ability—as measured by the raw scores on the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie (1992)—and amounts of time spent book reading or total amounts of time spent reading all materials. This may have been due to the fact that only capable readers were included in the sample. Locus of Control Reports from the literature on locus of control have found significant correlations between SES and locus of control (Bartel, 1971; Willey, 1978), but the present study found no correlation. This was probably due to the fact that the sample was from a similar economic background. Locus of control has been reported as being a significant determinant of academic achievement (R. T. Brown, 1980; Cervantes, 1976a; 1976b; Little & Kendall, 1978; Nowicki & Roundtree, 1971; Nowicki & Segal, 1973; Nowicki & Walker, 1974; Ollendick, 1979; Prawatt et al., 1979; Sherman & Hoffman, 1980; Tesiny et al., 1980), however the present study found no relationship between ability and locus of control. Again this result may have been due to the fact that only capable readers were under consideration. Several researchers (Crandall et al., 1965; Flynn, 1991; Newhouse, 1974; Prawat et al., 1979) reported finding gender differences for locus of control; whereas others have not found gender to be a significant 130 intervening variable (Barnett & Kaiser, 1977; D. Brown et al., 1984; Sherman, 1984). This study supports the latter group, in that no relationship was found between locus of control and gender with these subjects. Ethnic differences were reported by Battle and Rotter (1963) and D. Brown et al. (1984) for locus of control, but not by Milgram (1971). There was no relationship found in the present study between ethnicity and locus of control. Findings from the literature based on reading and locus of control have reported that locus of control correlated positively with reading readiness scores (Bartel, 1971), reading achievement (Matheny and Edwards, 1974; Nielsen and Long, 1981; Pani, 1991; Wooster, 1974), and with reading comprehension (Boraks et aL, 1993). The present study, using the scores from the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie (1992), found no correlation. D. H. Brown et al. (1979) did not find any correlation between locus of control and reading attitude, but Blaha and Chomin (1982) did so when replicating the study three years later. The present study found no correlation between attitude toward recreational reading, as measured by the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (1990), and locus of control, as measured by the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale (1973). Willey (1978) found that locus of control reached levels of significance with the number of books read in the summer, but the present study did not find any relationship between locus of control and minutes spent reading books, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, or percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials during the 17 days of data collection in February and in March. Attitude Toward Recreational Readiny Findings in the literature on reading attitudes have indicated that having a positive reading attitude is linked with higher levels of reading ability (Healy, 1965; Roettger et al., 1979; Rowell, 1972; Walberg & Tsai, 1984). However, Boraks et al. (1993) found no relationship between these two variables, and the present study is in agreement—no relationship was found between recreational reading attitudes and ability, whether the analysis was conducted using minutes or percentage of leisure time. The reader needs to be cautioned, though, that all 131 students in the present study were capable readers. It has also been reported that students with higher reading abilities spend significantly more time reading for recreation (Connor, 1954; Greaney, 1980; Long & Henderson, 1972; Maxwell, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1975), but this was not found to be true in the present study. Multiple regression analyses did not find correlations between raw score on the Gates-MacGinitie comprehension section (1992) and minutes spent reading books over 17 days, or with total minutes spent reading—books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail. This was also true when analyzing percentage of time spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. Other studies have reported that positive reading attitudes correlate more highly with recreational reading than with achievement (Allen et al., 1992; Greany & Hegarty, 1987; Long & Henderson, 1972). The present study also found significant correlations between a positive recreational reading attitude and minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. Girls having better reading attitudes than boys has been reported (Cloer & Pearman, 1993; Duggins, 1989; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Hansen, 1969; Lane, 1985; McKenna et al., 1989; McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, & Jenkins, 1992), although not by all researchers (Gorman et al., 1981). The present study found no significant gender differences for recreational reading attitudes at the grade-five level. Duggins (1989), Greaney and Hegarty (1987), and Whitehead et al. (1977) have all reported finding no significant differences between socioeconomic status and reading attitudes. The present study did find a negative correlation between SES and attitude toward recreational reading, whether the analyses looked at minutes or percentage of leisure time. This makes sense when one considers the significant negative correlation found between socioeconomic status and time spent reading out of school earlier. However, the reader needs to be cautioned that this was probably due to the fact that the sample was from a similar economic background. Like Duggins (1989), no relationship was found between ethnicity and recreational reading attitudes. 132 Factors that improve students’ reading attitudes have been reported by some researchers as: time in school for reading—USSR—(Schon et aL, 1981); teaching methods (Healy, 1965; Shapiro & White, 1991), although other researchers have found teaching methods do not make any difference (McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, & Jenkins, 1992; Morrow & Weinstein, 1986); and home literary environments (Hansen, 1969). The present study did not find significant relationships between recreational reading attitudes and reading aloud to students, providing various leisure reading materials in the classroom, use of school and classroom library, teaching methods for reading, use of rewards in school for leisure reading, time in school for reading (USSR), or students’ observations of the teacher reading for pleasure. Throughout the literature, there is agreement over the influence of membership in a public library, and how it correlates with one’s attitude toward recreational reading (Heyns, 1978; Holmes, 1932; McKenna & Kear, 1992). However, some have limited this finding to the number of books borrowed (Long & Henderson, 1972), and others to the regularity of the visits—every ten days—(Whitehead et at., 1977). The present study found no effect for students’ membership in a public library and attitude toward recreational reading. There was also no effect between attitude toward recreational reading and parents’ library membership, taking students to the library at this age, or distance from the home to the library. Hansen (1973) reported that reading guidance and encouragement, which included reading with the child, contributed significantly to the differences found in a study conducted in 1969 where factors in the home environment explained a significant portion of the variance in a child’s reading attitude when it came to independent reading. The present study, however, did not find any significant differences to report for these home variables of encouraging students to read various reading materials, or reading aloud to children. There were no effects found between family size, or birth order, and recreational reading attitude. Home factors that did significantly effect recreational reading attitudes were observing parents reading, and observing parents reading newspapers. 133 Does attitude influence one’s decision to spend time reading for recreation? The present study has found this to be true. Interviews The purpose of the interview was to explore numerous factors that might have had an influence on a child’s decision to spend time reading for leisure. “The child is the expert (the only expert) on his feelings, perceptions, and thoughts” (Hughes, 1988, p. 91), and it has been reported (McEady-Gillead, 1989; Neuman, 1980) that the use of the interview might be the approach to use when investigating leisure reading behavior. HMaking the interviewee feel accepted, understood, and secure in the interview is perhaps even more important in interviewing children than in interviewing adults” (Hughes, 1988, p. 93). In the present study, a certain amount of rapport had already been established between the researcher and each subject since the researcher had been in the school everyday for three weeks collecting clock- sheets and conferencing with students when necessary. When the time came for interviews, students were familiar with the researcher. During the interview, further efforts were made to increase the comfort zone. The interview was not conducted as an interrogation for 30 minutes, but was broken up with scales, chatter, cards, snacks, and laughter. Time was given for reflection, and assistance was provided on some questions; but all responses were accepted, including “no” or “not really”. Providing assistance on some questions refers to instances when a child, for example, could not decide what it was he/she liked about an activity. The researcher would then re-ask the question by saying “there are so many things you could choose to do— watch television, ride your bike, eat, play with friends—there must be some things you like about it?” Question five, “how do you feel . . .?,“ was difficult to answer for some children. Asking them if they sit on a chair, or lay on the floor watching television—or whatever the activity happened to be—and then having them imagine themselves in that position with their favorite program on, and then posing the question—”how do you feel when you watch television?”—seemed to help get at some of those feelings. Although the interviews were definitely exploratory, the comfortable environment during the interview helped students not to 134 feel intimidated in sharing their likes, dislikes, desires, feelings, reasons, and thoughts for the various activities which they had spent a great deal of time in during the past 17 days. In addition, by the time the protocol had reached the subject of reading, the student was quite relaxed, and used to thinking about these topics—likes, dislikes, feelings, etc.. Initially, the decision had been made to only ask the frequent readers about their expectations and values concerning the reasons and rewards they gained from reading, but when many of the answers given by the infrequent readers sounded like the answers given by the frequent readers, it was decided to ask these two question of all students except those that did not spend any time reading—two students. Classroom Factors. “The teacher has a significant influence on the amount of book reading children do out of school” (Anderson et al.,1988, p. 296). This influence has been described as having books available in the classroom, reading aloud to the class, recommending books to them, talking to students about the books that the students had read, and requiring pupils to read a certain amount of books (Fielding et al., 1984). Morrow and Weinstein (1986) and Whitehead et al. (1977) did not find that having books available in the classroom effected home reading. The present study supports these findings since there was no effect found between the student’s response that books were available in the classroom for leisure reading and time spent reading for leisure. Reading aloud to the class has been found to make a difference for home reading by some researchers (Fielding et al., 1984; Sirota, 1971), but not others (Landy, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1977). The present study supports the latter. No differences were found for reading aloud to the class and time spent reading. Providing time in the classroom for reading (USSR) was reported by Lane (1985) and Wilson et al. (1986) to make a difference in the amount of time children spend outside of school reading. Morrow and Weinstein (1986) did not find this to be so. The present study supports the latter researchers. There was, however, a significant finding for what the teacher was doing during USSR and time spent reading out of school. It 1 35 seems that students that observed the teacher reading during this time (USSR) were spending more time reading out of school. Method of instruction in reading made no difference in the studies reported by McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, and Jenkins (1992), Mervar and Hiebert (1989), and Whitehead et al. (1977) in the amount of home reading; however, Greaney (1970) and Healy (1965) did report differences. The present study supports the former group of researchers, in that no difference was found between method of instruction in reading and time spent reading for leisure. The present study did have a small sample of teachers, but was similar in sample size as the other studies in the literature, except for Whitehead et al. (1977). Home Factors. In the review of leisure reading literature, there were several home variables mentioned that appeared to be major determinants for leisure reading. As far as this author is aware, however, observing siblings’ reading behavior has not been reported in the literature. The present study found this variable to have a significant effect on time spent reading for leisure. It appeared that observing your brothers or sisters reading books and comic books had an effect on one’s leisure reading behavior. Observing newspaper reading, though, had a negative effect. Whether your siblings were older or younger, or the number of siblings, however, did not seem to have an effect. Providing a space in the home for reading has been documented by several studies as having an impact on the amount of time spent reading for leisure (Fielding et al., 1984; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Landy, 1977). Reading in bed or the bedroom seems to be the most popular place in all of these studies but one. The present study also found a significant effect between the parents’ report of providing a space for reading in the home and the percentage of leisure time students spent reading books, as well as all materials. The favorite reading spot for 79% of these grade-five students was the bedroom. Providing various materials in the home for leisure reading, such as newspapers and magazines has been reported by Neuman (1986a; 1986b) as significantly associated with 136 reading. Other studies (Landy, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1977) have found no relationship between the number of newspapers and the amount of book reading, unless these were “quality” newspapers (Whitehead et at., 1977). Some studies have reported that frequent readers were provided books by their parents (Clark, 1976; Covington, 1985; Fielding et al., 1984; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), while others have found this not to be significant for independent reading (Hansen, 1973; Pluck et al., 1984). The present study supports the latter group of researchers. Providing reading materials, whether they were books, magazines, newspapers, or comic books had no affect on time spent reading for leisure for this group of grade-five students. Another influencing factor, according to the literature on leisure reading, was “parents as reading models.” This variable was found to be the best predictor of time spent reading for leisure (Clark, 1976; Pluck et at., 1984; Whitehead et al., 1977; Wiseman, 1967). Frequent readers seem to be more likely to perceive their fathers (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), or a parent of the same sex (Landy, 1977), as having more time for reading books. Others have not found this to be statistically significant (Hansen, 1973; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). The present study supports these latter researchers regarding time spent reading. No differences were found whether through information received during student interviews or parent interviews on parents’ reading of various materials and time spent reading for leisure. However, as mentioned previously, observing parents reading did have a significant postive effect on attitude towards recreational reading. Other variables that were noted in the literature to be major determinants for leisure reading include receiving books for gifts (Covington, 1985; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987); being encouraged to read particular books (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), or just encouraged to read (Hansen, 1973; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b); the amount of reading to a child while the child was young (American Federation of Teachers and Chrysler Corp., 1992; Covington, 1985; Hansen, 1973; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b); and discussing the child’s leisure reading (Hansen, 1973; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). The present study found no signifcant differences for any of these 137 variables. There were also no differences to report for reading together, or listening to your child read. Throughout the literature, there is agreement over the influence of membership in a public library and how it correlates with reading outside of school (Greaney, 1980; Heyns, 1978; Holmes, 1932; Landy, 1977). The present study did not find support for these findings since there were no differences found between students’ library membership, parents’ library membership, or taking the student to the library at this age, and time spent reading. Distance between the home and the library (Heyns, 1978) has been reported to have an impact on the amount of reading students do outside of school. Heyns (1978) found that sixth and seventh grade students who lived less than seven blocks from the library read more books in the summer than those who lived beyond walking distance. The present study did not find a significant effect for this variable. Being a member of a relatively small family—about three children—has been reported as being positively associated with the amount of book reading (Greaney, 1980; Landy, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1977); one study, however, reported no significant relationship (Hansen, 1969). The present study also found no effects between family size and amount of reading. Birth order was found to correlate negatively with amounts of time spent reading in one study (Greaney, 1980), but not in another (Hansen, 1969). The present study again agrees with the latter since no effect was found for this variable. Levels of education for the parents and its effect on leisure reading were reported as being statistically significant for the mothers’ level of education but not for the fathers’ (Moffitt, 1992). Hansen (1969) also reported no significant relationship between fathers’ education and leisure reading. The present study found no affect for mothers’ or fathers’ levels of education. Two other variables investigated in the present study, but not noted in other studies found in the literature on leisure reading, were the number of languages spoken in the home and the number of playmates reported by the student. There were no differences to report for either of these two variables and their effect on time spent reading for leisure. 138 Reasons for Reading or Not Reading. In order to examine more closely the differences between frequent and infrequent readers, two groups were formed that included the two extremes: a group of frequent readers who spent 10% or more of their leisure time reading, and a group of infrequent readers who spent 1% or less of their leisure time reading. The responses from the student interviews were independently categorized by two, and sometimes three raters. The reasons frequent readers gave for reading during their leisure time were categorized as “enjoyment,” “learning,” “relief from boredom,” “availability,” and “encouragement.” The responses categorized as “enjoyment” were given by 85% of the frequent readers. The reasons that infrequent readers gave for not reading during their leisure time were categorized as “not enjoyable”, “other things were available and allowed,” “a preferred element was missing” for this activity, and “availability.” The responses that were categorized as “not enjoyable” included “if it’s not interesting, then I don’t read at all,” “it’ll just not interest me when I’m like reading if it gets good in one part of the chapter, and then it just slumps down, and it doesn’t really interest me any more,” “I’d rather be doing something else,H “reading isn’t my kind of thing, but I do. Well, sometimes it’s really boring,” and Student: Sometimes it kinda gets boring reading, and reading, and reading, and reading. Researcher: What is it that makes it boring? Student: Sometimes the story and stuff. Basically it just, you keep reading and Researcher: Well when it gets boring why don’t you just put it back on the shelf like you said? Student: But it’s only been 10 minutes and you kinda of, Dad says “keep reading and reading.” Researcher: You are just trying to get your 20 minutes in? Student: Yeah. You kinda fidget with the book and look at the back and. The responses that were categorized as “other things were available and allowed” included such statements as “cause I spend lots of time watching TV; I find that more fun,” “TV and computer or piano lessans,” “possibly like to do more skipping or practice things that we do in our skipping team and like that,” “playing with my friends,” “I’m allowed to do something else like watch TV, or playing a game instead of reading,” “just too much other stuff that I have to do,” and Student: I’m just doing something else, and I don’t feel like reading right now or something. Researcher: Is there a special feeling you get when you want to read? 139 Student: Yeah. It just says “go read a book or something.” I’ll go read to my sister because she is in grade three, and I’ll just help her kind of read more. Reseacher: So your main reason for not reading during your leisure time is that you just don’t have time for it? Student: Yeah. Researcher: Is that because you find it boring, or because you are doing lots of stuff? Student: It’s kind of both. I’m busy right now, and I don’t really want to read. It will just kind of bore me. I usually read before I go to bed, though, it kinda makes me sleepier or something. The responses that were categorized as “a preferred element was missing” for this activity included such statements as “most of the time because they don’t give enough detail,” or “sometimes it’s too noisey.” The responses that were categorized as “availability” included “there’s no books to read. Well, my brother has a whole lot of hockey books but he never lets me read them. Like once in a blue moon he lets me.” What would make leisure reading more fun for both groups? Both groups mentioned things that were categorized as “content.” Thirty-one percent of the frequent readers made this type of response, as did 46% of the infrequent readers. “Content” referred to style, characters, or plot. The infrequent readers’ second most popular response category was “format,” which was mentioned by 39% of the students. “Format” referred to physical characteristics such as length, the inclusion of visuals or auditory effects. The question “what if anything would get you to spend more time reading for leisure?” was asked of both groups. Forty-six percent of the frequent readers responded with “nothing”—they liked it just the way it was. The remaining frequent readers made statements that were categorized under “availability,” “time,” and “other things are available and allowed.” With these considerations, they would spend more time reading. Infrequent readers talked about things which fell under the category of “other.” Thirty-one percent of the infrequent readers responded with such statements as “if it wasn’t so noisey,” “if somebody who is kind of strict tells you, ‘you better do it or you won’t get whatever’—like priviledges and stuff,” and Student: I guess if I was the kind of person who liked to read like my Mom and Dad. My Mom zips through a book about this thick in one day. I used to not even look at a book. But now I’m getting slowly more into it. 140 Student: Yes, I think there is somebody out there who could probably get me to read more. I’ve tried to read down but I get a little bit bored for some of the, because sometimes I have troubles in school and stuff with the writing. Researcher: You have trouble in school reading? Student: Yeah. Researcher: So you think that has something to do with not reading out of school? Student: Yeah, cause if you don’t read out of school, and you don’t practice enough, then you’re not going to be able to read some of the things that you read in school. Reseacher: Do you think that is a reason for reading out of school for leisure—is to practice? Student: No. I think it’s more for enjoyment and something to do. Twenty-three percent brought up “content” type answers, 15% talked about needing more “time,” and the remaining infrequent readers talked about having materials “available,” and not having “other things available and allowed.” These reasons would get them to spend more time reading for leisure. Almost one-fourth of the infrequent readers said that really nothing would get them to spend more time. The use of rewards in the school and in the home for leisure reading were explored with each student, parent, and teacher. Questions not only referred to the present, but also the past. There was no effect found between rewards and time spent reading, nor was there any effect found between rewards and attitude toward recreational reading for all 53 students. When observing the frequencies, however, for the two extremes, apparently 39% of the frequent readers were presently being given some kind of reward for leisure reading by the teacher on a daily basis. Also, 23% of these frequent readers were given rewards by their parents on a daily basis at home for leisure reading. All of these seem to be non-contingent rewards—rewards given for just participating. Expectations and values around reading were explored in this study, and the two extreme groups of frequent and infrequent readers seem to be predominately interested in reading for enjoyment (85% for both groups). However, expectations for enjoyment were stronger for the frequent readers than the infrequent readers. More frequent readers were “quite sure” that reading would be enjoyable, and the value they placed on enjoyment was much higher—”really important.” In contrast, infrequent readers were “slightly sure” that reading would be enjoyable, and they felt that enjoyment was “not at all important.” It was also noted that frequent readers had more reasons to read than infrequent readers. Frequent readers mentioned 141 reasons that were categorized as “enjoyment,” ‘learning,” “relief from boredom,” “encouragement,” “other,” and “availability” whereas infrequent readers mentioned reasons that were categorized as “enjoyment,” “other,” ‘learning,” and “relief from boredom.” Values placed on these outcomes were also much higher for a greater number of the frequent readers. Research Questions Do children who have the ability to read do so out of school only when intrinsic reasons are present? These reasons are defined as feelings of competence, satisfaction, and self- determination; feelings of delight or other such similar reinforcements for its own sake. The reasons for leisure reading given by this group of grade-five students designated as frequent readers included statements which were categorized as “enjoyment,” “learning,” “relief from boredom,” “encouragement,” “other,” and “availability.” Two of these categories would not be considered intrinsic reasons for doing things, “relief from boredom,” and “availability”; the other two, “encouragement,” and “other” might possibly be considered intrinsic depending on the nature of the response. Fifty-nine percent of the frequent readers mentioned statements that were categorized as “enjoyment”; 26% mentioned statements having to do with “learning.” The category for “encouragement” received responses from 11% of the students; “other” received statements from 7% of the students. Thirty percent of the frequent readers made statements concerning “relief from boredom,” and 11% made statements having to do with “availability.” Therefore the question, are these students reading for leisure only when intrinsic reasons are present?, appears to be no. Intrinsic reasons are present for 85% of the readers, but there are other reasons present for these same readers. Fifteen percent of the readers are not reading for intrinsic reasons. Reading for intrinsic reasons does seem to have had an impact for this group of grade-five students, but they are not the only reasons for spending time leisure reading. How does locus of control affect leisure reading? With this group of students, locus of control had no effect on time spent reading for leisure. One possible explanation is that students by this age do not have to rely on generalized expectancy—beliefs about their behaviors and 142 rewards (locus of control)—when it comes to leisure reading. Students have already had a fair amount of experience with leisure reading by this time and will make their decisions based on that experience. How does attitude affect one’s decision to spend time reading for leisure? For this group of grade-five students, the score received on the attitude measure correlated significantly with time spent reading. This was true for both the number of minutes and percentage of leisure time. It was also true when considering book reading only, or when considering all reading materials—books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail. Does a positive recreational reading attitude cause a person to spend time reading for leisure, or does time spent reading for leisure effect one’s recreational reading attitude? Attitude and spending time reading seem to go together. “But which comes first?” is not a question that can be answered within the realm of this study. If it is possible to tease this relationship apart, further research would be necessary. This study did find that parents reading at home had a significant positive effect on one’s attitude toward recreational reading. Are there similarities and differences in classroom and home practices around leisure reading for these frequent and infrequent readers? Within the classroom, the only variable that seemed to make a significant difference as to whether or not these grade-five students spent time reading was having a teacher that read during USSR. Within the home, having siblings that read books and comic books, as well as parents providing a space for reading were the only variables that seem to make a significant difference in the amount of time spent reading. And as previously mentioned, observation of parents’ reading did have a significant effect on attitude. Conclusions Grade-five students were chosen as the target population for this study to insure that frequent readers would be found for comparisons when investigating the infrequent reader. With the large literature base already established for this age group, findings from the present study were compared with the others, confirming certain variables that possibly contribute to leisure reading behavior. As well, this study investigated the rewards and values associated 143 with the leisure activity of reading. It also identified what the grade-five students in this sample do with their leisure time. In addition, each student’s recreational-reading attitude was investigated, along with practices around reading in both the classroom, and the home. Classroom practices aimed at reading were confirmed through personal interviews with the teachers and students, as well as by telephone interviews with the parents. Home practices around reading were verified through these same telephone interviews with the parents, as well as through the personal interviews conducted with the students. Levels of socioeconomic status and education levels for both parents were elicited through the telephone interviews. By using these techniques, variables were taken into account and added to the growing body of literature regarding leisure reading. Throughout the study, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, and ability differences were reported. These variables were discussed in relation to leisure reading, locus of control, reading attitudes, and school and home variables. How did these differences relate to the infrequent, reader who was capable of reading in grade five? In this study, it would seem that when it came to book or magazine reading, the infrequent reader would tend to be a boy. If comic books and newspapers were being analyzed, the infrequent reader would tend to be a girl. The infrequent reader would tend to be from a higher level of socioeconomic status and to score low on an attitude measure for recreational reading. There were no difference for ethnic background or locus of control. Why were children who were capable of reading not reading during their time out of school? The reasons these students gave were categorized under “not enjoyable,” “other things were available and allowed,” “a preferred element was missing” for this activity, and “availability.” Besides the reasons given in the interview for not reading, what else seemed to have an impact on this decision? The expectations and values attached to the reasons may provide another explanation for not reading. What were the expectations and values attached to some of the reasons given for leisure reading? Considering the extreme groups, “enjoyment” was mentioned first. All of the frequent readers mentioned reasons that were categorized as “enjoyment” by the independent raters; 10 of the infrequent readers had made such statements. Seven of the frequent readers were “quite sure” that reading for leisure would be enjoyable; 1 44 four were “slightly sure,” and two were “not at all sure.” One of the infrequent readers was “quite sure” that reading would provide enjoyment; but only five were “slightly sure”; and four were “not at all sure.” Eight of these frequent readers thought that reading for “enjoyment” was “really important”; three felt it was “somewhat important,” and two thought it was “not at all important.” Four of the infrequent readers felt that reading for enjoyment was “really important”; one thought it was “somewhat important”; but five felt it was “not at all important.” Half of the frequent readers were “quite sure” in their expectancy that reading would be enjoyable, and more than half of them placed the highest value on enjoyment—it was “really important.” Half of the infrequent readers, on the other hand, were only “slightly sure” that reading would be enjoyable, and the value that they had placed on enjoyment was the lowest— “not at all important.” Is half of the students of the extreme groups a large enough group to draw some conclusions? This would depend on how conservative or how liberal one wanted to be with the findings. Considering all 53 students for a moment, all of the frequent readers (n = 27) mentioned reasons that were categorized as “enjoyment.” Twenty-one of the 26 infrequent readers mentioned statements that were considered “enjoyment.” Ten of the frequent readers were “quite sure” that reading would be enjoyable; 12 were “slightly sure,” and five were “not at all sure.” Only five of the infrequent readers were “quite sure” that reading would be enjoyable; 10 were “slightly sure,” and six were “not at all sure.” How important was “enjoyment” to each group? Thirteen of the frequent readers felt that enjoyment was “really important”; 11 thought it was “somewhat important,” and three thought “enjoyment” was “not at all important.” Nine of the infrequent readers felt that enjoyment was “really important”; three thought it was “somewhat important,” and nine thought that it was “not at all important.” It still seems like frequent readers were stronger in their expectations around reading, and more of these students had placed a higher value on the reward or reason of enjoyment for reading. This one example from the data illustrates fairly well the underpinings of social learning theory for reading. The potential for reading to occur in leisure time is a function of the expectancy that reading will lead to enjoyment in leisure time and the value of enjoyment. The 145 frequent readers were the ones doing the most reading. All of them mentioned this one particular reason or reward; many of them expected this to happen, and had placed a fairly high value on it. According to Julian Rotter (1982), individuals make decisions by considering rewards (reasons) based on experience by attaching values to them. If one’s experience is non existent or limited, then the individual resorts to generalized expectancy. By grade five, students have had experience with leisure reading, and do not need to rely on generalized expectancy. They do not need to rely on their “beliefs” that their behavior has something to do with receiving the reward (locus of control). This may be the possible explanation as to why locus of control had no effect on time spent reading for this group of students. The purpose of the study was to generate questions and examine the various answers in order to document the reasons for not reading during time out of school. These reasons have been listed several times in the last two chapters. Besides these reasons mentioned by the infrequent readers for not reading, the question was also asked “what it was they disliked about reading?” Forty-two percent mentioned that reading was “not enjoyable,” such as “it’s boring.” (Researcher: “Why is it boring to you?) “Because you just sit there, and it’s not physical.” “Some books that I start to read get boring.” Student: Some of the books that I have to read like, just like I have a whole thing of books and I just read in order. Some of them are really boring. Researcher: Why do you have to read them? Student: I don’t have too but I put them in order, and then I read one book then the next. Researcher: Are these about the same kinds of things? Like a series? Or not necessarily? Student: Sometimes. Researcher: Sometimes it’s a series? And other times it’s just books that you’ve gotten and you’ve put them in order, and you make yourself read them even though you don’t like them? Student: Yes. Researcher: And you don’t like that? Student: Yes. Sometimes I’d rather be doing something else. Researcher: Why do you make yourself read those books, because you’ve put them in order? Why do you do that? Student: I don’t know. Researcher: Just something you do? Do you do that with anything else? Like do you make yourself play certain Nintendo games? Student: No. Researcher: Or do you make yourself watch certain TV programs? Student: No. But you do that for books? You’ve got to read these before you read the next one? Student: Yes. Student: Sometimes it will get boring, and then I’ll just kind of put it down for later. Researcher: What makes it boring for you? 1 46 Student: It doesn’t really get interesting for me. After awhile it just kind of keeps saying the same thing about something and will just keep on talking about one thing. Forty-two percent made statements that were categorized as “a preferred element was missing,” and included “sometimes I don’t like it when like somebody or when the book just says ‘to be continued’ then you have to buy another,” “sometimes people die in them,” and “sometimes the fine print. Or on comics, it’s close together. Sometimes blurry, you can’t read it.” Eight percent talked about “availability,” and 4% about “time.” For some time now the literature on leisure reading has reported what students were doing with their leisure time. It was a purpose of this study to shed some light on why some children who can read choose not to read. What seems to influence a grade-five student’s decision to spend time reading during leisure time? There is considerable evidence from this study that children need role models. It appears to have helped significantly to have had a teacher who reads during USSR at school and to have had siblings who read at home. Having parents who read at home also appears to have had a significant effect on the child’s attitude toward recreational reading, and a positive attitude toward recreational reading had a significant effect on spending time leisure reading. As one infrequent reader commented when asked “what if any thing would get you to spend more time reading for leisure”? I guess if I was the kind of person who liked to read like my Mom and Dad. My Mom zips through a book about this thick in one day. I used to not even look at a book. But now I’m getting slowly more into it. Students need to actually observe reading behavior. Talking about spending time reading, and assigning time for reading does not seem to be the answer. Another factor that had a significant effect on time spent reading for leisure was having a space provided for the child to read. This study has also added to the world-wide literature base of how grade-five students spend their time out of school by using a sample from British Columbia, Canada. Because the focus was recreational reading, other leisure activities reported in the results section were not discussed. However, it is interesting to note that frequent readers also watched a significant amount of television. Television was by far the number one activity for this group of students during the 17 days of February and March. Students spent, on the average, approximately 30% of their leisure time watching television. This amounted to approximately one hour and 47 147 minutes per day (one hour and 32 minutes per school day, and two hours and 36 minutes per weekend day). This was the figure for the entire sample, with both frequent and infrequent readers spending approximately the same amount of time watching television. Despite this activity, the frequent readers were able to spend on the average 34 minutes per day reading (31 minutes per school day, and 58 minutes per weekend day). Television does take time away from other leisure pursuits, but it does not seem to displace the activity of reading for this group of grade-five students. There were, however, some students in the sample who spent much more time watching television—up to 45% of their leisure time—and it would seem that for those individuals, television might be displacing time which potentially could have been spent reading. Another leisure activity of note for this study was the activity of going to the library. Despite the reported amounts of reading each day, going to the library was minimal. This would have been he public library, not the library located at the school. The reported time spent going to the library by this group of grade-five students in British Columbia, Canada, during the 17 days in February and March was on the average approximately one minute per day— under one minute on a school day, and under two minutes on a weekend day. This represented less than 1% of the out-of-school time for the entire sample. The group that used this facility the most was the male infrequent reader. Information provided from the interviews indicated that both frequent readers and infrequent readers lived predominately a mile or less from the library, although some were closer and some were further away. Being that there were no significant differences for this variable, something else seems to be causing the male infrequent reader to use the library. Limitations. There are several limitations to this study which might have affected the reported findings. It is essential to keep these in mind when making generalizations. First, the subjects were not randomly selected nor were the schools from which the sample was drawn. The resulting restriction of range for socioeconomic status may have had an impact on the findings of this study. 148 Second, the diary-technique and the interview-technique were both used in this investigation, and both procedures have received a fair amount of criticism. These procedures can certainly cause some limitations to a study, but it was felt that the daily diary-technique, along with consultations when necessary, would keep these limitations to a minimum. It is generally believed that using diaries is much more reliable than interview or questionnaire instruments for establishing time spent in activities (Carp & Carp, 1981). Interviews were used to explore the reasons and values attached to the activities documented in the diaries. The fact that the researcher’s interest was only known as “students’ activities outside of school,” rather than reading, hopefully kept the social desirability factor to a minimum. Third, perhaps the time of the year—February and March—was a particularly good time or a particularly bad time for accounting for leisure-reading behavior. The time of the year could certainly have an impact on activities elected during a student’s time out of school. Weather, sport seasons, number of daylight hours, holidays, and school demands could understandably have an effect on how one decides to spend their leisure time. Fourth, the findings in the present study may have also been influenced by the control for subjective answers. “Often” meant “almost everyday,” “sometimes” was “about two or three times a week,” and “rarely” meant “once a week or less.” It may be possible that other studies within the literature on leisure reading gave greater lattitude for these responses when investigating these same variables. Consequently, comparative data from the present study might be, to a certain extent, invalid due to these factors. Last, the reader must also remember that some of these analyses, like most conducted in research, are based on test results. Thus the findings are dependent upon how well the instruments measure what they purport to measure. In addition, the less than desirable psychometric characteristics of some of the instruments, particularly the standard errors, coupled with a relatively small sample size, may have reduced the power of the analyses, and therefore effected the interpretation of the findings. 149 Implications. Leisure-reading behavior can be a fairly sensitive topic for teachers, librarians, parents, and grandparents. All of these groups would like to do “what’s right” to encourage reading, and all their intentions are certainly good. This study has examined some of these intentions and has described their impact on leisure-reading behavior. Some of these practices had a significant effect, some showed a trend for making a difference, many had no effect on leisure reading. Practices that had no effect may come as surprises to teachers, librarians, parents, and grandparents. This study has provided documented evidence for librarians, authors, and publishers as to what grade-five students want from their reading materials. Students were asked, “what would make reading more fun?” Often students had more than one response to this question. All responses were categorized by two and sometimes three independent raters. Responses fell into all of the available categories but the category with the most answers was “content.” Thirty-six percent of the students mentioned ideas that were categorized under “content.” This refers to style, characters, or plot. Some of the students made generalized statements, such as having materials that were more exciting, funny, or interesting. Others were more specific about the materials themselves, such as “if in the comic books, they had more jokes and riddles, and stuff like that. Like funner activities.” “Like magazines when they talk about a person, if they like give more information on that person rather than only a little bit.” Some students had specific advise for authors: “If the authors would cut out the boring parts.” “If they had lots of detail. Like more about the person or place. I like reading stuff because it’s really interesting, and if it’s not interesting than I don’t read at all.” “More action. Like every bit is action!” “I like it when a boat is going to fall over, and then you jump into the land and stuff. Or saving yourself, or like your friend is going to fall off the cliff, and you save them.” One infrequent reader explained what it was that made a book boring. “Well, they just talk. Like there’s usually three chapters, and they just talking and talking; no where in particular that just talking about what happen straight in the day. Nothing interesting. The book I’m reading now, the boring story: buy the girl a Xmas present, a puppy. She buys him a pizza.” Others mention what they would 150 particularly like to read about: “thoroughbred books1” “hockey,” “murder books or else dying books,” “books about my favorite TV shows,” and “right now I’m reading a skiing book; and one time I was reading a hockey book, and before that I was reading a novel book about motorcycles.” The researcher asked this particular student if they liked to read books that tell you how to do things or the stories about those things? The student answered, “stories.” And one student mentioned that the one thing that would make reading more fun for them is “if Roald DahI never died because I like his books.” Students were also asked, “what if anything would get you to spend more time reading?” Again, students usually had a variety of responses which fell into various categories. The most popular category was again “content.” This time 28% of the students made statements that were categorized under this heading. Some of the statements were very general, such as “if the books were more exciting.” Other responses, however, were quite specific: “like if it’s got a good problem to it, and you have to find a solution for it,” “if I was at a good part, then I’d keep on reading to see what happens,” and “more action because then I’d want to read more.” Other students mentioned topics that would get them to spend more time reading for leisure, such as “mysteries and things to solve,” “sports,” “books about Indians and science fiction,” and “Matt Christopher books, and a whole set of Bunnicula Books.” “Content” seems to be a very important factor to this group of grade-five students who presently had spent 6% of their leisure time reading. Who knows how much more time they would spend reading if students could find what they wanted in leisure reading materials. Teachers and librarians need to insure that the materials they keep or recommend reflect the interests of the current group of students. There were several analyses in this study that provided results which did not reach the predetermined alpha level ( = .05), but trends can indicate that there may be some things worth investigating further using a research design with more power that is, a larger sample size. In this study such findings included: (1) effect of actual amounts of time given for USSR, (2) effect of books being available in the classroom for leisure reading, and (3) effect of using materials for teaching reading, such as a reading series or technical materials. Trends in the analyses indicated these variables might be having some type of interaction with the amount of 151 time spent reading. Possible influences that may be fruitful for further investigations regarding students’ attitude toward recreational reading were: (1) effect of teacher behavior during USSR, (2) effect of a silent reading program that has students reading for pleasure in school (USSR) and at home each night, and (3) effect of having a library within the classroom. Finally, replication of the present study is in order since the sample, like many nonexperimental studies in education, consisted of volunteers from intact classrooms and therefore limits the generalizability of these findings. 152 Bibliography Alexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Allen, L., Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Multiple indicators of children’s reading habits and attitudes: Construct validity and cognitive correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, (4), 489-503. Aliport, G. W. (1967). Attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 3-13). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Alvermann, D. E. (1987). Developing lifetime readers. In D.E. Alvermann, D. W. Moore, & M. W. Conley (Eds.), Research within reach: Secondary school reading: A research guided response to concerns of reading educators (25-36). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Alvermann, D. E., & Guthrie, J. T. (1993). Themes and directions of the National Reading Research Center (Perspectives in reading research, No. 1). Athens: University of Georgia and College Park: University of Maryland, National Reading Research Center. American Federation of Teachers and Chrysler Corporation. (1992). Kids. parents. and reading. Chicago: Author. Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly , 23 (3), 285-303. Asheim, L. (1956). What do adults read? In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Adult reading (pp. 5-28). 55th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Askov, E. (1972). Assessment of attitudes towards reading in primary pupils . Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning. Athey, I. (1985). Reading research in the affective domain. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed.) (527-557). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Barnett, M. A., & Kaiser, D. L. (1977, May). The relationship between intellectual achievement responsibility attributions and performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 143 977) Baron, R. M., Cowan, G., Ganz, R. L., & McDonald, M. (1974). interaction of locus of control and type of performance feedback: Considerations of external validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoay, (2), 285-292. Baron, R. M., & Ganz, R. L. (1972). Effects of locus of control and type of feedback on the task performance of lower class, black children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21 (1), 124-130. Bartel, N. R. (1971). Locus of control and achievement in middle- and lower-class children. Child Development, 4.2. (4), 1099-11 07. 1 53 Battle, E. & Rotter, J. B. (1963). Children’s feelings of personal control as related to social class and ethnic group. Journal of Personality, j. (4), 482-490. Blaha, J., & Chomin, L. (1982). The relationship of reading attitudes to academic aptitude, locus of control, and field independence. Psychology in the Schools, J.. (1), 28-32. Blishen, B. R., Carroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981 socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 2 (4), 465-488. Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and chanoe in human characteristics. New York: John Wiley. Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1979). Competence and the overjustification effect: A developmental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholoay, (9), 1462-1468. Boraks, N., Brittain, M., Under, F., & Bauer, D. (1993). An exploration of the impact of personality factors on comprehension. In B. L. Hayes & K. Camperell (Eds.), Reading: Strategies. practices. and research for the 21st century (Vol. 13, 151-163). Yearbook of the American Reading Forum. Brewer, E. W., Dunn, J. 0., & Olszewski, P. (1988). Extrinsic reward and intrinsic motivation: The vital link between classroom management and student performance. Journal of Education for Teaching, 14. (2), 151-170. Brown, D., Fulkerson, D. F., Furr, S., Ware, W. B., & Voight, N. L. (1984). Locus of control, sex role orientation, and self-concept in black and white third- and sixth-grade male and female leaders in a rural community. Developmental Psychology, 2Q. (4), 71 7-721. Brown, D. H., Engin, A. W., & Walibrown, F. H. (1979). Locus of control and reading attitude. Psycholocy in the Schools, i. (3), 336-338. Brown, R. T. (1980). Locus of control and its relationship to intelligence and achievement. Psycholoolcal Reoorts, 4,.. (3), 1249-1250 Burroughs, S. G. (1991). The implications for effective education of understanding pupil motivation in schools as a multi-dimensional model. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 2. (4), 251 -274. California Media and Library Educators Association, (1984, November). Literature/reading surveys for libraria/media specialists and teachers: A packet of student questions. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the California Media and Ubrary Educators Association, Oakland, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 250 702) Carp, F. M., & Carp, A. (1981). The validity, reliability and generalizability of diary data. Experimental Aging Research, Z (3), 281 -296. Cervantes, R. A. (1 976a). Locus of control and achievement of Mexican-American pupils. San Antonio, TX: Development Associates. Cervantes, R. A. (1 976b, February). Self-concept. locus of control and achievement in Mexican-American pupils. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Bilingual Bicultural Education, San Francisco. 154 Charlton, T., & Terrell, C. (1987). Enhancing internal locus of control beliefs through group counselling: Effects upon children’s reading performance. Psychological Reports, Q (3), 928-930. Chisom, Y. L. (1989). Increasing literature appreciation and recreational reading behavior of intermediate grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 308 494) Clark, M. M. (1976). Youna fluent readers: What can they teach us? London: Heinemann. Cloer, T., & Pearman, B. (1993). The relationship of gender to attitudes about academic and recreational reading. In B. L. Hayes & K. Camperell (Eds.), Reading: Strategies. practices. and research for the 21st century (Vol. 13, 117-127). Yearbook of the American Reading Forum. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Condry, J., & Koslowski, B. (1979). Can education be made “intrinsically interesting” to children? In L. G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education: Vol. Il (pp. 227-260). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Connor, D. V. (1954). The relationship between reading achievement and voluntary reading of children. Educational Review, . (3), 221-227. Coombs, W. N., & Schroeder, H. E. (1988). Generalized locus of control: An analysis of factor analytic data. Personality & Individual Differences, (1), 79-85. Covington, V. (1985). Leisure time readino versus teevsion viewing time for seventh arade reading students. (Research Study for ASC 579). Huntsville, Texas: Sam Houston State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 275 989) Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children’s beliefs in their own control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, . (1), 91-109. Crandall, V. J., Katkovsky, W., & Preston, A. (1962). Motivational and ability determinants of young children’s intellectual academic achievement situations. Child Development, 3 (3), 643-661. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (15-35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psycholoav. ..2. (4), 733-740. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, (2), 264-274. 155 Cunningham, J. D. (1973). Adolescent reading interests in Greater Vancouver. an interpretation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Curr, W., Hallworth, H. J., & Wilkinson, A. M. (1962). How secondary modern school children spend their time. Educational Review,i. (1), 3-11. Cutright, P., & Brueckner, L. J. (1928). A measurement of the effects of teaching of recreational reading. The Elementary School Journal, (2), 132-137. Danner, F. W., & Lonky, E. (1981). A cognitive-developmental approach to the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, (2), 1043-1052. Dave, R. H. (1963). The identification and measurement of environmental variables that are related to educational achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press. Decker, B. C. (1985, November). Aliteracy: What teachers can do to keep Johnny reading. Paper presented at the meetings of Louisiana State University’s Education Forum, Shreveport, LA. and at the Southeastern Regional Conference of the International Reading Association, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 265 528) Duggins, J. (1989, May). Middle school students’ interest in reading and reading ability. Paper presented the the 34th convention of the International Reading Association, New Orleans, LA. Durkin, D. (1960/61). Children who read before grade one. The Readino Teacher, JA 163- 166. Durkin, D. (1963). Children who read before grade 1: A second study. The Elementary School Journal,.4. (3), 143-148. Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read?: lEA study of reading literacy. The Hague: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Farmer, H. S. (1985). Model of career and achievement motivation for women and men. Journal of Counseling Psycholgy, Z (3), 363-390. Farris, P. J., & Kaczmarski, D. (1988). Whole language, a closer look. Contemporary Education, j (2), 77-81. Feather, N. T. (1982). Expectancy-value approaches: Present status and future directions. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (395-420). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Feifel, H., & Lorge, I. (1950). Journal of Educational Psvcholooy,4Q. (1), 1-17. Fielding, L., Wilson, P., & Anderson, R. (1984). A new focus on free reading: The role of trade books in reading instruction. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.), The contexts of school-based literacy learning (149-162). New York: Random House. 156 Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1981). Attitudes and voting behaviour: An application of the theory of reasoned action. In G. M. Stephenson & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Progress in applied social psychology (Vol. 1, 253-313). Chichester, England: John Wiley. Fleming, W. G. (1953). A study of the leisure-time reading habits of senior high school students with low sociometric status. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto. Flynn, T. M. (1991). Achievement, self-concept and locus of control in Black pre kindergarten children. Early Child Development and Care, 4., 135-139. Foertsch, M. A. (1992). Reading in and out of school: Factors influencing the literacy achievement of American students in grades 4. 8. and 12. in 1988 and 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Gorman, T. P., White, J., Orchard, L., & Tate, A. (1981). Language performance in schools. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Greaney, V. (1970). A comparison of individualized and basal reader approaches to reading instruction. The Irish Journal of Education , 4. (1), 19-29. Greaney, V. (1980). Factors related to amount and type of leisure time reading. Reading Research Quarterly, j.. (3), 337-357. Greaney, V., & Clarke, M. (1975). A longitudinal study of the effects of two reading methods on leisure-time reading habits. In D. Moyle (Ed.), Reading: What of the future? (107-114). London: Ward Lock. Greaney, V., & Hegarty, M. (1987). Correlates of leisure-time reading. Journal of Research in Reading , 1.Q (1), 3-20. Guthrie, J. T., & Greaney, V. (1991). Literacy acts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, 68-96). New York: Longman. Hannah, J. S., & Kahn, S. E. (1989). The relationship of socioeconomic status and gender to the occupational choices of grade 12 students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3.4. (2), 161- 178. Hansen, H. S. (1969). The impact of the home literary environment on reading attitude. Elementary Enolish, 4... (1), 17-24. Hansen, H. S. (1973). The home literary environment--a follow-up report. Elementary English. .Q. (1), 97-98, 122. Healy, A. R. (1965). Effects of changing children’s attitudes toward reading. Elementary English, 4.2. (3), 269-272. Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. New York: Academic Press. Holmes, A. (1932). Voluntary readino of Toronto public school pupils: A quantitative and qualitative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Houston, J. E. (Ed.). (1990). Thesaurus of ERIC descriptors (12th ed.). Phoenix: Oryx Press. 157 Hughes, J. N. (1988). Interviewing children. In J. M. Dillard & R. R. Reilly (Eds.), Systematic interviewing (90-113). Toronto: Merriel Pub. Co. Huus, H. (1979). A new look at children’s interests. In J. E. Shapiro (Ed.), Using literature and poetry affectively (37-45). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Johnston, W. A. (1992). Comparison and prediction of the level of career aspirations of adolescent males and females. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Kohn, A. (1987). Art for art’s sake. Psychology Today, 21 (9), 52-57. Lamme, L. (1976). Are reading habits and abilities related? The Reading Teacher, . (1), 21-27. Landy, S. (1977). An investigation of the relationship between voluntary reading and certain psychological, environmental, and socioeconomic factors in early adolescence. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 145 409) Lane, B. A. (1985). A survey of the leisure reading of junior high school students in the province of Newfoundland. Unpublished master’s thesis, Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland. Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). Locus of control. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman, (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes: Vol. 1. Measures of social psychological attitudes (413-499). San Diego: Academic Press. Lewis, J. (1979). A reading attitude inventory for elementary school pupils. Educational and Psychological Measurement, (2), 511-513. Little, V. L., & Kendall, P. C. (1978). Note on locus of control and academic achievement in institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psycholoay, , (2), 281- 283. Long, B. H., & Henderson, E. H. (1972). Children’s use of time: Some personal and social correlates. The Elementary School Journai,Z (3), 193-199. Lonky, E. I. (1975, December). Disequilibration as intrinsic motivation: Testing the cognitive evaluation theory using Piacetian tasks in the classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the Wisconsin Educational Research Association, Madison, WI. Lonky, E. I., & Reihman, J. (1980, September). Cognitive evaluation theory. locus of control and positive verbal feedback. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Oswego, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 195 324) MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1992). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (2nd Canadian ed.). Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada. Manning, G. L., & Manning, M. (1984). What models of recreational reading make a difference? Reading World, (4), 375-380. 158 Martin, J. A. (1977). Effects of positive and negative adult-child interactions on children’s task performance and task preferences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23 (3), 493-502. Matheny, K. B., & Edwards, C. R. (1974). Academic improvement through an experimental classroom management system. Journal of School Psychology, 1Z (3), 222-232. Maxwell, J. (1977). Reading progress from 8 to 15. Windsor, Berks.: NFER Publishing Co. McEady-Gillead, B. (1989, April). The leisure time of interested and uninterested readers. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Reading Association. New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 314 719) McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 4.3 (9), 626-639. McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1989, December). Children’s attitudes toward reading: Secondary analysis of data from a national study. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin. McKenna, M. C., Stratton, B. D., & Grindler, M. C. (1992, November). Social desirability of children’s responses to a reading attitude survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the College Reading Association, St. Louis. McKenna, M. C., Stratton, B. D., Grindler, M. C., Rakestraw, J. F., & Jenkins, S. (1992, December). Differential effects of whole language and traditional instruction on reading attitudes. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio. Mervar, K., & Hiebert, E. H. (1989). Literature-selection strategies and amount of reading in two literacy approaches. In S. McCormick, J. Zutell, P. L. Scharer, P. B. O’Keefe (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (529-535). 38th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Milgram, N. A. (1971). Locus of control in negro and white children at four age levels. Psychological Reports, 2. (2), 459-465. Milner, E. A. (1951). A study of the relationship between reading readiness in grade one children and patterns of parent-child interaction. Child Development, (2), 95-112. Moffitt, M. S. (1992). Youth and reading: A survey of leisure reading pursuits of female and male adolescents. Readino Research and Instruction, 31 (2), 1-17. Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein, C. S., (1986). Encouraging voluntary reading: The impact of a literature program on children’s use of library centers. Reading Research Quarterly. 2J. (3), 330-347. Murphy, D. (1986). Intrinsic motivation. Dlanning and problem solving in aood and Door readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Murray, H. B., & Staebler, B. K. (1974). Teacher’s locus of control and student achievement gains. Journal of School Psychology, 12. (3), 305-309. Naditch, M. P., & DeMaio, T. (1975). Locus of control and competence. Journal of Personality. 41 (4), 541-559. 159 Nell, V. (1978). Kinds of reading and kinds of motivation: Reflections on the psychology of the reading habit. Mousaion,2. (5), 63-71. Nell, V. (1988a). Lost in a book: The psychology of reading for pleasure. New Haven: Yale University Press. Nell, V. (1988b). The psychology of reading for pleasure: Needs and gratifications. Reading Research Quarterly, Z. (1), 6-50. Neuman, S. B. (1980). Why children read: A functional approach. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12. (4), 333-336. Neuman, S. B. (1986a). The home environment and fifth-grade students’ leisure reading. )1 Elementary School Journal, (3), 335-343. Neuman, S. B. (1 986b). Television, reading, and the home environment. Reading Research and Instruction, 25 (3), 173-183. Newhouse, R. C. (1974). Reinforcement-responsibility differences in birth order, grade level, and sex of children in grades 4, 5, and 6. Psychological Regorts, .4. (3), 699-705. Nielsen, L., & Long, M. (1981). Why adolescents can’t read: Locus of control, gender, and reading abilities. Reading Improvement, i. (4), 339-345. Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1983). The Nowicki-Strickland life-span locus of control scales: Construct validation. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct: Vol. 2. Developments and social problems (9-51). New York: Academic Press. Nowicki, S., & Rountree, J. (1971). Correlates of locus of control in a secondary school population. Developmental Psycholooy, 4. (3), 477-478. Nowicki, S., & Segal, W. (1973). Perceived parental characteristics, locus of control orientation, and behavior correlates of locus of control. Developmental Psychology, 12. (1), 33-37. Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psycholooy , 4 (1), 148-154. Nowicki, S., & Walker, C. (1974). The role of generalized and specific expectancies in determining academic achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, .4. (2), 275-280. Ollendick, D. G. (1979). Parental locus of control and the assessment of children’s personality characteristics. Journal of Personality Assessment, 4.. (4), 401-405. Pani, M. K. (1991). Differences in locus of control and reading abilities among grade three children. Psycho Lingua, (1), 9-12. Picha, K. A. (1988). Leisure reading habits and preferences of anglophone grade 6 early French immersion students related to book promotional activities. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 160 Plessas, G., & Oakes, C. (1964). Pre-reading experiences of selected early readers. IJi Reading Teacher, 1i 241-245. Pluck, M., Ghafari, E., Glynn, T., & McNaughton, S. (1984). Teacher and parent modelling of recreational reading. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 1. (2), 114-123. Prawat, R. S., Grisson, S., & Parish, T. (1979). Affective development in children, grades 3 through 12. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1.5. (1), 37-49. Purves, A. C. & Beach, R. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in resonse to literature, reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Rasinski, T. V. (1987, December). Home reading behavior of third- and fifth-grade students. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Reading Forum. Sarasota, FL (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 290 133) Reiff, J. C. (1985). Investigating reading preferences, reading attitudes and teacher observations of third graders. Reading Improvement, 22. (1), 29-33. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman, (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes: Vol. 1. Measures of social psychological attitudes (1-16). San Diego: Academic Press. Roettger, D., Szymezuk, M., & Millard, J. (1979). Validation of a reading attitude scale for elementary students and an investigation of the relationship between attitude and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, (3), 138-142. Ronnholm, P. 0. (1992, December/1993, January). The secret of their success: Many factors contribute to Finns’ high scores in lEA survey. Reading Today, Z 14. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall. Rotter, J. B. (1955). The role of the psychological situation in determining the direction of human behavior. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 3, pp. 245-274). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, (1), 1-28. Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4.1 (1), 56-57. Rotter, J. B. (1982). Social learning theory. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 241-260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rowell, C. G. (1972). An investigation of factors related to change in attitude toward reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, . (4), 266-272. Russell, D. H. (1961). Children learn to read. Boston: Ginn Co. 161 Schon, I., Hopkins, K. D., & Davis, W. A. (1981, April). The effects of books in Spanish and free reading time on hispanic students’ reading abilities and attitudes. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 204 096) Schwenn, E. A., Klausmeier, H. J., & Sorenson, J. S. (1970, March). Motivational procedures in school settings: The effect of individual adult-child conferences in reading. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Minneapolis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 040 031) Shapira, Z. (1976). Expectancy determinants of intrinsically motivated behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (6), 1235-1244. Shapiro, J. (1981). Affective concerns and reading. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 1 (2), 82-92. Shapiro, J. (1993). Affective concerns and reading. In T. V. Rasinski & N. D. Padak (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (107-114). The 15th Yearbook of the College Reading Association. Shapiro, J., & White, W. (1991). Reading attitudes and perceptions in traditional and nontraditional reading programs. Reading. Research. & Instruction, (4), 52-66. Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. (1967). Scales for measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sheldon, W. D., & Carrillo, L. (1952). Relation of parents, home, and certain developmental characteristics to children’s reading ability. The Elementary School Journal, (5), 262-270. Sherman, L. W. (1984, August). Developing perceptions of control: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Paper presented at the convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 458) Sherman, L. W., & Hoffman, R. J. (1980). Achievement as a momentary event, as a continuing state, and locus of control. Perceptual and Motor Skills, J.. (3), 1159-1166. Sirota, B. 5. (1971). The effect of a planned literature program of daily oral reading by the teacher on the voluntary reading of fifth-grade children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University. Dissertation Abstracts International, , 2320A. Smalley, L. M. (1958). A practicable diary technique for time sampling the everyday life of children. Educational Review, 1Q. (3), 233-247. Sparks, P., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1991). Expectancy-value models of attitudes: A note on the relationship between theory and methodology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21 (3), 261-271. Spaulding, C. L. (1992). The motivation to read and write. In J. W. Irwin & M. A. Doyle (Eds.), Reading and writing connections: Learning from research (177-201). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Squire, J. R., & Applebee, R. (1966). A study of English programs in selected high schools which consistently educate outstanding students in English. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. 162 Squire, J. R., & Applebee, R. (1968). A study of the teaching of English in selected British secondary schools. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 2.4. (4), 402-433. Statistics Canada. (1986a). Census Canada 1986: Occupation: population and dwelling characteristics. (Cat. 93-112). Ottawa: Canadian Government Publication Centre. Statistics Canada. (1986b). Census Canada 1986: Profile of ethnic groups. (Cat. 93-154). Ottawa: Minister of Supply & Services Canada. Steiner, G. (1985). Books in an age of post-literacy. Publishers Weekly, 22.Z (21), 44-48. Stipek, D. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, .1 (1), 101-137. Strickland, B. R. (1989). Internal-external control expectancies: From contingency to creativity. American Psychologist, 4..4. (1), 1-12. Strodtbeck, F. L. (1958). Family interaction, values and achievement. In D. McClelland (Ed.), Talent and society (135-194). New York: Van Nostrand. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1983). Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Super, D. E. & Nevill, D. D. (1984). Work role salience as a determinant of career maturity in high school students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, (1), 30-44. Sutton, M. (1964). Readiness for reading at kindergarten. The Reading Teacher. 1Z, 234- 240. Taylor, A. (1982). Between the idea and the reality . .. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 250 664) Taylor, B. M., Frye, B. J., & Maruyama, G. M. (1990). Time spent reading and reading growth. American Educational Research Journal, 2.Z (2), 351-362. Terman, L. M., & Lima, M. (1926). Children’s reading. New York: Appleton. Tesiny, E. P., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Gordon, N. H. (1980). Childhood depression, locus of control, and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psycholooy, Z2 (4), 506-51 0. University of British Columbia, Computing Centre (1986). UBC SPSSX: Statistical package fgj the social sciences, extended version. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Van Alstyne, D. (1929). The environment of three year old children. New York: Teachers’ College, Columbia University. Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. (1984). Reading achievement and diminishing returns to time. Journal of Educational Psychology, Z. (4), 442-451. Wallbrown, F., Brown, D., & Engin, A. (1975). A Survey of Reading Attitudes (2nd edition). Unpublished test. Kent State University, Kent, Ohio. 1 63 Whitehead, F., Capey, A. C., & Maddren W. (1975). Children’s reading interests (Schools Council Working Paper No. 52). London: Evans/Methuen Educational. Whitehead, F., Capey, A. C., Maddren W., & Wellings, A. (1977). Children and their books. London: Macmillan Education. Whitney, P. (1986). Children’s locus of control and intrinsically motivated reading. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Francisco State University. Whitney, P. (1992, December). Children’s out-of-school activities. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 358 408) Willey, D. L. (1978, March). The relationship of student locus of control to self-esteem and six measures of reading performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 178 786) Wilson, P. T., Anderson, R. C., & Fielding, L. G. (1986). Children’s book reading habits: A new criterion for literacy (Reading Ed. Report No. 63). Urbana: Illinois University, Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 277 999) Wiseman, S. (1967). Children and their primary schools. London: Great Britain Department of Education and Science. Wolfle, D. (1961). National resources of ability. In A. H. Halsey (Ed.), Ability and educational opDortunity (49-65). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Wooster, A. D. (1974). Acceptance of responsibility for school work by educationally subnormal boys. British Journal of Mental Subnormality, (38), 23-27. s9Opuaddy Appendix 1: After School Day 165 (0 ( 0 A F T E R S C H O O L D A Y U m T U C T J O N S I . C h . c k o U I e b e x e a i n d k t I n g w h a t y o u d i d T h I s , w h a t I d i d o u t - o f - s c h o o l o n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ y e s t e r d a y o u t . o ( - a c h o o l 2 . T h i n k a b o u t t h e U m e y o u d i d t h e m a n d p l a c e t h e c o d e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ w h i c h I s n e x t t o t h a t a c t i v i t y I n t o t h e c i r c l e s o f t h e a b o u t 1 5 m I n u t e s . c l o c k a t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e . E a c h c i r c l e e q u a l s / M I D N 1 G H T 3 . S o m e a c t i v i t i e s n e e d t o b e c o m p l e t e d w i t h 1 C S . t h l s D ( t h m a ( n ( e a d n i n f o r m a t i o n . 4 . H e r e a r e s o m e s p e c i a l c o d e s : S ( a l s o p l a g i 7 ( t r e w s p o d a f t o n ) . I P L A T Z D : 1 1 I i w h a t w e d i d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A I O w l t h m y l r l e n d s a t t h i s M f r i e n d , a t t h i s 0 E Q U A L S I s w h a t w e d i d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 0 1 * 3 L I / L . l k e d o n t h e p h o n e 1 * 3 a s p o r t c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A B O U T i a s p o r t c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I S M I N U T E S A 3 0 a s p o r t c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A 4 I ] a g a m e c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9 — 3 M G i g a m e c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M E l a g a m e c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A S C ] a v i d e o g a m e ( N i n t e n d o o r o t h e r ) [ j r N . . . 1 1 I D I D D I O m y h o m e w o r k C ] w o r k o n a h o b b y c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D 2 E l h e l p a m u n d t h e h o u e e t ’ N H E R T f l 3 1 ] w o r k o n a h o b b y c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E l a ( p r a c t i c e / l e s s o n ) f o r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8 4 C I I ( p r a c U c e / l e a s o n l f o r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I W A T C H Z D / U S T F I ( K D C I ( i t O a m o v i e v i d e o c E l i 0 t e l e v i s i o n C 3 [ I t o ( r a d i o , r e c o r d s . t i p e s . C D s l D I [ I r e a d m a l l f r o m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 2 C ] w r o t e a l e t t e r N O T f o r s c h o o l t o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C o d e N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 N t x I ] r e a d a n e w s p a p e r t O O T b r s c h o o l a b o u t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i n L I r e a d a n e w s p a p e r N O T f o r s c h o o l a b o u t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D 4 D r e a d a m a g a z i n e N O T f o r s c h o o l c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ I X I D r e a d a b o o k N O T f o r s c h o o l c a l l e d [ 1 r e a d a b o o k N O T ( o r s c h o o l c a l l e d I ] w r o t e s o m e t h I n g N O T f o r s c h o o l I d i a r y . J o u r n a l , s t o i y . p o e t r y ) i i i D r e a d c o m i c b o o k , c a l l e d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W H A T E L S S D W I D O ? E R D _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8 3 0 8 3 0 E 4 I W Y T T O F l l i t h e l i b r a r y F 2 t ] t h e s t o r e 1 67 Appendix 2: Weekend Day iN S T R U C T IO N S I. C heck offthe boxes Indicating w hat you did y esterd ay out-of’achool. 2. T hInk ab o u t the Lim e you did them an d place the code w hich is noct to th at activity into th e circles of the clock at th e ap p ro p riate tim e. E ach circle eq u als about15 m In u te.. 3. S onic activities need to be com pleted w ith in fo rm atio n . 4. H ere are sonic special codes: H (bathing) 1) (dressIng) E (eating) 8 (sleepIng) T (b an sp o italio n ). I FL A Y E D * it] w ith m y frien d s at th is is w hat w e did______________________ A ll] w ith m y friends at th is is w hat w , iiiil_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N JI] /talk cd on th e phone 1.31] a sp o rt called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A 31] . sp o rt called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.31] a sport called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M 1] a gam e called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U (] a gam e called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U [J game called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SLI a video gam e (N intendo or otherl I W A T C H E D /L IS T E N E D C l [Ito a m ovie video (2 I] to television C l []to (radio, records, tap es, C D ’s) oi0 read m all from _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [I w rote a letter H O T for school to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - W LI read a new spaper N O T for school about — I] read a new spaper H O T for school about — 0 read a m agazine N O T for school called _ _ _ _ _ _ D O[1 read a book N O T for school called D OLi read a book N O T for school called DO l]wrote something N O T for sch o o l (diary. jo u rn al, sto ry , poetry) u i[1 read com ic books called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — - W H A T E L S E D W 11)07 E IE J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E i_ _ _ _ _ _ l0 _ _ _ _ I W C F T O FROttie lib rary 1’3lJIhe store (0 W E E K E N D D A Y T h Is I. w h a t I d id o u t-o f.c h o o 1 o n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C o d e I N Q O N U N C R _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T IM E _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 I O LD — -______________ 1)1Omy hom ew ork B R E A K F A 8 1)21] help around the house _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /T o I 1)30 w ork on a hobby called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 w orkon a hobby called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / W Iw D 1 [I a lp ractice/lcsso n for 7 N IG IIT 1]. lp raclice/lesso ii) for — ° ‘ ‘ L C L O C K (::) 5 6 W A E U P 169 Appendix 3: Weekend Night Tl i d I PL A Y E D Is w hat w e d id _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * i D w ith m y F riends at th is A Z C w ith m y F riends at th is io Q is w hat w e did______________________________ * 2 0 /talk ed on th e phone * 3 [1 a sport catted _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * 3 1] a sport called ( - : ) ( - • ( ) / * 3 [] a sport called 9 — A 4 C] a gam e called _________________________ A 4 EJ a gam e called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * 4 0 a gam e called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A S C] a video gam e (N intendo o r other’ I D ID iiiOmy h o m ew o rk 0 a (p raclice/Iesso n ) for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 113[1 w ork on a hobby called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 112U help aro u n d the h o u se D IN I4 E R 1 1 3 0 w ork on a hobby called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 114 C ia (p ractice/lesso n ) b r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I W A T C H E D /U $ T V D C l (10 a m ovie video c Elto television e s c i 10 (radio, records, tap es. C 13’sl D L D r e a d m a l l F r o m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 w rote a letter N O T For school to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1)13[1 read a newspaper N O T For school ab o u t_ _ n o D re a d a new spaper N O T (or school a b o u t_ . I] read a m agazine N O T For school called r iI] read a book N O T (or school called 1)5 D read a book N O T for school catted o El wrote som ething N O T for school (dlasy. ournal. story. poetry) U ?El read comic books called _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W H A T E L S E D ID I D O ? E I D _ _ _ _ _ _ rtL J_ _ _ _ _ _ E 4 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ I w r T O FR Cube lib rary rlO u b c store a W E E K E N D N IG H T IN S T R U C T IO N S T h is Is w h a t I d id o u t-o f-sc h o o l o n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I. C heck off th e boxes indicating w hat you did yesterday out-of-school. C ode # _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. T hink about the tim e you did them and place the code w hich ta next to th atactivity Into thecirclesof the clockat the ap p ro p riate lim e. E ach circle equals about 15minutes. 3. S om eactivities need to be com pleted w ith inF orm atIon. 4. H ere are som e special codes: S b ath in g ) D (d ressin g ) E (eatin g ) S (sleep in g l T (tra n sp o rta tio n ). _ _ _ _ _ 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 0 E Q U A L S N I A BO U T _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [15 M IN U T E S - 171 Appendix 4: Student Interview 172 TIME INTERVIEW AM Confidential STARTED PM STUDENT INTERVIEW Code________ The purpose of this interview is to explore with you why you spend time out-of-school doing the things that you do. The interview will take about 25 minutes and contains questions about some of your out-of-school activities as well as some questions about your classroom and your home. The interview is being taped so that it will be easier for me to have a complete and accurate account of your response. Your answers are completely confidential and can only be identified by a code number. Your clock-sheets tell me that you spend your time out-of- school doing: #1 activity — #2 activity The questions I will ask you in this interview are thinking questions. There are no right/wrong answers. This is not like a test but rather a talking-survey of why you choose the things that you do. So it may take you some time to think of these reasons. Please take your time so you can think of them. We are not in a rush. Your teacher knows you will be gone for about 25 minutes so it’s okay to take that time. I want to know what you like about (activity #1); take a few minutes to think about it. 1. Tell me what you like about (activity #1). WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET 1 73 2. Is there anything you dislike about (activity #1)? 3. Is there someone who tries to get you to spend time on (activity #1)? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 noanswer... 9 A. Who? father . . 1 mother . . 2 step-parent . . 3 sibling 4 extended family . . 5 sitter 6 teacher 7 peers 8.. 4. What would make (activity #1) more fun? 5. What does it make you feel like when you are (activity #1)? WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET 6. What are your reasons for participating in (activity #1) when you are out-of-school? WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET 174 7. What if anything would get you to do more of (activity #1) during your leisure time? 8. GIVE STUDENT EXPECTATION SCALE USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWER How sure are you that (activity #1) during your time out-of-school will lead to (the reinforcements mentioned on the sheet for activity #1)? WRITE OTHER REASONS ON CARDS 9. CUE CARDS--ONLY USE CARDS MENTIONED “These are the reasons you mentioned for (activity #1). Look at the cards, decide which reasons are most important to you when it comes to (activity #1), and arrange them in order of importance on the chart. You can have some reasons being of equal importance, so place them right next to each other if that is true”. USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWER SKIP TO QUESTION 19 IF READING IS A #2 ACTIVITY REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR #2 ACTIVITY I want to know what you Uke about (activity #2); take a few minutes to think about it. 10. Tell me what you like about (activity #2). WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET 1 75 11. Is there anything you dislike about (activity #2)? 12. Is there someone who tries to get you to spend time on (activity #2)? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer... 9 A. Who? father 1 mother 2 step-parent . . 3 sibling . . 4 extended family . . 5 sitter 6 teacher 7 peers 8 13. What would make (activity #2) more fun? 14. What does it make you feel like when you are (activity #2)? WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET 15. What are your reasons for participating in (activity #2) when you are out-of-school? WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET 1 76 16. What if anything would get you to do more of (activity #2) during your leisure time? 17. GIVE STUDENT EXPECTATION SCALE USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWER How sure are you that (activity #2) during your time out-of-school will lead to (the reinforcements mentioned on the sheet for activity #2)? WRITE OTHER REASONS ON CARDS 18. CUE CARDS--ONLY USE CARDS MENTIONED “These are the reasons you mentioned for (activity #2). Look at the cards, decide which reasons are most important to you when it comes to (activity #2), and arrange them in order of importance on the chart. You can have some reasons being of equal importance, so place them right next to each other if that is true”. USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWER REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR LEISURE READING. F I 19. What does leisure reading mean to you? IF ANSWER IS INCOMPLETE: leisure reading is reading you do for your own enjoyment or information. It is not for school. It can include books, comics, newspapers, magazines, or mail. 1 77 I want to know what you like about leisure reading; take a few minutes to think about it. 20. EVERYONE BUT “ZERO” READERS Tell me what you like about leisure reading. WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET (FOR FREQUENT READERS ONLY) 21. What do you dislike about leisure reading? 22. Is there someone who tries to get you to spend time on leisure reading? rarely . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. Who? father 1 mother 2 step-parent . . 3 sibling . . 4 extended family . . 5 sitter 6 teacher 7 peers 8 23. What if anything would make leisure reading more fun for you? 24. (dropped) 1 78 25. EVERYONE BUT “ZERO” READERS What does it make you feel like when you read for leisure? WRITE THESE ON ‘REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET (FOR FREQUENT READERS ONLY) 26. What are your reasons for PARTICIPATING/NOT PARTICIPATING in leisure reading out-of-school? WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET 27. What if anything would get you to do more reading during your leisure time? SKIP TO QUESTION 30 FOR INFREQUENT READER 28. FREQUENT READER: GIVE STUDENT EXPECTATION SCALE USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWER How sure are you that reading during your time out-of-school will lead to (the reinforcements mentioned on the sheet for reading)? WRITE OTHER REASONS ON CARDS 1 79 29. FREQUENT READER ONLY CUE CARDS--ONLY USE CARDS MENTIONED “These are the reasons you mentioned for reading out-of-school. Look at the cards, decide which reasons are most important to you when it comes to reading out-of-school, and arrange them in order of importance on the chart. You can have some reasons being of equal importance, so place them right next to each other if that is true”. USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWER 30. Who reads aloud to you? father . . . 1 mother . . . 2 step-parent . . . 3 sibling 4 extended family . . . 5 sitter 6 teacher 7 peers 8 no one 9 Tell me about your classroom environment: 31. Are there books provided in your classroom for leisure reading? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 32. Are there magazines provided in your classroom? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often ... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 180 33. Are there newspapers? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 34. Are there comic books? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . .9 35. About how often do you get to go to your school library? never 1 monthly 2 every 3 weeks 3 bi-monthly . . .4 weekly 5 bi-weekly . 6 daily 7 whenever . . . . 8 don’t know . . . 9 A. About how often does the class get to go as a group to your school library? never 1 monthly 2 every 3 weeks 3 bi-monthly . . .4 weekly 5 bi-weekly . . . 6 daily 7 whenever . . . . 8 don’t know . . . 9 36. Is their a library in the classroom? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 181 37. Do you ever see your teacher reading for his/her own enjoyment? rarely . . . 1 sometimes - . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer. 9 A. IF YES, When? ______________________ USSR... 1 everyday . . . 2 when we read . . . 3 reading aloud . . . 4 once a week . . . 5 38. Are rewards given for leisure reading? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer. . . 9 A. Like what? B. Who sponsors these contests? teacher . . . 1 librarian . . . 2 principal . . . 3 39. Have you ever been given rewards for reading out - of-sc h o o I? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often ... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . 9 1 82 40. Does your teacher read library books aloud to the class? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know...8 no answer... 9 A. IF YES, About how often? whenever . . . 1 alternate days . . . 2 daily . . . 3 once a week . . . 4 once a month . . . 5 41. Are you given time for leisure reading in school--USSR? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. About how much time? ____________________ B. How often? __________ 42. IF USSR IS PROVIDED, what does your teacher do during USSR? paperwork . . 1 errands 2 talk 3 read 4 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . .9 Tell me about your home environment: 43. Does someone take you to the public library? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 • don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 183 44. Are there magazines at home? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 45. Newspapers at home? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer... 9 46. Are you given books or subscriptions for gifts? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 47. Do your parents read aloud to you? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 48. Do you remember them reading to you when you were younger? started stopped 49. Are you given rewards by your parents it you read leisure? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. Like what? 184 50. Do you remember them giving you rewards for reading for leisure in the past? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . .. 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer... 9 51. Do you have a favorite spot in which you can read at home? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often ... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer. . 9 A. Where is that place at home where you like to read? 52. Do you ever see your father/mother reading? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 53. Do you ever see your brothers or sisters reading? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. What do they read? books 1 magazines . . . 2 newspapers . . 3 mail 4 comics . . . 5 1 85 54. What do your parents read? books 1 magazines . . . 2 newspapers . . 3 mail 4 55. Do your parents go to the library? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . .. 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer... 9 56. Are you a member of the public library? non-member . . 1 member.... 2 57. What languages are spoken at home? 58. At home, do you have many friends to play with? five or more friends . . . 3 three to four friends . . . 2 one to two friends . . . 1 no friends . . . 0 59. What do you think this study is about? A. If reading, when did you know? 60. Do your parents understand and speak English? no . . . 1 yes . . . 2 1 86 Thank you very much for helping me with my study. TIME INTERVIEW ENDED AM PM A. Total length of interview: ______________ minutes B. Date of interview: _______ ___ C. Gender of respondent: male 1 female 2 187 REINFORCEMENT VALUE CHART (0- +3) F I “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” (EXPECTATION SCALE) “How sure are you that when you (activity #1) during your time out-of-school that ___________ (0) not at all sure (+1) slightly sure (+2) quite sure (+3) extremely sure You will not be bored. 0 +1 +2 +3 You will learn something. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . .“ You will experience enjoyment. 0 +1 +2 +3 You will receive encouragement from others 0 +1 +2 +3 1. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . .“ 1. 0 +1 +2 +3 1. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . 5. 0 +1 +2+3 5. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . 5. 0 +1 +2 +3 6. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . 6. 0 +1 +2 +3 6. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you (activity #2) during your time out-of-school that” You will not be bored. 0 +1 +2 +3 You will learn something. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . You will experience enjoyment. 0 +1 +2 +3 You will receive encouragement from others. 0 +1 +2 +3 10. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . .“ 10. 0 +1 +2 +3 188 10. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . 14. 0 +1 +2 +3 14. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . 14. 0 +1 +2 +3 15. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . .“ 15. 0 +1 +2 +3 FREQUENT READERS ONLY “How sure are you that when you read during your time out-of- school that” You will not be bored. 0 +1 +2 +3 You will learn something. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . .“ You will experience enjoyment. 0 +1 +2 +3 You will receive encouragement from others. 0 +1 +2 +3 20. 0 +1 +2 +3 “How sure are you that when you . . 20. 0 +1 +2+3 20. 0 +1 +2+3 “How sure are you that when you . . 25. 0 +1 +2+3 25. 0 +1+2+3 “How sure are you that when you . . 25. 0 +1+2+3 26. 0 +1+2+3 “How sure are you that when you . 26. 0 +1+2+3 26. 0 +1 +2+3 0 +1 +2+3 0 +1 +2+3 1 89 Appendix 5: Teacher Interview 190 TIME INTERVIEW _______AM Confidential STARTED PM TEACHER INTERVIEW Class Code As you know my study centers on how your students spend their time out- of-school, but since they spend thirty hours each week at the school, I need to account for any possible influences on their leisure activities. The interview will take about 10 minutes and contains questions about some of the practices in your classroom, as well as questions about some of your own leisure activities. The interview is being taped so that it will be easier for me to have a complete and accurate account of your response. Your answers are completely confidential and can only be identified by a code number. 1. What does your reading program consist of this year? reading series . . . 1 novels . . . 2 library books . . . 3 2. IF APPROPRIATE, Do you supplement the reading series with tradebooks? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 A. How do you define tradebooks? 191 B. Would these be abridged or shortened versions? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 What percent of your tradebooks would be abridged? C. About how often would you use tradebooks? What percent of your reading program would be used for tradebooks? ________ 3. Are there books accessible in your classroom for leisure reading? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 A. How many? ____ 4. Are there magazines accessible in your classroom for the Students? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 A. How many? 5. Are there newspapers accessible in your classroom for the Stud e n t s? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 A. How many? _ ___ 192 6. Are there comic books accessible in your classroom for the students? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 A. How many? _______ 7. What is the procedure in your room for using the school library? A. How often can an individual student go to the library? never 1 monthly . . . . . 2 every 3 weeks 3 bi-monthly . . .4 weekly 5 bi-weekly . . . 6 daily 7 whenever . . . 8 don’t know . . . 9 B. How often does the class go to the library? never 1 monthly 2 every 3 weeks 3 bi-monthly . . .4 weekly 5 bi-weekly . 6 daily 7 whenever . . . . 8 don’t know . . . 9 8. Do you have a library within your classroom? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 9. Do you use rewards for reading out-of-school? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 A. What are they? 1 93 B. What percent of the time do you use these rewards? % 10. How often do you take time to read aloud a tradebook to the entire class? whenever . . .1 alternate days . . . 2 daily . . . 3 once a week . . . 4 once a month . . . 5 11. Not counting free time, about how much time do you provide for leisure reading in school? ___________________________ (/week) ___________ (Id ay) A. Is that a structured time, i.e., USSR or SSR? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 12. Forgetting the curriculum guide for the moment, what is your personal goal this year for your class? A. In reading? THESE NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL READING RATHER THAN THE CLASSROOM PROGRAM. 13. Including magazines, newspapers and books, how much time during the week do you estimate you spend reading for leisure? 1 94 14. Have you been able to find time to read books? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 don’t know . . . 8 15. Are you a member of the public library? non-member . . 1 member... 2 16. How many subscriptions to magazines do you currently have? none... 0 one... 1 two.... 2 three . . . 3 more... 4 don’t know . . . 8 17. Subscriptions to newspapers? none . . . 0 one... 1 two.... 2 three . . . 3 more... 4 don’t know . . . 8 18. During the previous year have you given books or subscriptions as gifts? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 don’t know . . . 8 THANK YOU. TIME INTERVIEW ENDED AM PM A. Total length of interview: ___________ minutes B. Date of interview: ________________ (ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE TEACHER) 195 1. WHAT PROCEDURE DID YOU FOLLOW SO THAT CHILDREN COULD FILL IN THE CLOCK-SHEETS? time ot school ... I did them t home... 2 both elternetlves... 3 2. HOW DO YOU DOCUMENT A STUDENT’S PROGRESS IN READING? 3. WHAT EXPECTATION OR DEMANDS DO YOU HAVE IN PLACE TO INSURE THAT CHILDREN ARE READING AT HOME? WHAT AbOUT JOURNAL WRITING? 4. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE DIFFERENTLY-ABLED STUDENTS. HOW ARE THEY DIFFERRENT? 5. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE STUDENT POPULATION IN THiS SCHOOL? IN YOUR CLASS? 1 96 Appendix 6: Parent Interview 197 _______AM PM Confidential PARENT INTERVIEW Student Code # BEFORE INTERVIEW, LIST SUBJECT’S #1 AND #2 ACTIVITES. RECORD OF CALLS jl Date Time Outcome 1 2 - 4 —: - -- 5 Hello! I’m Patricia Whitney from the University of British Columbia. If you recall from the permission letter you received, my study centers on how children spend their time out-of-school. I have interviewed your (son/daughter) and I would like to interview you now if it is convenient. The interview should take 15 minutes and contains some questions about your leisure activities, some questions about home/school practices, and finally a few questions on family background information. Your answers are completely confidential and can only be identified by a code number. Would this be a good time or shall I call later? Because the only identification on this form is a code number rather than his/her name, I will use the expression “this child” so that you know I am only referring to your child in grade-five. I also want you to know that my questions are only to find out “what is” the situation in your home and do not imply that you should be doing these things. TIME INTERVIEW STARTED 198 What is your relationship to the child? father 1 mother 2 step-parent . . . 3 sibling . . . 4 extended family . . . 5 2. Approximately how much time during the day do you spend 9 3. Do you try to get this particular child in grade five to rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 4. About how often do you and he/she _____________ together? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR #2 ACTIVITY. 5. Approximately how much time during the day do you spend 9 6. Do you try to get this particular child in grade five to rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 1 99 7. About how often do you and he/she ____________ together? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR LEISURE READING. 8. What does leisure reading mean to you? A. IF RESPONSE DOES NOT INCLUDE TYPES OF READING MATERIALS, ADD THAT NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES/BOOKS ARE ALL INCLUDED IN THIS CATEGORY. 9. Approximately how much time during the day do you spend reading for leisure? 10. Have you been able to find time to read books for leisure? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 200 11. Have you been able to find time to read magazines for leisure? rarely . . - 1 sometimes . . . 2 often 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 12. Have you been able to find time to read newspapers for leisure? rarely - . . 1 sometimes . . 2 often 3 don’t know . . 8 no answer . . . 9 13. How often do you try to get this child to read a book for leisure? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know 8 no answer . . . 9 14. How often do you try to get him/her to read a magazine for leisure? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer. . 9 15. How often do you try to get him/her to read a newspaper for leisure? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . 8 no answer 9 201 16. How often do you try to get him/her to read a comic book for leisure? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often ... 3 don’t know . 8 no answer. . 9 17. About how often do you and this child read together for leisure? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 18. How often do you take this child to the public library? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know. 8 no answer. 9 19. Have you tried to get him/her to join the public library? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . 8 no answer. 9 20. Are you a member of the public library? non-member . . 1 member 2 202 21. How many subscriptions to magazines do you receive in your home? none 0 one 1 two 2 three 3 more 4 don’t know. . . 8 no answer . . . 9 22. Subscriptions to newspapers? none 0 one 1 two 2 three 3 more 4 don’t know. . 8 no answer . . 9 23. During the previous year how often have you given books, or subscriptions as gifts to this child? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often.. 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 24. About how often do you read aloud to him/her from tradebooks or library books? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know. . . 8 no answer . . . 9 25. When did you first start reading to this child? Started ___________ Stopped “until he/she could read” How old was that? 203 26. About how often do you listen to this child read each week? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know. . . 8 no answer . . . 9 27. How frequently does he/she converse with you about books--not school books--which he/she has read? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 28. How often do you use rewards to try to get him/her to read for leisure? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. Like what? B. Did you ever use rewards with this child for reading? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 29. Do you have a space in your home for this child to read? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 204 30. Would you describe your son/daughter as being a sociable person or more of a loner? five or more friends . . . 3 three to four friends . . 2 one to two friends . . . 1 no friends . . 0 I know that it is difficult to know everything that happens at school so these next few questions will be based on what you think happens in this child’s classroom. 31. At school do you know if this child has access to books for leisure reading? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . 2 often... 3 don’t know...8 no answer . . . 9 A. What makes you think that? 32. Does this child have access to magazines at school? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. What makes you think that? 205 33. To newspapers? rarely . . - 1 sometimes . . . 2 often . . . 3 don’t know. . . 8 no answer. . . 9 A. What makes you think that? 34. To comic books? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often ... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. What makes you think that? 35. How often does he/she have access to the school library? never 0 monthly 1 every 3 weeks 2 bi-monthly . . .3 weekly 4 bi-weekly . 5 daily 6 whenever . . . . 7 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. What makes you think that? 36. Does he/she have access to a classroom library? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . * 8 no answer . . * 9 A. What makes you think that? 206 37. At the school how often are there rewards given for reading out - of-school? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often ... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. What makes you think that? 38. In the past have rewards been given to this child for reading out-of-school? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 39. How often does the teacher read aloud library books to the class? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . 2 often ... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer . . . 9 A. What makes you think that? 40. How often is there time given in school for leisure reading? rarely . . . 1 sometimes . . . 2 often... 3 don’t know . . . 8 no answer. . . 9 A. What makes you think that? 207 THESE LAST FEW QUESTIONS ARE STRICTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 41. How many people live at home? ___________________ 42. What is this child’s ordinal position? _____ 43. What languages are spoken at home? ____ 44. How far do you live from the public library? 3 blks. or less . . . 1 4-5 blocks . . . 2 6-10 blocks . . . 3 more . . . 4 45. From what countries or part of the world did your ancestors come? CODE #___ A. IF MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY NAMED: Which one of these countries are you more likely to identify with? Can you decide on one? CODE # __ MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY... 88 B. Method of Response Names one country 1 Names two or more countries, chooses one . . . 2 Names two or more countries, can’t choose . . . 3 Can’t name any country . . . . 4 No information . . . . 5 46. What about the father/mother of this child? Where did his/her ancestors come from? ______ _ __ CODE # 208 A. IF MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY NAMED: Which one of these countries is helshe more likely to identify with? Can you decide on one? CODE # _____ MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY... 88 B. Method of Response Names one country 1 Names two or more countries, chooses one . . . 2 Names two or more countries, can’t choose . . . 3 Can’t name any country . . . . 4 No information . . . . 5 47. What country were you born in? ___________ ___ _____ CODE # 48. What country was “the other parent” born in? __ CODE # 49. Are you now attending or enrolled in school? IF YES: Is that full time or part time? Yes, full-time student . . . . 1 Yes, part-time student . . 2 No 3 A. What is the highest grade or year of regular school you have ever attended? ____________________ B. Did you finish that grade (year) and get credit for it? Now attending this grade (year) . . . 1 Finished this grade (year) . . . 2 Did not finish this grade (year) . . . . 3 C. IF LESS THAN EIGHT YEARS ASK, Did you receive a high school diploma or pass a high school equivalency test? Yes 1 no 2 209 D. IF MORE THAN 12 YEARS, What degree or degrees did you receive? _____________________ CODE # _____ Was this a 4 year program or a 2 year program? 50. Besides what you’ve told me about your regular schooling, did you ever attend any other kind of school, such as vocational school? Yes ...... 1 no 2 A. What was your main field of vocational training? _ ____ ____ __ Code # 51. How about “the other parent”, is he/she now attending or enrolled in school? IF YES: Is that full time or part time? Yes, full-time student . . . . 1 Yes, part-time student . . 2 No 3 A. What is the highest grade or year of regular school he/she has ever attended? ___ ___ B. Did he/she finish that grade (year) and get credit for it? Now attending this grade (year) . . . 1 Finished this grade (year) . . . 2 Did not finish this grade (year) . . . . 3 C. IF LESS THAN EIGHT YEARS ASK, Did he/she receive a high school diploma or pass a high school equivalency test? Yes 1 no 2 D. IF MORE THAN 12 YEARS, What degree or degrees did he/she receive? _ _ CODE # Was this a 4 year program or a 2 year program? 52. Besides what you’ve told me about his/her regular schooling, did he/she ever attend any other kind of school, such as vocational school? Yes 1 no 2 don’t know . . . 8 210 A. What was his/her main field of vocational training? __________________________ Code # _____ 53. What kind of work do you do? What is your main occupation called? Occupation: ___________ __ Code # Major A. Tell me a little more about what you actually do in that job. What are some of your main duties? B. Are you an hourly wage worker, salaried, on commission, self-employed, or what? ____________ _ Code # C. Are you a member of a labor union? Yes 1 no 2 54. What kind of work does the other parent do? What is his/her main occupation called? Occupation: _ Code # ___ Major A. Tell me a little more about what he/she actually does in that job. What are some of his/her main duties? Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions on the telephone. Again, please remember that my questions were only to find out “what is” the situation in your home and at school, and do not imply that you should be doing these things. TIME INTERVIEW ENDED AM PM A. Total length of interview: ____ minutes B. Date of interview: 211 Appendix 7: Letter of Invitation to Participate THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 212 Children’s Out-of-School ActMties Department of Language Education 2125 Main Mall ______ Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4 jJ Dear Parent/Guardian: Fax: (604) 8223 154 Your child is invited to participate in a research project. This project which has been approved by the principal is designed to explore students’ activities out-of-school. The purpose of this study is to find out what grade-five students do with their time out-of-school and why they choose these activities. Participating in the project will entail completing a daily activity sheet for ten minutes each morning at school for a period of three weeks, answering questions from a selection of reading passages, filling out two attitude scales, and possibly taking part in a twenty-five minute interview at school. If your child is randomly selected for an interview, you will also be asked to participate in a fifteen minute interview over the telephone. Only the researcher will have access to these completed documents which will be coded for data entry to insure confidentiality. After data entry is completed, these documents will be destroyed. Participation in the project is voluntary and will have no influence on grades or standing in the class. Your child may withdraw at any point. I am a doctoral student at the University of British Columbia in the Faculty of Education and would be happy to discuss any questions you may have at 682-8257 or you may contact my adivsor, Dr. Jon Shapiro, at 822-6345. Sincerely, Patricia Whitney (keep this portion) I consent! I do not consent to my child __________________________ (name of student) participating in this study and I acknowledge that I have a copy of the consent form. Parent/Guardian’s Signature Date If selected for an interview, I consent! I do not consent to my child _________________ (name of student) participating in an interview. Parent/Guardian’s Signature Date As indicated above, if you are selected for a telephone interview, what would be the best time to call? . ; the telephone rumber where you can be reached at that time: ________________ 213 Appendix 8: Certificate of Approval from UBC Ethics Committee 214 The University of British Columbia 892-112 Office of Research Services BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES SCREENING COQ(I1EE FOR RESEARCH AND OTHER STUDIES INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS CERTIFICATE of APPROVAL INVESTIGATOR: Shapiro, J. UBC DEPT: Language Educ INSTITUTION: School District TITLE: Children’s out-of-school activities NUMBER: B92—112 CO—INVEST: Whitney, P. APPROVED: APR 8 1992 The protocol describing the above—named, project has been reviewed by the Committee and the experimental procedures were found to be acceptable on ethical grounds for research involving human subj ects. Dr. R.D. ratley V Director, Research Services and Acting Chairman

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 8 0
China 4 24
Russia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 4 2
Sunnyvale 3 0
Mountain View 3 0
Ashburn 2 0
Unknown 1 4

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items