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 Whitney, Patricia 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-954094.pdf [ 4.13MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078133.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078133-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078133-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078133-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078133-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078133-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078133-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078133-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078133.ris

Full Text

INFLUENCES ON GRADE-FIVE STUDENTS DECISIONS TO READ:AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF LEISURE READING BEHAViORbyPATRICIA WHITNEYBA., Mount Saint Mary’s College, 1967M.A, San Francisco State University, 1986A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR ThE DEGREE OFDOCTOROF EDUCA11ONinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Language Education)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember, 1994© Patricia Whitney, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of Pc1. e E-cL c-ttoThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate_______________DE-6 (2/88)IIAbstractThe purpose of this study was to explore why a child who is a capable reader either elects toread 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. Measuresadministered were the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (1992),the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale (CNSIE), and therecreational reading subscale of the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS). Subjects,their parents, and their teachers were interviewed. Analyses of the means were conducted forout-of-school activities, amount of reading (books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, andmail), and affective beliefs and values. A series of analyses of variance, t-tests, chi-squareanalyses, 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 forgender, attitude toward recreational reading, teacher behavior during Undisturbed SustainedSilent Reading, reading behavior of siblings and parents, and provision of a space for reading inthe home.I’’Table of ContentsAbstract ITable of Contents iiiList of Tables v IList of Figures v iiAcknowledgement v iiiChapter 1 Introduction 1Theoretical Framework 4Definitions 9Statement of the Problem 9Research Questions 10Significance of the Study 1 0Organization of the Thesis 11Chapter 2 Literature Review 1 2Leisure Reading 1 2Locus of Control and Intrinsic Motivation 25Attitude Toward Recreational Reading 3 1Other Variables 3 8Summary 51Chapter 3 Method 55Design 55Subjects 55Instruments 58Procedure 6 2Analyses 70Chapter 4 Results 79ivPreliminary Analyses.80Clock-sheets 80Locus of Control 97Attitude Toward Recreational Reading 98Classroom Factors 98Main Analyses 1 00Leisure Reading 1 00Locus of Control 1 01Attitude Toward Recreational Reading 101Classroom Factors 1 03Home Factors 1 04Reasons for Activities 1 06Reasons for Reading or Not Reading 111Summary 117Chapter 5 Discussion 1 20Clock-sheets 1 20Leisure Reading Comparisons 1 23Locus of Control 129Attitude Toward Recreational Reading 1 30Interviews 1 33Classroom Factors 1 34Home Factors 1 35Reasons for Reading or Not Reading 1 38Reseach Questions 1 41Conclusions 1 42Limitations 147Implications 1 49Bibliography 1 52VAppendices 1 64Appendix 1. After School Day 1 65Appendix 2. Weekend Day 1 67Appendix 3. Weekend Night 169Appendix 4. Student Interview 1 71Appendix 5. Teacher Interview 1 89Appendix 6. Parent Interview 1 96Appendix 7. Letter of Invitation to Participate 211Appendix 8. Certificate of Approval from UBC Ethics Committee 21 3viList of TablesTable 1 Summary of Statistical Procedures Used with Different Variables . . . 76Table 2 Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per ActivityoverAll 17 Days 84Table 3 Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per Activityper School Day 85Table 4 Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per Activityper Weekend Day 86Table 5 Mean, Standard Deviation, and Median for Time per Day in MinutesSpent Leisure Reading 89Table 6 Percentage of Out-of-School Time Spent on the Average Readingover All 17 Days 9 1Table 7 Variation in Amount of Leisure Reading 95Table 8 Reasons for Participating in Leisure Activities 1 08Table 9 Encouragement for Leisure Activities 1 09Table 10 Use of Rewards in the School and in the Home for Leisure Reading . 11 4Table 11 Reasons, Expectations, and Values for Reading of Frequent Readers 11 5Table 12 Reasons, Expectations, and Values for Reading of Infrequent Readers 11 6List of FiguresFigure 1 Average Minutes Spent Reading Various Materials 92Figure 2 Average Minutes Spent Reading on School Days and Weekends 94viiVIIIAcknowledgementThere are many people to thank for this accomplishment, all of them giving in their ownunique 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 andon the telephone. A very special thank you to David Bateson for your effort in introducing me tothe language and nuances of statistics. I am most grateful for the time you gave so warmly tome. Thank you Claire Staab for the energy you gave to this project, and for droppingeverything else to give your full attention to the thesis when it was required. I reallyappreciated your sense of humor and moral support during these years.This study would not have been possible without the approval of the school district, theprincipals, and the teachers. After spending several years at the university, it was mostenjoyable to be back in the field again. Thank you. The children who participated in the studyalso need to be recognized and their parents as well. There would have been no study withoutyour cooperation. Thank you.Finally, the support and encouragement of my colleagues studying for their doctorates, myfamily, friends, and David—thank you. I needed you and you were there for me.1CHAPTER 1IntroductionWhen most children start school they are usually looking forward to learning to read, oreven already reading (Durkin, 1960/61). These young readers find looking at booksenchanting, and quickly warm to a person who will take the time to read to them. They areintrinsically interested (Condry & Koslowski, 1979; Deci, 1975; Earns & Kaczmarski,1988) in acquiring this skill. Intrinsic interest in reading could be defined as a simple delightin reading for its own sake. “Intrinsic motivation is defined as doing something for its own sakerather 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 onexclusively for its own sake” (Nell, 1978, p.65). Since it is not clear at times within theliterature whether expressions such as “interest in reading,” “amounts of reading,” “readingbehavior,” “voluntary reading,” and “active readers” include reading for school, the concept ofreading throughout this thesis will be limited to reading for leisure, fun, or pleasure outside ofthe 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 beconsidered 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 thispaper 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 students2do 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 thatinitial point where they were intrinsically interested in reading to the point where they hatereading? Does this shift have something to do with a possible misconception on the part of someteachers, principals, librarians, and educators as to what motivates a student to want toparticipate 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 verysubjective. It has everything to do with one’s personal experience, If one’s experience wasfilled with miserable reading experiences then he/she is not going to expect reading to bewonderful at all. On the other hand, if one’s experience was filled with pleasurable readingexperiences then he/she will expect reading to fulfill those expectations. The purpose of thisstudy was to explore why a child either elects to read or not to read during out-of-schoolleisure 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 intrinsicinterest in an activity. “A reward (a grade) encourages us to focus narrowly on a task, to do itas quickly as possible and to take few risks” (Kohn, 1987, p.55). This is evident when oneobserves students rushing to complete reading assignments. Instead of reading the book, theytelephone a friend who has hopefully read the story to “please fill them in.” Failing that, theyexamine a summary to get the gist of the story. Turning out book reports can be anotherexample of narrowly focusing on a task in an attempt to meet the reading requirements assignedin 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 undermineintrinsic 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 domay have an adverse effect on not only their responses to literature but also on their intrinsicinterest in reading.3Perhaps disinterest in leisure reading might be the result of varying values. As Purves andBeach (1972) remarked some time ago, the amount of time one would have for reading duringleisure time would depend not only on one’s ability to read but also on the rewards one wouldgain from the experience—to quote Asheim (1956), “when a man can read and has readingmaterials readily available, he does not necessarily read if the rewards of reading are notapparent 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 andexpectations about their likes and dislikes” (Burroughs, 1991, p.257).Maybe a disinterest in reading during leisure time reflects the lack of support found withinthe culture. A recent lEA study (International Association for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement) involving 30 countries, reported that “Finnish nine-year-olds ranked first inreading books, cartoons, newspapers and magazines” (Ronnholm, 1993, p.14). One principaland reading educator at a school within that country commented thatFinland is a highly literate society, publishing books and newspapers at a higher per capitalrate than most other industrialized nations. Finland also leads the world in percentage ofnewspaper subscribers. Public libraries are everywhere, and everyone has free access tobooks. 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 inreading as some children matriculate through elementary school. Whatever the reasons for notreading 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 satisfactionthat one can receive from reading during leisure time. The purpose of this study is to explorewhy a child either elects to read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. Grade level isone criterion for investigating possible similarities (Athey, 1985; Russell, 1961) for“affective mobilizers”—a term used by Holmes to denote “beliefs, values and attitudes thatpredispose an individual to persist in a field of endeavor” (Athey, 1985, p.528)—in bothfrequent- and infrequent readers. This current investigation was conducted at the grade-fivelevel 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 arecapable readers do not read during their out-of-school time—aliteracy; (2) what are therewards, 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 thehome environment for these leisure activities chosen by students, the proposed study will focuson 53 grade-five students found in three schools with children from similar economicbackgrounds.Theoretical FrameworkIs the individual driven by one’s environment, as some behaviorists believe, or does thatindividual consciously make decisions and act upon that environment? The latter, being theOrganismic approach, asserts that cognitive and affective processes are taking place: a personis consciously aware that one’s behavior will have certain outcomes. Social learning theorytries to integrate these two trends in American psychology, the stimulus response orreinforcement theories, and the cognitive theories.The general formula for behavior is that the potential for a behavior to occur in anyspecific psychological situation is a function of the expectancy that the behavior will lead toa 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 inany specific situation (e.g., leisure time) is a function of the expectancy that reading will leadto a particular reinforcement in that situation and the value of the reward/reason. Although attimes Rotter mentions that social learning theory utilizes three constructs—behaviorpotential, reinforcement values, and expectations—(Rotter, 1954; 1955), he has maintainedthat 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 ashaving 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 anygiven situation or situations as calculated in relation to any single reinforcement or set of5reinforcements” (Rotter, 1954, p.105). Depending on a specific situation, a number ofbehaviors could take place, but the potential for a particular behavior to take place woulddepend on the anticipated reward. This anticipation or expectancy is based on previousexperience. A student may have a number of choices as to how he/she may spend time outside ofschool, but this decision on how to spend one’s time, according to this theory, will be influencedby 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 thisvariable—the situation—into consideration. A specific “situation provides cues which tell theindividual 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 oftwo different situations. Behaviors, expectancies, and reinforcements all operate within thespecific situation.A reinforcement or reward or reason for behaving in a specific situation can differentiatenot only between individuals but also reflect varying values.A reinforcement is something that changes behavior in some observable way by eitherincreasing or decreasing the potentiality of its occurrence. Should an event increase thepotential for a response, it is by definition a positive reinforcement; should it decrease thepotential, 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 ofpreference for any reinforcement to occur if the possibilities of occurrence of this and otherreinforcements are equal” (Rotter, 1955, p.245-255). The value of each reinforcement is adecision that every individual makes based on experience. These values that an individualplaces on various reinforcements must always be accounted for and have been found to be amissing element in many studies in the past.Expectancy is the final variable mentioned by Rotter and has been definedas a probability or contingency held by the subject that any specific reinforcement orgroup of reinforcements will occur in any given situation or situations. Expectancy is not aprobability determined in actuarial terms but may be considered to be both (1) a functionof probability, which can be calculated from past histories of reinforcements, necessitatingthe 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 areward during a particular situation, then one will, after so many experiences, generalize thatthis particular situation provides these rewards. Expectations can also be generalized acrosssituations. When one perceives one situation to be similar to another, then he/she generalizesthat what is likely to happen in this new situation will be based on what happened in situationsthat were perceived to be similar. Whether or not these generalizations of similar situationsare relevant to a new situation may or may not be true. Rotter maintains that “the more thesubject tends to differentiate a specific situation from other situations as a result of moreexperience in the specific situation, the less significant the generalization effect fromexperience in other situations” (1954, p.166). According to this theory then, as studentshave more experience with leisure reading, their expectancies for certain rewards will becomemore stable. They will not have to base their expectancies on generalizations founded onsimilar situations, such as reading in the classroom. Readers eventually will differentiatebetween reading for leisure and reading for work, school, instruction, etc..Rotter has also defined expectancy “as the probability held by the individual that aparticular reinforcement will occur as a function of a specific behavior on his part [emphasisadded] in a specific situation or situations” (1955, p.254; 1954, p.107). One’s belief aboutwhether or not behavior has something to do with the reinforcement received in a specificsituation is a fifth variable, according to this author, developed by Rotter to explain howreinforcements affect expectancies. “We were interested in a variable that might correct orhelp 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, inother words, is not a simple stamping-in process but depends upon whether or not theperson perceives a causal relationship between his own behavior and the reward. Aperception 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 believethat their own behavior has everything to do with receiving reinforcements are considered to7have 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 consideredto be external in their locus of control.Julian Rotter is not a behaviorist (Shapira, 1976). He has attempted to integrate thebehaviorists’ view of rewards and the cognitive theorists’ belief that individuals makedecisions. Individuals make decisions over rewards (intrinsic and extrinsic rewards) based onexperience by attaching values to them. If one’s experience is non-existent or limited, then theindividual resorts to generalized expectancy based on similar situations, and decides to whatdegree they expect their behavior to be rewarding. “Both expectancies and reinforcementvalues may change as a result of thinking” (Rotter, 1982, p.246). Individuals also makedecisions as to how they will spend their time when there are a number of alternatives thathave 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, andself-determination. The former are examples of extrinsic rewards while the latter areexamples of intrinsic rewards. A person who is highly internal on locus of control may bemotivated intrinsically or extrinsically (Deci, 1975). A person whose locus of control isexternal will not be motivated intrinsically or extrinsically because of the belief that one’sbehavior 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 astudent reading during Undisturbed Sustained Silent Reading (USSR) expecting to be rewardedwith praise because one participated as a reader. This is an example of a student with aninternal locus of control who is expecting an extrinsic reward. Another student reading duringUSSR, expecting to be rewarded with the pleasure or enjoyment of reading in itself, is anexample of a student with an internal locus of control who is expecting an intrinsic reward. Astudent reading during USSR, expecting to be rewarded with praise because the teacher likeshim/her, is an example of a student with an external locus of control. All three students8participate in the behavior of reading during USSR. All three expect reinforcements, but twoexpect this reinforcement because of their behavior and the other expects this reinforcementbecause 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 anecessary condition for intrinsic motivation” (p.9 1). Deci defines intrinsically motivatedbehaviors 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 berewarded with satisfaction, feelings of competence, and self-determination. They have placed ahigh value on this reinforcement and they expect that their behavior will provide them withthis type of reward. Intrinsic motivation is believed by Deci to be the reason a child wouldstrive for success. At the same time, the outcome of this effort could definitely affect one’sexpectation. If one’s behavior brought about a reward in a particular situation, one’sexpectancy for this reward to repeat itself in the future would increase. If one’s behavior didnot result in a reward, then one’s expectancy would, in time, begin to change. Intrinsicmotivation 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) tooccur 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 generalizesfrom 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 youvalue rewards, feelings of delight, or other reinforcements?). It would seem logical that theseareas—leisure time, leisure-time reading, expectancies for certain kinds of reinforcementduring reading, as well as the values attached to these reading reinforcements, also known asrewards or reasons for doing things—need to be investigated when exploring intrinsic interestin reading and why children who are able to read choose not to read as a possible activity duringtheir out-of-school time. In an investigation of children who rarely choose to read, it alsomakes sense to investigate their counterpart: children who do choose to read. Exploring both9groups will give a more complete picture to this complex question of why a child either electsto read or not to read during their leisure time.DefinitionsThe following definitions will apply to this study:Capable Reader: A student who scored at the 34th percentile (which is one standard deviationbelow 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 notmeant for school, and takes place outside of school.Frequent Reader/Infrequent Reader: The sample will be listed in rank order using percentsrepresenting approximate proportions of the day reportedly spent leisure reading. With theuse of a median split, the decision will arbitrarily be made to call the students above the linefrequent readers and the students below the line infrequent readers. Logically, the reasoningfollows that one group read for leisure more frequently during their time out of school than theother group.Intrinsic Rewards or Reasons: These are defined as feelings of competence, satisfaction, andself-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 ProblemThe problem to be investigated in this study is why a capable reader either elects to read ornot to read during out-of-school leisure time. Since this is an exploratory study the purposeis to generate questions and examine the various answers in order to document the reasons fornot reading during time out of school.10Research QuestionsThe 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 leisurereading for frequent and infrequent readers?Significance of the StudyWhy is it significant to investigate why capable readers choose not to read as a possibleactivity during their leisure-time? “Aliteracy, a term describing people who can read butchoose 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 NewYork 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 offeeling . . . 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 areamerits investigation. “We know more about how information from a text is stored and retrievedfrom memory than we do about why an individual might elect to interact with a text in the firstplace” (Alvermann, 1987, p.25). Knowing the factors that affect why readers choose to read ornot to read may assist teachers in planning their programs and providing materials to match orreflect these factors.Psychology as a scientific endeavor relies upon similarities among subjects that canform the basis for generalizations and ultimately scientific laws. If persons who can begrouped on the basis of one criterion, e.g., grade level or reading score, tend to exhibitsimilar affective mobilizers, then that fact in itself can be significant in furthering ourunderstanding 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 eachperson in a group or class” (Russell, 1961, p.112).11Organization of the ThesisThe thesis is organized in five chapters. Chapter One has presented the problem and therationale for the study. The questions examined have been outlined, and the terms that are usedin the thesis have been defined. Chapter Two presents a review of the related literatureconcerned with the theoretical aspects of leisure reading, locus of control and intrinsicmotivation, attitude toward recreational reading, and other variables—found in the classroomand 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, theinstruments, the procedures followed, and the data analyses for the study. Chapter Fourpresents the results of the data analyses. Chapter Five includes a discussion of the results, aswell as conclusions, limitations, and implications for future research.12CHAPTER IILiterature ReviewThe concept of reading throughout this thesis will be limited to reading for leisure, fun, orpleasure outside of the classroom or school unless otherwise noted. As well, recreationalreading and leisure-time reading will also be considered synonymous in this paper. It is notclear at times within the literature whether expressions such as “interest in reading,”“amounts of reading,” “reading behavior”, “voluntary reading,” and “active readers” includereading for school.Reported differences for gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and ability will bediscussed in each section and will be limited to those studies mentioned in that section of thereview. These findings will then be analyzed to show how they represent the infrequent readerat the grade-five level in the summary section of this chapter.Leisure ReadingA review of the literature on recreational reading reveals that there is no shortage ofsurveys (A. Taylor, 1982) regarding children’s and young people’s leisure-time readinginterests. However, there does appear to be a lack of empirical evidence on the development of aleisure-reading habit (Greaney, 1980). The following review has been limited to studieswhich include intermediate-grade students, with a particular focus on grade five, in Britain andNorth America during the last twenty-four years (1970 to the present) that focus on theinterest in reading—which includes amounts of time spent reading for leisure—rather thanreading interests or preferences. There are two reasons for limiting the review to studies thatinclude 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, because13there 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” ofvoluntary 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, atime when “a good many chidren read quite extensively in their own leisure-time” (Whiteheadet al., 1975, p.7). At the primary level (age 10), students were evenly distributed on abilitywhereas, at the secondary level (age 12 and 14), there was a higher proportion for high abilitystudents. Distribution of ethnicity was not reported, but socioeconomic status was reported byclassifying the father’s occupation. For the age 10 group, the predominate socioeconomic statuswas 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 notgiven at all.The questionnaire, which was administered in March by the schools, asked respondents torecall “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 materialsinterest children at these different ages, the amount of reading was also reported in numbers ofitems read. For example, age 10 students reportedly read 2.95 books per month, age 12students read 2.21 books per month, and age 14 students read 1.95 books per month. Therewere more non-book readers among the boys than among the girls. Periodical reading, whichincluded both magazines and comic books, also showed a decline as the child matured, but not atthe same rate of decline as shown for reading books. Again, girls read more periodicals thanboys at all age levels. The authors believe that some factor other than ability is involved, sincethey found that girls of certain ability groups tended to read more than boys of the same groups.14They conclude that “a substantial number of children abandon the book-reading habit as theygrow older” (Whitehead et al., 1977, p.53). The number of infrequent readers more thandoubles for either gender between the ages of 10 and 12—age 10, 15.8% of the boys versus9.4% of the girls, age 12, 33.2% of the boys versus 23.3% of the girls, and age 14, 40.0% ofthe boys versus 32.4% of the girls. “Although the non-book readers include some pupils whoare weak, or backward at reading, most of them have the ability to read books if they choose to doso” (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 increasewith 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 theboys versus 12.3% of the girls.In Ireland, Greaney (1980) investigated the amount of time 720 fifth-grade students spentleisure reading for three days (Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday) in June, as well as the type ofreading material—book, comics, and newspapers—these students utilized. The populationsample was taken from schools stratified by location—city, town, and rural. A standardizedreading attainment test was given to each pupil and results showed that the population wassimilar to the national norm. Students accounted for these three days with the use of a closed orcontrolled diary with time intervals marked off into 30 minute segments.The proportion of leisure time devoted to leisure reading by these fifth graders during thethree days in June was an average of 5.4%: 62% of that time was devoted to books, 31% wasdevoted to comic books, and 7% was devoted to reading newspapers. Forty-four percent did notread books, and 22.2% did not do any leisure reading. However, it should be noted that some ofthese 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 ahigh level of reading attainment, was a member of a relatively small family, had a fatherwhose occupation tended towards the middle and upper socioeconomic levels, and wasprobably a member of a public library. A comic reader was unlikely to be enrolled in an allgirls’ school, tended to attend an urban school, was a boy, had a relatively low level ofreading attainment, tended to be a member of a large family which was of low socioeconomicstatus and was unlikely to be a member of a public library. (p.351)15Because there were so few incidents of newspaper reading, what a newspaper reader might looklike 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 thefollowing Monday) using the same diary technique. The sample consisted of a majority ofchildren of either intermediate professional (30%) or managerial (52%) parents. Readingachievement and verbal ability measures placed the sample population in the fourth quartile(high scores) based on national norms. Ethnicity was not reported. Reading was againcategorized into book reading, comic reading, and newspaper reading.This time they found that students devoted 7.2% of their leisure time to reading—125.5minutes (an average of 96.8 minutes to books, 24.8 minutes to comic books, and 3.8 minutes tonewspapers). It was reported that 23.6% did not read books, 66.1% did not read comics, and18% 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-readerswere more likely to have had books bought for them by their parents during the previousyear and their fathers were perceived as having more time to read books. Reading in bed andencouragement to read particular books were more likely features of homes of keen bookreaders than non-book readers. However, non-book readers were more likely to havereceived encouragement to read newspapers, though relatively few parents encouraged thisform of reading activity. (p.11-12)Although percentages are not given for gender differences, it was noted that this variablecorrelated significantly—that is, being female—with amount of book reading. Being that thissample population was in the fourth quartile for reading achievement and verbal abilitymeasures, one can assume that these infrequent readers were capable of reading.In Scotland, Maxwell (1977) investigated the progress of reading among 5000 studentsbetween the ages of eight and fifteen for several years. There were two groups within thissample 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 ofseven days” (p.55). Out-of-school reading could include reading for school—whether a project16or 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 backgroundwas 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, butwhen it came to ephemera, girls read less than boys. Large numbers of infrequent readers werereported for the early grades: P4 (similar to grade 3) was reported as having 32% of thesample 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 studentscategorized as infrequent readers of books and 9% as infrequent readers of ephemera; P6 (grade5) had 25% of the sample not reading books and 7% not reading comic books, newspapers, ormagazines. P7 (grade 6) was reported in this study as having the smallest proportion ofinfrequent readers: 19% were infrequent readers of books and 4% were infrequent readers ofephemera. At the next level when students transfer to secondary school—Si (similar to grade7)—the population of infrequent readers then begins to grow with 23% of the sample notreading any books and 5% not reading any ephemera; S2 (grade 8) had 26% not reading booksand 5% not reading ephemera. It must be noted, however, that since this sample populationconsisted of students of mixed ability, it is conceivable that some of these infrequent readersmay have found reading too difficult.An extensive study on out-of-school activities was conducted by Anderson et al. in the early1980’s in Illinois to find out whether out-of-school activities were related to readingachievement. The investigation took place in two different schools: a small village school for aperiod 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 populationconsisted 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 theirproportions within the U.S.” (Anderson et al., 1988, p.287). Students were to keep track of17their out-of-school activities using a daily activity form, posting amounts of time, precise tothe minute. Since it was reported that the sample was above the national average on astandardized reading comprehension test, it is reasonable to conclude that this was a group ofmostly 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 forschool since this was not explicitly stated as in the other studies mentioned previously. Most ofthese children did little or no book reading. A median of 4.6 minutes was considered a typicalamount of reading per day on books. Other types of reading—comics, mail, newspapers, andmagazines—amounted to a median of 2.6 minutes per day. While gender differences were notreported, 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 mostaveraged 16.5 minutes per day while the class that read the least averaged only 4.1 minutes perday” (p.296), that the teacher should be considered a “significant influence.” Although theseresearchers felt that it is possible for some readers to be prolific readers without the influenceof 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 “teachershaving 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 ofbooks” (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 bestpredictor of reading achievement.Other researchers have not been able to substantiate that time spent reading at home isrelated to reading achievement gains. B. M. Taylor et al. (1990) investigated the effects of timespent reading at school and at home on reading achievement. The sample population included164 grade-five and grade-six students who kept daily reading logs, at the end of each 50 minutereading class, on their school and home book reading. Both reading at school and reading at homecould have been assigned or self-selected. The sample included three classes of above average18readers, six classes of average readers, and two classes of below average readers. Descriptionsfor gender, ethnicity, and SES were not given, nor was the location of the study given in thisreport.Each school day students completed sentences located in their reading logs which asked forminutes, page numbers, and title of book for assigned reading as well as pleasure reading duringreading class, and minutes only for assigned reading and pleasure reading at home on the daybefore. These records were kept for 17 weeks from mid January to mid May. Students averaged15.0 (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 byreading ability, since it was reported that part of the sample was reading at a below averagelevel. On the other hand, because the data for home reading was combined—minutes for assignedreading 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 findingfor the study was that the amount of time spent on reading during the reading periods at schoolcontributed significantly to gains in students’ reading achievement, whereas time spent readingat home was not significantly related to reading achievement. Neither gender nor abilitydifferences were reported, nor was there any further descriptive information provided onstudents who did little reading—the infrequent reader.Allen et al. (1992) designed a study using grade-five students to “assess the convergentvalidity of a variety of indicators of reading habits and dispositions” (p.489) in order tovalidate 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 ofinstruments. Some tables indicate that the sample dipped to 43 students. However, 61 studentsdid 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 attemptedto include diverse levels of socioeconomic status. Eleven percent of the sample receivedfinancial aid. Neither ethnicity nor ability levels were reported in the description of thesample.19Students filled out the daily diaries for 15 days from mid April to early May, Sundaythrough Thursday, during the first few minutes of language arts, which could be in the morningor the afternoon. It was reported that these fifth graders spent a mean of 10.2 minutes pernight reading books for pleasure with a median reading time of 5 minutes. When all readingmaterials were included—comics, books (with or without titles) assigned or unassigned,newspapers, and magazines—it was reported that these students spent an average of 21.3minutes per night reading with a median reading time of 16 minutes. This figure would haveincluded homework—assigned reading. Because ability levels were not reported in the sampledescription, it is not known if all of these participants were capable readers.A few significant relationships were noted. The researchers found “negative correlationsbetween watching television and book reading (-.28), and between watching television and allreading (-.34). The correlation between book reading and television watching increased to-.38 (p < .01) when reading comprehension was partialled out’ (p.496). Gender differenceswere 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 of65 children as they matriculated through grade four, five, and six, and the relationship betweenthese habits and achievement on standardized reading tests (Lamme,1 976). The description ofthe sample does not provide information for gender, ethnicity, SES, or ability. However, it wasreported that the sample was from a mixed rural and suburban school located in central NewYork.For three years, during the school year, students filled Out a reading record each time theyread a book. Information is not given as to whether this book was assigned or unassigned, orwhether 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 to19.5 books in both fifth and sixth grades, but this decrease was not found to be statisticallysignificant” (p.23). Some children did not read any books during these years, but since it wasnot reported that all children were capable readers, this may be part of the explanation. As forthe relationship between reading habits and reading ability measures, only the habit of seeking20out books by known authors was found to have a consistently moderate relationship. All otherreading habits, such as rereading books, selection of books, and sources of books were eitherdisplayed or not displayed in equal proportions by all types of readers. “Reading habits appearto be very diverse in the intermediate grades’ (p.25). It was also reported that critical readerswere not always avid readers and that capable readers sometimes were not reading at all. Thisis not to say that reading level does not play a small role in children’s reading since there wasevidence of a relationship between the number of books read and children’s reading test scoresfor all three years (Lamme, 1976).Long and Henderson (1972), interested in the amount of time students spent readingindependently, whether in school or at home, conducted a study with 207 fifth-graders. In twosuburban schools near an industrial city, students were given booklets with sheets with sectionsmarked off in 15 minute intervals to record all spare-time activities. These self-reportscovered an unspecified two week period. In the end, 57 students were eliminated because it wasfound that 33 were not reading at grade level according to their comprehension score on theGates-MacGinitie Test, and 24 had incomplete records due to absentism. The remaining samplepopulation 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 significantdifference found between boys and girls for the activity of reading. However, the activity ofreading was not categorized into various types of leisure reading (books, comics, ornewspapers). It was reported that one third of the sample population did not read during the twoweek period.Rasinski (1987) interviewed 26 third- and 40 fifth-grade students from two elementaryschools representing high- and low-socioeconomic neighborhoods, and two ditferent ethnicpopulations—Caucasian/Black. The purpose of the study was to find out if differences existed inthe frequency and the amount of time devoted to reading at home (measured through the use of21self-report) by high- and low-performing elementary grade readers, based on performance ofthe Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. The interview questions, however, did not delineate betweenreading 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 thenumber of minutes spent reading at one time” (10 minutes or less, between 10-30, more than30). The latter question was given to only the fifth graders. Another confounding factor wasthat reading at home was not defined; students may have included reading for school as well asfor leisure.Evidence revealed that 80% of the high-ability reading students were reading at least fourtimes 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) athome 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 samplepopulation. The reading behaviors of the infrequent reader were reported. In the third-gradegroup, one subject of the high-ability group reported “hardly ever” reading at home; twosubjects used this category from the low-ability group. For the fifth graders, two subjectsfrom the high-ability group reported “hardly ever” reading at home, and six subjects from thelow-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 throughthe 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. Withinthis decline, there are reported gender differences. A number of studies have shown that thereare 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 readmore books (Maxwell, 1977) but they also read more periodicals (A. Taylor, 1982; Whiteheadet al., 1975). However, when comics are distinguished from magazines, 11-,12-, and 13 year22old boys have been found to be reading more comic books than girls (A. Taylor, 1982). This wasalso true for grade-five boys in Ireland (Greaney, 1980). Other studies have found nosignificant 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 thatsocioeconomic 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 fatherswere employed in non-manual occupations were reading more books than were good readersof lower social background by the time they reached Secondary 2 (grade eight). Goodreaders of lower socioeconomic background were more likely to cut down on books as theygrew 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 werefound and reported in a number of them. Greaney (1980), Long and Henderson (1972), andRasinski (1987) have reported that having a higher level of reading ability seems to becorrelated with amounts of time spent leisure reading. However, Lamme (1976) did not find arelationship between reading habits and ability to read, other than seeking out books by knownauthors, although it was reported that reading level did seem to play a small role in number ofbooks read and reading test scores. B. M. Taylor et al. (1990), on the other hand, reported thatamount 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 allstudents. Findings have revealed that students at this age were reading 2.95 books during themonth of February/March in England and in Wales in 1 971, but it also revealed that amongthese 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) eitherduring this month. In Ireland, in 1980 for three days in June, it was revealed that grade-fivestudents were only spending an average of 5.4% of their leisure time reading; 44% were notreading 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 sample23was similar to national norms. Seven years later, in the same country, but this time over fourdays, 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). InScotland, 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, andmagazines—for one week in May (Maxwell, 1977).Lamme (1976) reported that fifth-grade students in the early 1970’s were reading anaverage of 19.5 books, although some of these books may have been read in school. Somechildren, however, read virtually nothing. Another study reported fifth-grade studentsspending on the average one hour and a half per week reading during the two week period of datacollection, 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 onthe 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 thechildren, 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 onetime reading at home also varied between these two groups of fifth-graders: 60% of the highability students would spend more than 30 minutes at one time reading at home, 35% wouldspend between 10-30 minutes, and 5% would spend 10 minutes or less; 35% of the lowability students would spend more than 30 minutes, 45% between 10-30 minutes, and 20% 10minutes 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 et24al., 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 thisinformation was not reported in some studies (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Long & Henderson,1972; Rasinski, 1987). The term “reading’ was sometimes used in a generic sense notdistinguishing 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 notimpossible to make this judgement due to the various sampling procedures found in thesestudies. For example, when investigating leisure reading, not only were different times of theyear under consideration, but also numerous lengths of time were used for data collection forthe activity of reading. General time frames included a specified three days (Greaney, 1980) orfour 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). Themethod of data gathering was also diverse, including questionnaires about reading (Whitehead etat., 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 readinglogs (B. M. Taylor et al., 1990). Findings were also reported in different forms, such asnumber 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. Underlyingalt of these weaknesses is the major weakness of expecting children to give accurate informationwhen asking them to recall how much time they spend leisure reading through self-reportinterviews or questionnaires. This is a problem for a few of these studies (Maxwell, 1977;Rasinski, 1987; Whitehead et al., 1975).25The present study used the diary-technique (Allen et al, 1992; Anderson et al., 1988;Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Long & Henderson, 1972) to establish whatchildren were doing with their leisure time over a period of three weeks, rather than dependingon children’s ability to recall these activities. Using these diaries is much more reliable thaninterview 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 valuesattached to the rewards that one gains from the activities documented in the diaries. Classroomand home variables were also a part of this inquiry. By using both approaches, an indepthanalysis was possible and adds to the literature on what contributes to the development of theleisure-reading habit. The focus is on the capable infrequent reader rather than the frequentreader 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 thatfrequent 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 sizeablepopulation 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 certainvariables that possibly contribute to leisure reading behavior. As well, this study investigatedone area that has not been investigated at this level or any other level, as far as this author isaware of, the rewards and values associated with the leisure activity of reading. It also fills thegap of what grade-five students do with their leisure time in a representative Canadian sample.Locus of Control and Intrinsic MotivationLocus of control is the belief one has regarding the control of rewards. Having an internallocus 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 haseverything to do with receiving a reward. Intrinsic motivation means that a person likes toparticipate in a particular activity because when he/she does, feelings of competence,26satisfaction, and/or delight are the rewards. Since “interest in children’s locus of controlbehaviors has remained remarkably substantial and stable” (Strickland, 1989, p.4), thisreview is limited to studies investigating locus of control and intrinsic motivation, as well asstudies 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 controlliterature, it was necessary to expand the scope of this review to include investigations in areasother than reading and intrinsic motivation.Several studies investigating children’s locus of control in learning situations have reportedfinding gender differences (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965; Flynn, 1991; Newhouse,1974; Prawat, Grisson & Parish, 1979); whereas others have not found gender to be asignificant intervening variable (Barnett & Kaiser, 1977; D. Brown, Fulkerson, Furr, Ware,& Voight, 1984; Sherman, 1984). Nielsen & Long (1981), however, found no significantdifference between males and females in the best reading groups for high school students but didfind that, in the poor reading classes, males had significantly higher internal scores thanfemales.Willey (1978) found significant correlations of locus of control with SES for studentsrepresenting a broad range of SES backgrounds at the elementary and junior-high level (6-14years old). Bartel (1971) found that the differences between lower- and middle-class childrenwere 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 greaterexternality than middle-class persons.D. Brown et al. (1984) found that “Caucasian leaders” among third and sixth graders hadbeliefs 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 andCaucasian 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 controldirection than Caucasians.27“While the first studies relating locus of control orientation to academic achievement werecompleted at Fels Institute (Crandall, Katkovsky & Preston, 1962), it was the so-calledColeman Report (Coleman et al., 1966) that focused on locus of control orientation as asignificant determinant of academic achievement” (Nowicki & Duke, 1983, p.24). Whether achild was Black or White, according to this report, having an internal orientation for locus ofcontrol seemed to predict greater success in academic achievement. Since that report,numerous studies have confirmed that an internal locus of control is related to higherachievement 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 theeffects rewards have on subsequent interest. When a person’s locus of control has an internalorientation, he or she can be motivated either intrinsically and extrinsically. The use of thelocus of control dimension in predicting an individual’s intrinsic motivation response to variousexternal rewards is considered at best a complicated prediction (Lonky & Reihman, 1980).Praise, an external reward, can be interpreted as either reinforcement to a person’scompetence 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 aninternal locus of control increase in motivation following praise, whereas those with anexternal locus of control decrease in motivation in response to praise (Danner & Lonky, 1981;Lonky & Reihman, 1980). Boggiano and Ruble (1979) and Lonky (1975) found thatmotivation 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 bemore 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 detrimentaleffects 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-contingentrewards; rewards are given for just participating. Contingent rewards, on the other hand, aregiven depending on the quality of the performance. Murphy (1986) concluded thatcontingent reward exercises, in genera!, an undermining influence on intrinsic motivation,at least in the short term. However, this may be ameliorated when task parameters areconsidered. Secondly, non-contingent reward tends not to exercise an undermining influenceon intrinsic motivation, but neither does it tend to increase it significantly. Thirdly,positive verbal feedback tends to increase intrinsic motivation, but this may be moreapparent for adult males than adult females. Fourthly, rewarded subjects choose easierproblems and engage in less efficient problem solving strategies than non-rewardedsubjects. (p.24)Brewer, Dunn, and Olszewski (1988) have cautioned others to avoidthe oversimplification that token programs somehow possess an inherently inimical qualityin and of themselves. Instead of focusing exclusively on the token reward system itself, amore productive focus would be on the conditions under which token reward systemsundermine intrinsic interest. (p.166)How locus of control affects the learner in a reading situation—all kinds of reading, not justreading 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 byPani (1991) when examining the effects of culture and locus of control on reading performanceamong tribal and nontribal Indian students in India. The poorest performance was evidenced bysubjects with external locus of control. Chariton and Terell (1987) reported significant meangains in reading age for grade-three students after enhancing internal locus of control beliefsthrough 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 forgrade-five students whose teachers were internal rather than external in their locus of controlwere reported by Murray and Staebler (1974). Boraks, Brittain, Linder, and Bauer (1993)reportedly found that locus of control scores correlated positively with reading comprehensionfor their sample of grade-four and grade-five students. Wooster (1974), in his investigationwith boys (age 13-15 years) considered by the British to be educationally subnormal, foundbetter results on a measure of reading ability for students whose locus of control scores wereinternal. Matheny and Edwards (1 974) also found a statistically significant correlation29between 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 sixmeasures of reading performance with elementary and junior high students, found the locus ofcontrol measure to be a significant predictor of oral reading scores and number of bookscompleted in a six-week summer reading tutorial program. Advanced readers in Nielsen andLong’s study of high school seniors (1981) had significantly higher internal locus of controlscores. However, Nielsen and Long also found that in the best reading groups there were nogender differences in locus of control; however, in the poor reading classes males had higherinternal locus of control scores.In a study examining locus of control and reading attitude for 431 inner-city children inColumbus, Ohio, D. H. Brown, Engin, and Walbrown (1979) failed to find a relationshipbetween these two variables for a sample of students from grade four, five, and six. They didfind, however, a significant relationship for Reading Anxiety and the (1-) scale of the IAR.[The Intellectual Achievement Responsibility (IAR) Questionnaire gives three scores: a totalscore, a subscore for beliefs in internal responsibility for successes (1+), and a subscore forbeliefs in internal responsibility for failures (1-) Lefcourt, 1991.] Three years later Blahaand Chomin (1982), conducting a similar study with 322 inner-city grade-five students usingthe same instruments, reported five reading attitude scores which significantly related to locusof 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 theIAR.These results suggest that children who report a willingness to assume personalresponsibility for successful academic achievement also tend to perceive themselves as freefrom difficulties with reading, being less anxious about reading activities, valuingreading-type activities for their extrinsic reinforcement value and for their intrinsicvalues as a source of information, learning, and emotional satisfaction, and valuing theirreading group. (p.30)Whitney (1986), investigating the relationship between locus of control and intrinsicallymotivated reading for grade-six children, found no differences between students with aninternal orientation and students with an external orientation. The study examined students’30leisure reading for a period of six weeks and concluded that students felt that they were “toobusy” for free-choice reading activities.One variable that might possibly strengthen the prediction of a relationship betweenintrinsically motivated reading and locus of control might be the value of the reinforcementsgained from the activity (Nowicki & Duke, 1983; Rotter, 1975). According to Rotter, thevalue that an individual places on a reinforcement must always be accounted for, but very fewresearchers have reported the reinforcement values for their subjects, whether these werestudies of achievement (Nowicki & Duke, 1983) or studies in other areas. In its simplestsense, according to social learning theory, reinforcement value is the subjective value theindividual 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 orreinforcement, 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 fromgrade 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 betweenlocus and control and competence measures when investigating grade-nine students expectancyand reinforcement value on their academic, social, and home behaviors. Other than these twostudies, 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 andsocioeconomic status. As well, locus of control orientation appears to be a significantdeterminant of academic achievement. The debate on how rewards affect intrinsic motivationcontinues around this controversial topic. Some studies in the field of reading have found locusof control orientation to reach levels of significance for reading achievement, predicting oralreading scores, and reading attitudes, as well as for the number of books read in a summerreading program (Blaha & Chomin, 1982; Matheny & Edwards, 1974; Willey, 1978). Other31studies in reading have reported that locus of control correlates positively with reading-readiness scores, reading comprehension, and significant mean gains in reading after enhancinginternal 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 ofcontrol 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 than700 studies being reported using the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External (CNSIE)scale (Strickland, 1989) alone, there is relatively little research investigating therelationship of this variable with reading or intrinsic interest in reading. The scale itself hasbeen criticised by Coombs & Schroeder (1988), after reviewing six factor-analytic studies ofl-E scales, as “limited to those rare individuals with extreme scores who do seem to have ageneral expectancy of locus of control” (p.84). On the other hand, Lefcourt (1991), arecognized, 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 ageneralized expectancy presently available for children (p.444). This study not onlyinvestigated beliefs in control over rewards using the CNSIE scale, but also explored reportedreasons for leisure reading.Attitude Toward Recreational ReadingRecreational reading of books, magazines, newspapers, and comic books, and how one feels orthinks about this activity would seem to be a necessary component of an investigation into howone spends his/her time out of school. “No theory of social behavior can be complete withoutincorporation of attitude functioning, and it is doubtful that complex social behavior can bepredicted without a knowledge of attitude’ (Shaw and Wright, 1967, p.14). An attitude isdefined by Allport (1967) as “a mental and neural state of readiness, organized throughexperience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to allobjects and situations with which it is related” (p.8).32By the age of 11 pupils will have formed attitudes towards reading from the influence of thehome from early childhood and their experiences in school in the last six years. Theseattitudes 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 otherresearch areas in reading (Alexander & Filler, 1976; Athey, 1985; McKenna & Kear, 1990;Shapiro, 1993; Shapiro & White, 1991). In the area of leisure reading, “far more attentionhas 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 severalstudies which reported that growth in positive reading attitudes parallels growth in levels ofreading achievement (Healy, 1965; Roettger, Szymezuk, & Millard, 1979; Rowell, 1972;Walberg & Tsai, 1984); and higher levels of reading achievement correlated significantly withamount 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 devotesome leisure time to reading; a child who does not have a favorable attitude is likely toselect 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-readingattitudes, as well as those studies that have investigated nonschool, voluntary, free, leisure, orout-of-school reading, and have included an attitude measure in that investigation.A Survey of Reading Attitudes (Wallbrown, Brown, & Engin, 1975) is one attitudemeasurement scale that includes a dimension for leisure reading. “Reading as Enjoyment”, oneof the eight dimensions of attitude toward reading addressed in this survey, purports to assessone’s preference for reading activities and leisure-time reading (Shapiro & White, 1991).Blaha and Chomin (1982) reported scores for “Reading as Enjoyment” as being significantlyrelated to verbal academic aptitude for grade-five students. It was suggested that children withthe greatest verbal academic ability “found reading an intrinsically rewarding activity”(p.29). Shapiro & White (1991), using the “Reading as Enjoyment” dimension forintermediate-grade (grades four to seven) students, found that significantly more children in a33school situation where no direct reading instruction took place viewed reading as being anenjoyable way to spend time, as compared to children in a traditional classroom situation usingbasal reading instruction.The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) (McKenna & Kear, 1990) consists of twosubscales: one for academic reading and one for recreational reading. McKenna, Stratton,Grindler, Rakestraw, and Jenkins (1992) used this instrument to examine differences inreading attitudes between students in a traditional basal setting and students in a whole languagesetting from grades one to five. They reported finding a decline in recreational-readingattitudes as students matriculated for both methods of instruction. Significant main effectswere observed for grade level (steady decline) and gender (girls had better attitudes), but notfor method of instruction. Several recent investigations have used the Elementary ReadingAttitude Survey (ERAS) as an instrument for measuring recreational and academic readingattitudes. Allen et al. (1992) investigating the validity of a new instrument—LiteratureRecognition Measures—reported correlations between the amount of time spent reading booksduring nonschool time and the ERAS recreational scale for grade-five students. When exploringthe relationship between reading comprehension and attitudes toward recreational and schoolreading, Boraks et al. (1993) found no differences within their sample of grade-four and -fivestudents. Cloer and Pearman (1993) examined gender differences for attitudes towardrecreational 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, andteachers all had significantly lower academic reading attitude scores as compared torecreational reading attitude scores. In this study, the boys’ attitude scores towardrecreational and academic reading declined with increasing grade level, whereas the girlsmaintained high attitude scores towards recreational reading throughout the six grades.Duggins (1989), conducting a three-year study on middle school students’ reading attitudesand interest in reading, used the Literature /Reading Survey (California Media & LibraryEducators Association, 1984) with 753 grade-six students of varying ability, ethnicity, andsocioeconomic status. This instrument consists of 21 items that focus on attitudes about34reading, 16 items on use of free time, 16 items about reading interests, and 19 items onknowledge of literature. Except for gender differences—females were twice as likely as malesto be interested in reading—and knowledge of literature, the students were reportedly allalike—whether they were ESL, regular, honors, suburban, urban, or semi-rural—in theirinterest in reading, their reading interests, and in the way they claim to spend their leisuretime. Differences in knowledge of literature was no surprise since this subtest on the surveymeasured ability as it is defined in schools. “As one might expect, in an urban community witha high percentage of immigrants, suburban children were more knowlegeable about Americanchildren’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) wheninvestigating grade-three students’ learning styles, reading styles, and attitudes. It was foundthat even though students indicated a generally favorable reading attitude, playtime andtelevision were preferred above reading. Greaney and Hegarty’s (1987) investigation ofgrade-five students’ leisure-time reading used a slightly modified version of Lewis scale intheir study of leisure habits, and reported that “attitude to reading correlated more highly withleisure-time reading than any of the other variables included in the study; the correlationbetween attitude and time was significant even after controlling for sex, reading achievementand library membership” (p.3).The Assessment of Attitudes toward Reading in Primary Pupils (Askov, 1972) was used byMorrow and Weinstein (1 986) in their examination of grade-two students’ voluntary use oflibrary centers at school and reading attitudes, and whether or not these two variables could beaffected by a literature program emphasizing the enjoyment of books. It was reported thatteacher-initiated literature activities and enhancement of school library centers had no affecton students’ attitudes toward reading, nor on their reading habits at home. Althoughobservations of behavior during free-choice time at school indicated that attitudes had becomemore positive, the researchers suspect that “the inventory was not sensitive enough to detectthe change” (Morrow & Weinstein, 1986, p.341).35Some investigators have either developed their own attitude instruments or madetranslations of existing scales into other languages. Schon, Hopkins, and Davis (1981)developed and adapted Spanish versions of measures of reading attitudes and academic selfconcept. They reported that reading attitudes had improved significantly between pre- andpost-tests for their experimental groups after providing a great variety of books in Spanishand 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 differentmodels of recreational reading—sustained silent reading, peer interaction, and teacher-studentconferences—to determine if any of these models would improve grade-four students’ readingattitude. All but the control group were given 30 minutes of recreational reading each day atschool for one year. There was no recreational reading for the control group. The ManningReading Attitude Inventory was used as a pre- and post-test. Students that had been exposed tothe peer interaction model and the teacher-student conference model had significantly higherscores on the post-test. Long and Henderson (1972), describing the reading attitude scale as aLikert-type scale, found that time spent reading was positively related to attitude towardreading for grade-five students. The study focused on independent reading—in school as well asout of school. Hansen (1969) devised a reading attitude questionnaire “which would identifyindividual differences in reading attitude for the purposes of relating this to the home literaryenvironment” (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’sreading attitude” (p.22) when it comes to independent reading. Fleming (1953), investigatingleisure-time reading habits and attitudes of senior high-school students using an instrumentconstructed for the purpose of the investigation, found that there were no significantdifferences in reading attitudes between the groups of upper to lower sociometric status.Other investigators have developed a questionnaire which includes only a few questions onattitude. Lane (1985), using a student questionnaire with 323 grade-seven students to assessattitude toward leisure reading, reported that 93% of the girls found leisure reading to beenjoyable as compared to 65% of the boys. Gorman et al. (1981) developed two instruments,36one for information about pupils’ response to voluntary reading, and one for information aboutpupils’ attitudes to reading in general. After analyzing the answers in these questionnaires forgrade-six students, it was reported that reading at home correlated with mean readingperformance scores. “The mean reading performance scores were higher for pupils whoexpressed confident, positive attitudes, but the correlation coefficients, although consistent,were low” (p.81). Whitehead et al. (1977), using a questionnaire that included questions onattitude with students aged 10, 12, and 14, found “an association between ability andattainment 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 favorableattitude towards school was positively associated with voluntary reading. Healy (1965)measured attitude toward reading with grade-five students by asking them in a questionnairehow 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 weretaught reading using an experimental teaching method, and then again at the end of the schoolyear. The purpose was to determine the influence of initial reading experiences—when studentsfirst entered school—upon attitudes, and to assess the effects of changing attitudes towardreading after this grade-five experience. A positive change of attitude was reported at thispoint. At grade seven, 65% of these students were available for a follow-up assessment. Thistime reading attitude was measured using an achievement test and the number of books read. Itwas found that there was a significant difference between the experimental group and thematched sample (control group) in total reading achievement gains and in number of books readduring the first semester at the grade-seven level.Besides attitude measurements, other instruments have recently been developed to measurereading habits and dispositions, such as those reported by Cunningham and Stanovich (1990;1991), and Stanovich and West (1989). These studies used literature recognition measures toindicate relative individual differences in exposure to print outside of school (Allen et al.,1992).37In summary, there have been a variety of instruments used to investigate reading attitudesand what affect these attitudes have on how much time is spent reading for recreation. Thereported findings in these studies seem to be linked with each other. There are factors thatseem to have improved students’ reading attitudes: giving students time to read, having booksavailable in a student’s first language, teacher-student conferences, peer interactions aroundrecreational reading, teaching methods, and home literary environments. Positive readingattitudes seem to be linked with higher levels of reading ability. Students with higher readingabilities seem to spend significantly more time reading for recreation, although two studiesreported that positive reading attitudes correlate more highly with recreational reading thandoes 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 oneto five; another study reported this was only so for boys. According to another study, therewere no significant differences in interest for reading and how students spent their leisuretime, 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 differencesreported 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 ingrades four to six, this significant difference was only in regards to recreational reading; girlsstill maintained high attitude scores for recreational reading. Gorman et al. (1981), however,found no significant differences between grade-six boys’ and girls’ attitudes towards voluntaryreading, 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 duringtheir 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 toreading (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), between SES and the linked variables of ability and38attainment with a favourable attitude to school which was positively associated with voluntaryreading (Whitehead et aL, 1977), or between SES and the reported degree of interest inreading, 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 nosignificant differences were to be found.Does attitude influence one’s decision to spend time reading for recreation? The answerseems to be a tentative “yes”. Tentative because while some have found it to be, not all studieshave found this to be true. This is one of the questions investigated in this study by using theElementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) (McKenna & Kear, 1990). Without theknowledge of each student’s recreational-reading attitude, it would seemingly be impossible tounderstand their choices for activities during out-of-school time.Other VariablesStudents spend time in at least two environments during the day—the classroom, and thehome. What impact these two environments have on each individual’s decision to read isdifficult to measure—perhaps impossible—but they need to be accounted for in order toascertain what effect either environment might have. Although there have been numeroustheoretical discussions throughout the literature, there have been very few studies which haveincluded these environments as variables of interest. This review will be limited to thosestudies that have investigated either classroom practices around reading, home practicesaround reading, or both, and whether or not these environments affect the amount of time astudent spends reading for leisure.“A great deal has been written about techniques to encourage recreational reading, but littleresearch has been conducted to document their effectiveness” (Manning & Manning, 1984,p.376). Quite often one finds such sweeping statements asThe amount of independent reading for both boys and girls is positively correlated with theavailability 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)39Although some of these findings may be true in some studies, it is not the case for allinvestigations. As well, some studies that have reported these claims have had some seriousshortcomings in their methodologies. How these variables might possibly relate to theclassroom and leisure reading will be considered first, followed by those that might be relatedto the home.One of the most extensive surveys investigating school organization and methods wasconducted by Whitehead et al. (1977) in England and Wales. School questionnaires werecompleted by 381 schools—i 93 primary schools where the head teacher or principal filled outthe questionnaire, and 188 secondary schools where the head of the English departmentanswered the questions. Since this was a study designed to sample the “extent and kind” ofvoluntary reading for 7800 children between the ages of 10 and 15, it was decided to compare50 schools with the highest average for amount of book reading with 50 schools with the lowestaverage for amount of book reading. The investigation “failed to produce clear indications as tothe characteristics which differentiated the two sets of schools” (p.86). Because of thesedisappointing results, another statistical approach was used by “taking each school variableseparately and considering its relevance to book reading by means of cross-tabulations withamount of reading” (p.86), and again results were inconclusive on such variables as listeningto the teacher read stories, being allowed to take books home from the school library, or theratio between the number of books available in the school library and the classroom libraryand the number of pupils.What did they find? First, how the schools organized their classes seems to have affectedthe amount of voluntary reading out of school. Schools which organized their students accordingto ability had the most nonreaders. Schools which had vertical groupings (variety of ages) hadsignificantly more readers. Even after lumping vertical groupings with mixed abilitygroupings, the schools that had streamed their pupils by ability had far more non- and lightreaders. Whitehead et al. suspect this may be part of the explanation for the lack of voluntaryreading as the child matures, since this kind of organization begins in the junior schools.Second, how the schools structured their curriculum—structured versus integrated40timetables—seems to have an impact on voluntary reading. Schools that had implemented anintegrated curriculum had more readers as compared to schools with partly integrated/partlystructured 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 thatWhitehead et al. found to have a significant impact on voluntary reading was at the secondarylevel when they compared the use of teaching materials—class sets of course books,comprehension books, thematic anthologies, novels, short stories, other prose books, and areading list of titles of books available in the classroom or school library—on the amount ofreading. “The amount of voluntary book reading was lower in schools that used class sets ofcourse 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 otherpossibilities, that based on the fact that “the class that read the most averaged 16.5 minutesper day while the class that read the least averaged only 4.1 minutes per day” (p.296), thatthe 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 schoolwhen out of school. These researchers felt that it was possible for some readers to be prolificreaders out of school without the influence of their teacher, but it was surmised that teachersmight be able to help more children to become so. This conclusion, however, was based oninterviews with only eight avid readers who talked about “teachers having books available inthe classroom, reading out loud to the class, recommending books to them, talking to them aboutbooks 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 etal., 1984, p.158). What are some of these practices in the classroom that may contribute tospending time leisure reading? What does it mean to have an influential teacher? Findings arenot always in agreement. Teachers having books available in the classroom has been found to bean influence on children’s reading in one study (Wilson et al., 1986), but not others. Morrow41and Weinstein (1 986) found that classroom libraries do affect school reading, but not homereading. Whitehead et al. (1 977) found these libraries not to be a significant differentiator inregard 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 encouragedtheir use” did students actually use this source (p.24). When surveying students on the booksavailable in the classroom or school library, Lane (1985) found that the available books donot always satisfy the needs and interests of the students” (p.48). This investigation on leisurereading also included leisure reading at school.Teachers taking the time to recommend books to students has been reported as a factorcontributing to time spent reading by students (Fielding et al., 1984; Lamme, 1976). Inaddition, teachers talking to children about books the students had read is another supportedfactor 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 sixthgrade, reported that subjects receiving conferences significantly increased in the number ofbooks that they read, and this was true for all grade levels and ability levels. Although thisstudy focused on independent reading, it was not reported if this reading took place at school, athome, or both. In one study, junior-high school students claimed that more class discussion ofcertain books would improve their leisure reading (Lane, 1985).Another classroom practice that was found to be influential in fostering an interest inreading 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 (Fieldinget al., 1984; Squire & Applebee, 1968) as a factor influencing amounts of time spent readingout of school, but this would seem to fall under the category of homework rather than readingfor pleasure. Squire and Applebee (1968) were able to tease out assigned reading outside ofschool from unassigned personal reading, and reported that British high school students spentmore time per week than American high school students on unassigned personal reading.42Providing time in the classroom for reading seems to carry over to home reading in somestudies (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 notfind 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 approachand 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 withthe whole language approach while investigating leisure-reading attitudes. Moffitt (1992),when comparing the high schools that participated in a study that measured the importance ofleisure 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 theremaining three regular high schools at 23%, 27%, and 24% of students not reading in theirleisure time. Picha (1988), investigating how much leisure reading grade-six anglophonechildren in early French immersion did in English and in French, reported that the languagepreference for the children’s leisure reading was English. The children who read a great dealin English also read significatly more than the other children in French. Leisure reading inthis study, however, was defined as reading done in a person’s free time which could be atschool 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 wherethe children were allowed to choose reading groups according to interest, select readingmaterials from a wide variety, elect child leaders on a rotating basis, and plan creativeactivities. A combination of small group instruction, flexible grouping, reading partners,and individualized instruction was used. Reading skills were inventoried and remediedthrough other language arts instruction using small groups, partners, games and clinicalteaching. (p.269)Although it was not reported what happened in the control group, other than they “weresubjected to the same climate of learning prior to fifth grade and subsequently” (p.272), Healyfound that there was a significant difference in the number of books read by the time thesestudents were at the junior high level (the experimental group). Since it was not explicitly43stated where these books were read or for what purposes, it must be assumed that some of thesebooks were read in school and possibly for school purposes. Greaney (1970) compared boyswho were assigned to either the basal reader approach or the individualized reading approach ingrade six. Both groups used the same classroom library and were taught by Greaney. Aftereight months, the experimental group—using the individualized approach—read more books anddevoted significantly more time to book reading during leisure time. However, the amount oftime spent reading for leisure when all materials were taken into account was not significantlydifferent between the two groups. Six years later, about 90% of these participants werecontacted and findings revealed that differences in the amount of time spent reading for leisurewas not significant, but the number of books read or proportion of books read, was significantfor 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. BothHealy (1965) and Landy (1977) found that some of their nonreaders had experienceddifficulties 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 relatedprojects 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 leisurereading behavior. Studies reviewed in this section for school and home practices that havereported differences are somewhat mixed in their results, however. These results have rangedfrom 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 smallrole (Lamme, 1976), to having no difference (Hansen, 1969; Mervar & Hiebert, 1989).Turning to the home environment, where children spend more time than at school, whathappens at home that might encourage reading for leisure also needs to be explored. Examininghome practices related to reading, and whether or not these practices affect the amount of time44a student spends reading for leisure out of school, seems more reasonable than reporting levelsof socioeconomic status or levels of education for the parents when investigating how studentsmight develop the leisure reading habit (Dave, 1963; Greaney, 1980; Hansen, 1969; Neuman1986a; 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 forreading” (p.21). Levels of socioeconomic status or education levels of parents do not bythemselves provide answers. Greaney and Hegarty (1987) found that “considerable variationin patterns of leisure reading occurs within individual SES categories” (p.15). However,traditionally, socioeconomic status has been reported in the literature and continues to beincluded along with other variables more sensitive to the home environment. Most studies havefound 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’soccupation and independent reading, and Greaney and Hegarty (1987) found “in general, theamount of time given to book reading correlated more highly with the home press variablesthan with SES” (p.11).Levels of education for the parents and its affect on leisure reading for high school studentswas reported by Moffitt (1992) as being statistically significant for the mothers’ level ofeducation but not for the fathers’. Hansen (1969) also found no significant relationshipbetween fathers’ education and independent reading for grade-four students.The evolution of home press variables, considered more sensitive to amounts of time spentreading for leisure than to levels of SES or education of parents, seems to have surfaced heavilyin 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 inthe area of reading interest (Cutright & Brueckner, 1928; Dave, 1963; WolfIe, 1961). Basedon the findings of these studies in the literature, Hansen (1969), investigating grade-fourstudents’ independent reading attitude, devised a questionnaire to measure the home literaryenvironment: “1) availability of literary materials in the home, 2) amount of reading done45with the child, 3) reading guidance and encouragement, and 4) parents as model readingexamples” (p.21-22). This home literary environment variable was found to be “the onlysignificant contribution to independent reading. Father’s occupation and education as well asthe child’s test I. Q. showed no significant relationship” (Hansen, 1969, p.22). In a secondpublication, Hansen (1973) reported on further analyses of the home literary environmentvariable to tease out which of the four factors were possibly contributing to the significance ofthe home environment, the analyses revealed that reading guidance and encouragement, whichincluded 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 ofleisure reading for grade-five students. This press for reading included: parental interest inreading, provision of space or opportunity for reading, availability of reading materials,parental reading, reading with the child, purchasing of reading materials, and encouragementto read. As mentioned above, the authors found this home press variable to correlate muchmore with amount of time given to book reading during leisure time than with socioeconomicstatus. After a series of chi-square analyses on these different components of the home pressvariable, they reported that heavy readers—defined as reading more than one hour for fourdays—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, weremore likely to read in bed, and were more likely to have received encouragement to readparticular books.Identifying variables in the home environment that might influence children’s leisurereading 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 parentinterviews (1 986a); identifying and representing students in quartiles based on TV viewingand leisure reading, and then comparing home environments (1986b). Data was assembledfrom 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 sample46was 64% Caucasian, 14% Hispanic, 13% Black, and 7% other. Mean socioeconomic class wasslightly lower middle, with 24% of the sample being single parents (Neuman, 1986a). Basedon the interviews, it was estimated that the grade-five students of these parents spent anaverage of 15 minutes per day reading for leisure. All participants were members of a publiclibrary. Neuman reported that family socioeconomic status correlated positively with thereading process variables. “Children’s leisure reading behavior, including the number ofbooks read, the time spent reading, and family discussions of books and magazines, weresignificantly and positively correlated with higher status” (Neuman, 1986a, p.338; 1986b).The home variables which had significant correlations with leisure reading, even aftercontrolling for gender and SES, indicated that the parents of children who read more provideddiverse leisure activities for exploring the environment outside of the home, gave theirchildren the space to develop independence and responsibility, and encouraged their children toread. This last variable was the strongest of the three correlates. Parents of readers “wereinclined to help children relate their reading of newspapers, magazines, and books to everydayevents” (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 leisurereading. However, “the frequency of being read to as a young child” and the “availability ofdaily newspapers and magazines” were both significantly associated with reading (p.340).Although the same findings are reported where students are placed into quartilesrepresenting heavy to light TV viewing, and heavy to light readers of leisure, there are someinteresting patterns.Parents of light TV viewers--light readers required their children to do more householdchores than others in the sample; . . . children in the light reading groups were alsoexpected 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 dailybasis, whereas parents of light readers did not establish a regular routine. As well, parents oflight 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 Hegarty47(1987); and to Neuman (1986a), it means to be “inclined to help children relate their readingof newspapers, magazines, and books to everyday events” (p.339); reading themselves; andreading often to their Sons and daughters. Separating these components of encouragement, thereis support for some, and contrary findings for others within the literature. First, “discussingthe child’s leisure reading” has been found to have a significant effect on the amount ofindependent 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 asignificant effect on the amount of time spent reading for leisure (American Federation ofTeachers & Chrysler Corp., 1992; Covington, 1985; Hansen, 1973; Neuman 1986a; 1986b).Third, providing newspapers and magazines was significantly associated with leisure reading inone 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 asignificant number of books—more than ten—but found no relationship between the number ofnewspapers and amount of book reading, unless these were “quality” newspapers (Whitehead etaL, 1977). Some studies have found that frequent readers were provided books by theirparents (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 readingmodels” 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 havenot 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 asignificant 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 by48several studies as having an impact on the amount of time spent reading for leisure (Fielding etal., 1984; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Landy, 1977). Reading in bed or thebedroom seems to be the most popular place with all these studies but one. Family size hasbeen included in several studies on leisure reading, and although some have found amount ofbook 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 spentreading 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 itcorrelates 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 andthe 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 blocksfrom 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 readingof students from grade five to eight, schools were providing reading materials for theirstudents. Since it was not stated that this voluntary reading only took place out of school, itmay have been possible that some of this reading took place at school. Over the time period of ayear it was reported that the students who possessed library cards at the school that wasfarthest from the public library had read the least number of books.In conclusion, only one study reported any differences for ethnicity. Landy (1977) foundthat leisure readers tended to be less likely to have mothers who spoke another languagealthough, 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,491985; Moffitt, 1992; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Whitehead et aL, 1977); discuss their readingmaterial more often with other family members (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b); are less dependenton library use for reading outside of school (Heyns, 1978); and read fewer books of their ownas 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 inthe 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 thearrangement of the curriculum, where schools having a fully integrated timetable had fewernonbook-readers—this was significant for boys. The other reason had to do with the types ofbook provisions in English lessons. Schools using class sets of either course books,comprehension books, or thematic anthologies had more nonreaders—this was significant forgirls.The findings from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. For example, some ofthe 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 ownadmission, Whitehead et al. were so disappointed in their lack of conclusive evidence for theschools, that they suspected that perhaps “the features of school life which are most importantin 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 throughthe use of questionnaires or interviews except for one study, where the study was conducted inthe researcher’s own home (Pluck et al., 1984). Sometimes the students themselves providedthe 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 interviews50happen, others do not. One study reported that the students provided this information, butfailed to say what method was used to elicit the answers (Long & Henderson, 1972). Both ofthese approaches fall under the category of self-report and have several limitations. For onething, they are often based on recall. Second, the respondent sometimes does not really haveaccess to the information required, such as realistic amounts of time their youngster spendsreading. Third, there is the social desirability factor which can operate for children as well asadults in wanting to please their interviewer. Because of these limitations, readers need to becautious about the findings of studies relying only on self-report.Referring back to the sweeping statement at the beginning of this section by Guthrie andGreaney (1991) that “the amount of independent reading for both boys and girls is positivelyrelated to” (p.90) . . . there are only a few parts of their statement that seem to haveunanimous support: the ownership of a library card, recreational interests, and home values(which would include literacy interactions). The remaining parts of their statement are notsupported by all studies, and whether these effects are significant for both boys and girls isalso up for debate.What are some of the practices in the classroom and in the home that may contribute tospending time leisure reading? One practice that both environments share is literacyinteractions. In the school, it seems to be that discussions concerning leisure materials, howthese relate to everyday events, and recommendations arising from these discussions seem tohave a significant impact on time spent reading. In the home, it seems that these discussionswithin the family about leisure materials, and recommending materials have also been shownto make a difference in the amount of time spent leisure reading. Reading frequently tochildren could conceivably be an element of literacy interactions and has been reported to makea significant difference within the home environment, but not in school. Providing newspapersand magazines, a space for reading, and developing a positive library habit also seem to havemade 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. Datawere collected using self-report methods but were assembled from a variety of sources.51Classroom practices around reading were confirmed through personal interviews with theteachers and students, as well as by telephone interviews with the parents. Home practicesaround reading were verified through these same telephone interviews with the parents, aswell as through the personal interviews with the students. Levels of socioeconomic status andeducation levels for both parents were also documented. By using these techniques, thesevariables were taken into account and add to the growing body of literature regarding leisurereading.SummaryWe do not know why children who are able to read do not choose to read as a possible activityduring 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 adecline in leisure reading as the child matures, this is an important question. Some childreneven 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 ofrewards has some serious side-effects. In essence, it seems to be that the conditions underwhich rewards are given is what increases or decreases intrinsic motivation. Contingentrewards (depending on the quality of the performance) initially undermine intrinsicmotivation, whereas non-contingent rewards (performance only) tend not to undermineintrinsic motivation. However, subjects who receive rewards subsequently tend to chooseeasier tasks.Two pieces of the puzzle that may help explain why children who are capable of readingchoose 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 anaffective component” (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987, p.5).While not all studies have found a relationship between locus of control and reading, somehave reported that children with an internal orientation seem to exhibit higher readingreadiness scores (Bartel, 1971), better reading ability or achievement (Boraks et al., 1993;52Charlton & Terell, 1987; Matheny & Edwards, 1974; Nielsen & Long, 1981; Pani, 1991;Willey, 1978; Wooster, 1974), more positive reading attitudes (Blaha & Chomin, 1982), aswell as completing a greater number of books in a summer program (Willey, 1978). Murrayand Staebler (1974) found that students made greater gains in reading comprehension andlanguage mechanics if their teacher had an internal orientation. It would seem safe to say thatthere is something going on with subjects who feel that their behavior has something to do withgaining rewards—whether intrinsic or extrinsic.One certainly can not make a prediction about how children will spend their time out ofschool 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 factorsin the home environment explain a significant portion of the variance in a child’s readingattitude. 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 eitherhigh achievement and time spent reading for recreation (Gorman et al., 1981), or positiveattitudes and higher achievement (Blaha & Chomin, 1982), or positive attitudes and time spentleisure reading (Allen et al., 1992; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987, Long & Henderson, 1972).Whitehead et al. (1977) found correlations for both variables. Duggins (1989) reported nosignificant differences at the grade-six level for interest in reading, reading interests, and inthe 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, andJenkins (1992) reported that there is a steady decline of recreational-reading attitudes fromgrades one through five, although Cloer and Pearman (1993) reported this finding only to betrue for boys.It seems that the two environments where children spend each day can have an affect on howthey choose to spend their time. Choosing to spend time reading is supported by literacyinteractions that take place not only in the home but also in the school. Discussions with andrecommendations from adults and peers (Fielding et al., 1984; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987;Hansen, 1973; Lamme, 1976; Lane, 1985; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Schwenn et al., 1970),53and how materials relate to everyday life (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b) have been shown to have asignificant impact on the amount of time spent reading for leisure. Being a member of thepublic 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 spaceat 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 theactivity of leisure reading (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b).Throughout this review, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, and abilitydifferences have been reported. These variables have been discussed in relation to leisurereading, locus of control, reading attitudes, and school and home variables. How would thesedifferences relate to the infrequent reader who is capable of reading in Grade five? It wouldseem that when it comes to book or periodical reading, the infrequent reader would tend to be aboy (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 significantdifferences in the number of books read or time spent reading at this grade level for boys andgirls. 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 controlcorrelates 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 avery 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;54McKenria, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, & Jenkins, 1992), this may explain why they arealso 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 seemsthat 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 onereason for boys not spending as much time as do girls reading for leisure. Schools that follow astructured timetable for usual subject divisions were found to be more likely to haveinfrequent male readers (Whitehead et al., 1977). And finally, Landy (1977) reported thatinfrequent readers tended to have mothers who speak more than one language.In conclusion, only a few studies mentioned in this review have investigated time spentreading 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 noinvestigations 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 whichinvestigates all these variables—locus of control, recreational-reading attitudes, and schooland home variables—and the impact these may or may not have on a grade-five student’sdecision on how to spend time out of school. Understanding what might contribute to thedecision to spend time leisure reading should provide some interesting pieces to the literacypuzzle.55CHAPTER IIIMethodThe purpose of this study was to investigate why a child who can read either elects to read ornot to read during out-of-school leisure time. Frequent readers are defined as students who arecapable of reading at the level of their peers and choose reading as a possible activity duringtheir out-of-school time. Infrequent readers are students that are capable of reading at theeveI of their peers but rarely choose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-schooltime. This chapter describes the design, the subjects, the instruments, and the procedures usedto investigate this question.DesignThe research problem being investigated was why a capable reader either elects to read ornot to read during out-of-school leisure time. This problem was investigated through anexploratory study using a survey design. The group measured was a sample of grade-fivestudents selected from four classrooms who had volunteered to participate in the study. Themethod of data collection included closed diaries, available measuring instruments, and personalinterviews. A pilot study had been conducted a year earlier using these same methods with agrade-five sample found in one classroom.SubjectsThe subjects were students selected from four grade-five classrooms in three differentschools which served families with similar economic backgrounds in a suburban area of BritishColumbia, Canada. Parents occupations were coded according to guidelines from StatisticsCanada—Census Canada 1986: Occupation: population and dwelling characteristics (1986a).56Families 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 workedin managerial positions (19%). A small percent (2%) of these occupations were not classifiedeither because of missing data or were homemakers. Twenty-five percent of the mothersworked as homemakers, while the predominate occupation for mothers outside the home was aclerical position (42%). The remaining mothers worked in managerial occupations (17%), insales or service occupations (15%), and in the trades (1%). Economic backgrounds wereassigned using socioeconomic status scores (SES) established in an index that “locatesindividuals 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 eachoccupation rather than a measure of occupational prestige. The average socioeconomic score forthis 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 (fl19.64). Like other investigators reporting SES scores, but not necessarily using thisinstrument, the higher score of the two parents, or in some cases the only score given, was usedto 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 theparents inflates the average SES score for the group. The average SES score for this group ofgrade-five students was 45.31 ( 12.16). The sensitive issue of whether the families ofstudents were single parent or two-parent was not investigated. If there was only one score toreport 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 inBritish Columbia, Canada. This particular school district was chosen because there was nopolicy in place limiting intact classrooms. Another school district had approved the study butcould 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—having57overlapping 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 thebelief that students would be coming from similar economic backgrounds.One hundred and five children in the four classrooms were invited to participate in thisvoluntary study. Five students had not been invited due to the teacher’s decision that because ofautism (1), social learning (2), and foreign language (2), these students would findparticipation in a study too frustrating. Sixty-nine students elected to participate and weregiven permission to do so by their parents or guardians. Since the study was designed toinvestigate only capable readers, ten students were eliminated from the sample group becauseboth 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 wereeliminated for various reasons: three, because their parents did not speak English and would notbe able to participate in the telephone interview; one because permission was not granted forthe child to be interviewed; one because the parent refused to be interviewed; and one childcontracted chicken pox. Consequently, the final sample group was reduced to 53 students (21boys 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 onefamily that could not decide from what part of the world their ancestors came from. Theeducational 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 degreeto 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 theparent interview which included questions concerning occupation for both parents, the ancestryof each parent, as well as the educational background for each parent. While this group does notrepresent any particular universe, it is a diversified suburban sample of children whose outof-school activities presumably reflect normal grade-five students’ lives.58All 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, answeredcomprehension questions from standardized reading passages, participated in an indepthinterview, and had one parent interviewed over the telephone.InstrumentsTo 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-sheetconsisted 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 insertcodes which represent a large variety of activities. These activities, expanded from Anderson etal. (1988), are grouped under several categories namely, “I played”, “I did”, “Iwatched/listened’, “I”, “what else did I do”, and “I went to”. The activities within each categoryare assigned codes and written in the clock diagram for the appropiate time. Some of theseactivities, as reported in Anderson et al. (1 988), need some additional information from thestudent: title of book, game played, and lesson/practice for, in order to be a more validindicator 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 withtime in school to fill them out on a daily basis for three weeks. These folders had been prestuffed with 17 “After School Day” clock-sheets, and six of each “Weekend Day” and “WeekendNight” clock-sheets. Students could take a clock-sheet home if they desired during the week; onFridays, all students took the sheets home since they needed to account for Friday, Saturday, andSunday 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 parentswould not have access to, nor be questioned about a student’s out-of-school activities.59The clock-sheets were piloted on one grade-five class, and were found to be an effectiveinstrument for this purpose. There were some minor changes after the pHot-study; specialcodes were added for bathing, dressing, eating, sleeping, and transportation. Although theseactivities were not tallied, the pilot study brought out the unnecessary conferencing betweenresearcher and student over omissions in the clock that were due to these daily occurrences. Assuggested 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 factorfor determining a sport; otherwise the activity was considered a game. Another addition, due tofindings in the pilot study, was to place a “T” for ‘transportation” into one of the circles at threeo’clock to account for getting home from school, since many students would start putting codesinto all four circles at three o’clock. Finally, the decision was also made to divide the timeequally 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 wasconstructed 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-Brownare 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 apartwere .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 theshortcomings of this instrument. Strickland (1989) has stated that the scale is “not related tosocial desirability, intelligence measures, or gender” (p.4). The scale has 40 declarativestatements that require a “yes” or “no” response circled by the subject. High scores reflect anexternal locus of control orientation and low scores reflect an internal locus of controlorientation. The administrator of the scale reads the questions twice to the students whilestudents read from their own copies. The instrument takes about ten minutes to administer.60The Student Interview((Appendix 4) was developed by the researcher to clarify whatreinforcements 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 repeatthrough three different activities identified by the clock-sheets: a student’s number oneactivity, that which had the most amount of time over the last three weeks; as well as thenumber two activity; and finally, the activity of leisure reading. After these three wereexplored in the interview, questions that centered on reading classroom practices, and homereading practices were elicited.The interview was first piloted on ten students from a grade-five class. Using proceduressuggested in Sudman & Bradburn (1983), one question was eliminated because it failed todiscriminate among respondents. There were some minor changes due to formating, precoding,wording, and sequencing. Two new questions were added: one to strengthen the exploration ofintrinsic rewards, and one to explore sociability. This final draft was then piloted on tendifferent 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 wouldpossibly influence the answer of the second, adding a question requiring the use of cue cards formeasuring reinforcement-values, and eliminating eight questions which appeared to beredundant. 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 studentsuspected that the researchers interest was reading.The Teacher Interview(Appendix 5) was developed by the researcher as an instrument toaccount for the possible impact of classroom practices around reading on the out-of-schoolactivities of the students. The questions focus on the reading programs, reading materials andreading activities within the classroom, as well as on the personal reading habits of eachteacher. The interview was piloted on one grade-five teacher, and took about 15 minutes toadminister. Some minor changes were then made due to formating, precoding, wording andsequencing. There was one new question added for clarification and three questions were61dropped because the answers were redundant or inapplicable to the research question. Duringdata 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 andnoted. Five new questions were added to the Teacher Interview in order to accomplish this, andanother two questions describing the characteristics of the student population within the classand the school were posed.The Parent Interview (Appendix 6) was developed by the researcher as an instrument toaccount for any support or encouragement that students might receive in the home for theactivities that they choose to do out of school. The questions center on the parent’s leisureactivities—ones that were similar to the student’s, reading in the home and at school, as well assome questions about family background.The interview was piloted on 20 parents of a grade-five class and took about 10 to 25minutes to administer over the telephone, averaging about 17 minutes. Three questions wereeliminated because they did not appear to provide the kind of information required, and the stemof one question was dropped because it did not discriminate among respondents. There weresome minor changes due to formating, precoding, wording, and sequencing. Six new questionswere 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 wellas occupational classifications (1986b). Coding for educational backgrounds as well as follow-up questions on class of worker were taken from Sudman & Bradburn (1983). Socioeconomicstatus categories were established using an index that “locates indivduals in the Canadianoccupational hierarchy” (Blishen et aI., 1987, p.473).The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey((McKenna, & Kear, 1990), is intended for gradesone to six, and consists of two subscales: one for recreational reading, and one for academicreading. “Each item presents a brief, simply-worded statement about reading, followed by fourpictures of Garfield. Each pose is designed to depict a different emotional state, ranging fromvery positive to very negative” (p.636). These statements are read aloud twice by the62examiner as the students think and circle one of the pose’s of Garfield that is closest to their ownfeelings 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 10minutes. Reliability was established using Cronbachs alpha to calculate at each grade level forboth subscales, and for the composite score. These coefficients ranged from .74 to .89 whichwere 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 therecreational subscale and the academic subscale, as well as the relationship between thesubscales by administering this instrument to a national sample of over 18,000 children ingrades one to six. Since this study investigated leisure reading, it was decided to give only thesubscale for recreational reading.McKenna, Stratton, and Grindler (1992) conducted further research with this instrumentto determine if a social desirability bias might exist. A total of 1,142 children in grades one tosix participated in this study and it was found that only “9 to 11 .6 percent of the variance inERAS subscale scores can be accounted for by social desirability” (p.6).ProcedureSo as not to bias this study, the principals, teachers, parents, and students were told that theresearcher’s interest was to document out-of-school activities—what grade-five students spendtheir 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 tosupply the answer they think the investigator expects, or the answer their teacher would likethem to give, rather than admit to low taste or to no reading at all” (p.2). This is supported byNell (1988a) who talks about respondents “ever willing to please interviewers” (p.24). In aneffort to avoid some of these methodological difficulties, students accounted for what they didduring their out-of-school time on a clock-sheet (Appendices 1, 2, 3). These daily clocksheets 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 vague63response options, which can both be found in surveys. Greaney (1980) has also suggested “thatthe amount or proportion of the total leisure time a pupil allots to reading is a more appropriateand sensitive measure of the leisure reading habit” (p.342).During the month of May, an application for the conducting of research” was submitted tothe school district. In September, a letter was sent by the district to all elementary-schoolprincipals within the district announcing that a study on children’s out-of-school activities hadbeen given district approval and asked principals if they would be interested in volunteeringtheir schools. Two principals indicated an interest.These two schools were several miles apart and had populations of students whosesocioeconomic backgrounds were dissimilar. The larger school was chosen by the researcher toparticipate because it contained two complete grade-five classes and it was in close proximity toseveral other schools with large populations of grade-five students. A second school withinblocks of this school was telephoned by the researcher and appointments were made with thegrade-five teachers to determine if they might be interested in participating. All teachersagreed 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 (discussionto 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 thesedecisions as to how they spend their time. Principals were given a copy of the permission letterto be sent home with each student, copies of all instruments that would be administered, and aschedule of events indicating not only when the researcher would be at the school site, as well asthe Monday-assistant—a graduate student hired for these purposes, but also the various phasesthat the study would follow. Time was also available to answer any questions that they may havehad 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 scheduledfor this time of the year. Permission was sought and given to administer a standardized reading64test for the research purpose of establishing ability levels. A space for interviews was alsoconsidered since it was found in the pilot study that when this space shifted, both theinterviewer and the interviewee were distracted, not only with interruptions, but also with theunfamiliar surroundings.During the meetings with teachers, the study was introduced in the same fashion as it waswith the principal—each teacher receiving a copy of the permission letter, and the variousclock-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 scheduleincluded not only when they could expect the researcher to be in their classrooms initiating thestudy and answering inquiries from the students or themselves, but also times during the daythat 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. Administeringthe two scales and the reading test, as well as the scheduling of student interviews following thecompletion of the clock-sheets was also discussed.Arrangements were then made to provide participating teachers with envelopes for collectionand extra clock-sheets, as well as to establish dates for the researcher to meet with theirclasses in order to disperse permission letters, and to follow up with a demonstration of theclock-sheets after all the permission letters were returned.The week that permission letters were to be sent home the researcher was introduced to theclass by the teacher. Students were invited at that time by the researcher to participate in astudy which would investigate their activities out of school, what they do with their time, andwhy they choose these activities. Details were given as to what was involved, namely, the fillingin of clock-sheets and possibly taking part in an interview, how much time they could expectthat this would take, what they might possibly learn from this experience, and to answer any oftheir questions. The students were reminded that their participation was voluntary and wouldhave no impact on their grades or standing in the class and that they could withdraw from theproject at any point of time. Confidentiality was also stressed, that is, they would be assigned65code numbers and that no one but the researcher would have access to the data. Assurances werealso given that if they were chosen to be interviewed, how they spent their time out of schoolwould not be revealed to their parents, and that the purpose of the parent interview was to findout 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 dayindicating whether or not they had been given permission by their parent or guardian toparticipate in the study. A week was given for these letters to be returned. At the end of thatweek, the researcher returned to the schools to collect these signed permission slips, and wastold by one classroom teacher that it had been decided to withdraw from the study since only afew students had replied favorably to participating in the study. A third school, located withinthe same neighborhood area as the other two schools, was contacted, and both the grade-fiveteacher and the principal agreed to join in the study.The responses to this invitation were mixed at the first two schools: 44% repliedfavorably, 30% replied negatively, and 26% did not reply at all. The decision was made to makecontact with the group of students that had not responded. Each principal had their own idea asto how to go about this. One principal suggested that the researcher telephone the parents andask if there were any questions that they may have in regard to the study, and to relay themessage that it was important that their child participate. The other principal decided topersonally contact each student and require that they bring back the permission slip signed thenext day stating, one way or the other, whether or not they would be participating. Bothapproaches 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 theprincipal.Students were given instructions on how to use the clock-sheets on the day that the studywas to begin. Before starting the demonstration of the clock-sheets, however, students weregiven a brief lesson on using a clock-face when telling time, since the pilot study had revealedthat students were more accustomed to using digital clocks. All participating students that hadpermission were then given a pocket-folder, marked with their names and assigned code66numbers, 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 studentsworking at their desks and the researcher working at the overhead projector, students wereasked to fill in the clock-sheet for their out-of-school activities from the day before. As eachcategory was considered, clarifications were made as to how to use the categories and their codeswithin the clock. Primarily, there were three steps: (1) checking off the boxes that indicatedwhat they did the day before out of school; (2) thinking of the time of day this activity occurredand 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, asport called—or a practice/lesson for—etc.. It was pointed out that there were special codes forbathing, dressing, eating, sleeping, and transportation; that the difference between a game and asport is determined by whether or not you would need the use of your physical body to play thegame; that a T for transportation had been placed into one of the circles at three o’clock toaccount for getting home from school; and finally, if two activities were going on at the sametime for example, television/homework, listening to music/doing chores, gameplaying/television, that they should put both codes near the circle. Students were encouraged toreport 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 tofill in spaces for additional information required of some activities: such as, sports—whatsport?, games—name of the game, books—title or author, reading a newspaper—what was thearticle about? This step was added in order to have a more valid indicator of actualparticipation (Allen et al., 1992; Anderson et al., 1988).They were reminded that they needed to leave their folders at school since they would begiven time first thing each morning to fill out these clock-sheets. It was certainly acceptablefor them to take a clock-sheet home with them if they wanted to, but the folder needed to stay atschool so that they would have a supply of clock-sheets to use. On Fridays, they would be67reminded by their teacher to take home five clock-sheets for the weekend to help them accountfor the weekend. To make it easier, the five clock-sheets needed for the weekend were stapledtogether.After reviewing the clock-sheets that students had initially tried to fill in from thedemonstration, the researcher met with each class the following day to clear-up any problemareas that were discovered and to help students with any problems that they may be havingfilling 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 timeframe was chosen initially because out-of-school activities probably follow persistent behaviorpatterns (Anderson et al., 1988; A. Taylor, 1982), as well as allowing for some activities thatmay be intermittent, for example, book reading (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987). However, due to adelayed start, data collection was reduced to three weeks. Five to ten minutes was alloted firstthing each morning, except Mondays which took about 20 minutes, for filling out and collectingthese forms which were then placed into an envelope to be sealed. These envelopes werecollected each day, and the clock-sheets were checked that morning by the researcher for anyomissions or other possible clarifications by questioning individual pupils privately (Greaney& Hegarty, 1987; Smalley, 1958). On Monday mornings, clarifying data collected from theweekend proved to be a time consuming task in the pilot study. The decision was made to hire anassistant 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’sNowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973)—wasadministered to all participating students in each classroom. This scale took approximately 12minutes to administer and was given by the researcher. Due to absentism, four students wereadministered the scale individually or in a small group.In order to determine reading ability (Rasinski, 1987; Long & Henderson, 1972), theGates-MacGinitie Reading Test (MacGinitie & MacGinitie,1992) and teacher judgment wereused to determine whether or not a student was reading at the level of their grade-five peers.68Each teacher had been given a copy of their class list and asked to categorize each student intoone 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 scoredat the 34th percentile (which is one standard deviation below the mean based on the formingpopulation on which the test was standardized> or above on the reading passages, as well as thosestudents who were indicated by their teacher as reading at grade level or above, were consideredcapable 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 whowere designated by their teachers as reading below grade level, and scored below the 34thpercentile participated as much as they were able to. They filled out the activity forms andcompleted the locus of control and attitude towards recreational reading scales, but their datawere not included in the analyses. Students who scored below the 34th percentile on the GatesMacGinitie Reading Test (1 992) but were designated by their teacher as reading at grade levelor above were assessed by a third instrument either given by the reading specialist or by theteacher sometime during the school year. There were 10 students eliminated from the samplebecause they were not capable of reading at the level of their grade-five peers. Limiting thestudy 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 alsolikely to be missing. The issue of capability was addressed by including only students who couldread at the level of their peers; the issue of control was examined by using the locus of controlinstrument. “Both constructs are necessary to account fully for the psychological state ofintrinsic motivation” (Spaulding, 1992, p.181).After the clock-sheets had been completed, collected, and analyzed for amounts of time spenton the different activities, all 53 students participated in individual interviews. The interviewschedule (or protocol)(Appendix 4) not only consisted of questions designed to clarify whatreinforcements each student derived from the activities and what values they attached to therewards, but also attempted to account for any possible influences the school environment, aswell as the home environment might have had on a student’s out-of-school activities. Neuman69(1980) has suggested that open-ended interviews along with records of leisure readingbehavior might assist in uncovering ‘the real factors influencing children’s interestsTM pointedout by Huus (1979) after analyzing studies of children’s interests. This is supported byMcEady-Gillead (1989) who has ‘resolved that a more definitive view of adolescents’ use ofout-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. Studentswere informedthat the purpose of the interview is to explore with you why you spend time out of schooldoing some of the things that you do. It’s going to take about 25-30 minutes, and I’m going toask you some questions about some of your out-of-school activities, some questions aboutyour classroom, and some questions about your home. These are thinking questions, not testquestions. There are no right or wrong answers. So, I might ask you something you haven’tthought about before, and that’s what takes a little bit of time. It’s like a talking survey, sotake 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 ratherthan 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 likeyou, when students ask you “what the questions are?,” to say that it is confidential. I don’tcare if you talk to your mom and dad about it, but I don’t want the other students to know thequestions 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 referto 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 “almosteveryday” , “sometimes” was “about two or three times a week”, and “rarely” meant “once aweek or less”. These definitions were chosen before the study began by a group of grade-fivestudents, that had discussed these terms among themselves during a class with their teacher, anddecided that this was what these terms meant to them.Classroom practices around reading were also explored through interviews with theteachers (Appendix 5) and the parents (Appendix 6). After all participating students had beeninterviewed at a particular school, the teachers were interviewed at their school about theirclassroom practices around reading, as well as about their own personal reading habits. Theseinterviews were audio taped and used for coding and filling in open-ended questions. Homepractices around reading were investigated through the parent interviews. After the student had70been interviewed, the parent was interviewed over the telephone about their own leisureactivities, and reading practices at home and at school; they also responded to some questionsabout family background. These interviews were not audio taped, so consequently they werecoded at the time of the interview. When the interview was completed, the researcherimmediately read through the interview, double checking for readability and final coding ofethnic, educational, and occupational categories.After interviews were completed, a recreational reading attitude survey, a subscale of theElementary Reading Attitude Survey(McKenna & Kear, 1990) was given to all participatingstudents. This instrument, because of its reading nature, was given after all other data had beencollected 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 tocomplete.AnalysesAnalyses 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, ComputingCentre, 1986)—as well as through checks on the rate of compliance, outliers, and the shape ofthe distributions. Variation in the amount of time spent reading for leisure, which includesbooks, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail, was also analyzed with this statisticalpackage. 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 (Andersonet al., 1988).In order to explore the question of how leisure reading may be affected by such variables asgender, socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, and ability, three statistical procedures wereused: t-tests and analyses of variance for the categorical data of gender and ethnicity, andmultiple regression analyses for the continuous data of SES and ability. The dependentvariables—minutes spent book reading and total minutes spent reading all materials, as well aspercentage of leisure time spent book reading and percentage of leisure time spent reading all71materials—were measured with the clock-sheets which reported approximate times in minutesover 17 days in February and in March. Both the percentage of leisure time and the minuteswere 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 ofthe student interview. Socioeconomic status was established using an index for occupations inCanada (Blishen et al., 1987). The index is not considered a prestige measure of occupation butrather “a composite of prevailing income and education levels in each occupation” (Blishen etal., 1987, p. 471). Occupations were indicated at the time of the parent interview, and thencoded using classifications from Statistics Canada (1986b). If both parents were employed, thehigher SES rating was used (Farmer, 1985; Johnston, 1992; Hannah & Kahn, 1989; Super &NeviII, 1984). Ethnicity was also noted during the parent interview with the questionconcerning 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 wasmeasured using the raw scores from the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie ReadingTest (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 ofleisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials, attitudetoward recreational reading, gender, and ethnicity was investigated with a series of t-tests andchi-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 chisquare analyses were used with the independent variables containing categorical data—genderand ethnicity. The dependent variable—locus of control—was measured with the Children’sNowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale (1973) which provides raw scores, and usesmedian splits to determine the internals and the externals. The independent variables—SES,ability, minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage ofleisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials, gender,72and ethnicity—were measured in the fashion mentioned previously, and the final independentvariable—attitude toward recreational reading—was measured using the Elementary ReadingAttitude Suivey (1990) which provides both raw scores and percentile rankings. Raw scoreswere used in the analyses.Another question to be examined was attitude toward recreational reading. This time attitudewas 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 ofrewards 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 spentbook 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 aneffect between the home environment and attitude toward recreational reading, a separate run ofanalyses were conducted with 40 independent variables representing practices around readingin the home, and the dependent variable—attitude toward recreational reading. A series ofanalyses of variance and t-tests, with each cluster of variables representing previous claims inthe literature were used with the categorical data, and multiple regression analyses were usedwith the continuous data. How the dependent variable was measured has been mentioned, as wellas the methods used for most of the independent variables.Some of the influences that the classroom may have had on spending time reading for leisurefor these students were investigated and analyzed. The independent variables included readingaloud to students, providing materials in the classroom for leisure reading, the use of a schoollibrary and a classroom library, teaching methods for reading, the use of rewards in theclassroom for leisure reading, time provided for leisure reading (USSR), and the students’observations of the teacher reading for pleasure. The independent variables containedcategorical data, except the variable for the amount of time for USSR. This independent variablecontained continuous data; therefore multiple regression analyses were possible with the73dependent 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 allmaterials—which also contained continuous data. T-tests and analyses of variance were usedwith the independent variables containing categorical data. The independent variables wereestablished through the interviews with the students, parents, and teachers; the dependentvariables were established with the clock-sheets.Some of the influences that the home may have had on the leisure reading time for thesestudents were analyzed with 40 independent variables which included: encouraging your childto read books, magazines, newspapers, and comic books; reading together; listening to your childread; talking with him/her about leisure materials; reading aloud to your child; providingmaterials; providing a space to read; time spent reading by the parent; use of the library; use ofrewards for leisure reading; students observations of parents’ and siblings’ reading and readinga 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 thebirth order position of the student. Most of these independent variables contained categoricaldata 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 ofthe student. Since these independent variables contained continuous data, multiple regressionanalyses were possible with the dependent variables—minutes spent book reading, total minutesspent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage ofleisure time spent reading all materials—since these variables contained continuous data. Ttests and analyses of variance were used with the independent variables containing categoricaldata. The independent variables were established through the interviews with the students andparents; 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 ifanything would get you to spend more time in the activity?,” as well as values and expectationsthat each student may have attached to their answers for “likes,” “feelings,” and “reasons for74leisure reading, as well as the two activities that they had spent the most amount of timeparticipating in during their time out of school. Expectations were measured on a unipolar scalefrom “not at all sure” (0) to “extremely sure’ (+3) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1981). At the timethese questions were asked, each student was given an expectation-scale (values attached to theresponse were not included) which they could refer to when asked the question, “how sure areyou that when you (activity #1) during your time out of school that it will lead to (therewards/reasons mentioned during the previous questions)?”Cue cards were used for measuring values. Some cards were written up ahead of time, otherswere made during the interview. The previously made cards reflected rewards/reasons whichpredominated in the pilot study. These included “You will not be bored,” “You will learnsomething,” “You will experience enjoyment,” and “You will receive encouragement fromothers.” A student was only given the cue cards which they had mentioned as reasons forparticipating in a particular activity. Each student was given the cards to place on a large chartwhich asked, “how important is this reason to you?” The chart showed a scale with thedescriptors “very important (really),” “important,” “a little bit (somewhat),” “not importantat all,” and was large enough to place the cards side by side horizontally within the samecategory 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 askedquestions about his/her own salient beliefs rather than given a series of ‘modal behaviouralbeliefs’ (Sparks, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1991, p.262). Both response scales were alsodesigned 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 forcoding and filling in open-ended questions (Sudman & Bradburn, 1983). Each interview tapewas transcribed so that the responses for the open-ended questions could be categorized by twoindependent raters. Raters were given 5x8 cards, each card representing one category. Thecategories included “relief from boredom,” “to learn,” “availability,” “enjoyment,”“encouragement,” “avoidance of negative consequences,” “other,” “don’t know,” and weredesignated for the interview questions that focused on “likes,” “feelings,” and “reasons.’ The75questions 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 morefun?,” and “what if anything would get you to do more during your leisure time?” were assignedcategories having to do with “format,” “content,” “availability,” “interactive,” “other things areavailable 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 alist, it was felt that this procedure would eliminate prioritizing; sample responses would assistin clarification. Raters were introduced to the procedure by the author. As demonstrated inFeifel and Lorge (1950), the rate of agreement was 79%. When there was disagreementbetween the two raters, these responses were categorized by a third independent rater. In theend, only one percent of the students’ responses had to be thrown out due to lack of agreementbetween the three raters. Analyses of the means for the various responses were conducted usingsPSSx.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, thissame statistical procedure was used when analyzing for any possible effects that these samevariables may have had on attitude toward recreational reading. T-tests were used to analyzeany effects that particular classroom factors or home factors may have had on time spentreading or attitude toward recreational reading. This statistical procedure was also used to findpossible effects that time spent reading, socioeconomic status, ability, or attitude may have hadon locus of control. Chi-square analyses were used to examine any effects that gender orethnicity may have had on locus of control. Multiple regression analyses were used to examineany effects that socioeconomic status, ability, amount of time for Undisturbed Sustained SilentReading (USSR), and certain home factors may have had on time spent reading. Multipleregression analyses were also used to detect any effects that time spent reading, socioeconomic76Table 1Summary of Statistical Procedures Used with Different VariablesStatistical Procedure VariableI’EWA Time Spent Reading & (Gender,Ethnicity, Classroom Factorsa,Home Factorsb)Attitude & (Gender, Ethnicity,Classroom Factorsa, HomeFactorsb)T-Test Time Spent Reading & (ClassroomFactorsC, Home Factorsd)Attitude & (Classroom Factorse, HomeFactors)Locus of Control & (Time SpentReading, SES, Ability, Attitude)Chi-Square Locus of Control & (Gender,Ethnicity)77(Table 1 continued)Statistical Procedure VariableMultiple Regression Time Spent Reading & (SES, Ability,Amt. of Time for USSR, HomeFactors9)Attitude & (Time Spent Reading, SES,Ability, Amt. of Time forUSSR, 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 observationsof the teacher reading for pleasure. bHome factors included encouraging reading materials,reading together1 listening and conversing about reading, parents reading aloud, providingreading materials, providing a space to read, time parents spent reading at home, use of thelibrary, 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. CClassroomfactors included reading aloud to students, teaching methods for reading, and observations of theteacher during USSR. dHome factors included observations of parents’ and siblings’ readingmaterials, 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 andstopped reading aloud, as well as the number of languages spoken in the home.78status, ability, USSR, and certain home factors may have had on attitude toward recreationalreading.The results for these procedures will be reported in the next chapter.79CHAPTER IVResultsThe purpose of this study was to investigate why a child who is a capable reader either electsto read or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. Frequent readers are defined asstudents who choose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-school time; infrequentreaders are students who are capable of reading at the level of their peers but rarely choosereading 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 whenintrinsic reasons are present? 2) How does locus of control affect leisure reading? 3) Howdoes attitude affect one’s decision to spend time reading for leisure? 4) Are there similaritiesand differences in classroom and home practices around leisure reading for frequent andinfrequent readers? This chapter will report the results for the various instruments used toinvestigate these questions.Sixty-nine grade-five students agreed to participate in a study which investigated how agrade-five student spends his/her time out of school. Participation included not only keeping adaily 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 ashaving one parent interviewed over the telephone. Since the study was designed to investigateonly capable readers, ten students were eliminated from the sample group based on acombination of two factors: the teacher’s judgment of reading ability and the comprehensionscore from the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, 1992. An additional six studentswere eliminated for various reasons: three, because their parents did not speak English andwould not be able to participate in the telephone interview; one student was eliminated becausepermission was not granted to be interviewed; one parent refused to be interviewed, and one80student contracted chicken pox. Consequently, the final sample group was reduced to 53students; 21 males and 32 females.Preliminary AnalysesClock-sheets.The period of time for which all out-of-school activities were to be reported was 17 daysduring 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-sheetswas 93% of total time for all students. The time frame on school days began 15 minutes afterdismissal, 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 dismissalevery Wednesday at 1:45, as well as one holiday during this time. Data for these days wereincluded beginning at 3:15 p.m. on each Wednesday, and at 3:15 p.m. on that holiday. Studentswho were absent from school and kept a diary for their out-of-school activities were alsotreated 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 eachmorning at school, and reviewed by the researcher. If necessary, a consultation followed dailysubmission to clarify any questions. Clarifications were necessary not only for missing codesor illegible codes, but also activities that seemed out of the ordinary such as playing hockey andlistening to music simultaneously, or not having time for meals, or not qualifying some of theactivities such as “playing.” Entering the amount of time for every activity on a student’s datasheet each evening, provided further opportunities to discover any discrepancies reported onthe clock-sheet for that day. If necessary, the student could then be consulted the following dayconcerning any clarifications. If a student had indicated that he/she had gone visiting, aconsultation verified what activities happened during that visit and these were included in theappropriate 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, theywere consulted to ascertain if this work was a game, writing—whether for school or their own81interest—drawing, math problems, or anything else, and categorized appropriately. On theaverage, 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 etaL, 1962; Long & Henderson, 1972; Smalley, 1958), except when two activities happenedsimultaneously. 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 watchingtelevision, the activity of watching television was given the full 15 minutes. If on the otherhand, a student was watching television and reading a magazine, eight minutes was given totelevision, and eight minutes was given to reading. It was felt that this procedure of giving anextra half minute would not necessarily inflate the amount of time spent in the variousactivities since daily maintenance activities were given a full 15 minutes when these activitiesoccurred on their own. Fifteen minutes spent brushing your teeth, or driving to the store mayhave been somewhat inflated but it was felt that this would balance the half minute given to splittimes. Although time was noted for dressing, eating, bathing, sleeping, and transportation, timespent in these activities is not reported.The amount of time for the various activities requiring additional information was onlyincluded if the student had, in fact, provided this information. For example, students were givenspace on the clock-sheet to stipulate the hobby, the sport, and the name of the book or author. Ifthis information was missing, or could not be provided through consultation, credit was notgiven.The codes for “what else I did were reviewed to determine the possibility of these activitiesfalling 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 cookingbeing placed within the category of helping around the house.” This was also true for theactivity 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 calculatedunder the category of “playing.” Although the deciding factor between a game and a sport was82determined 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 theseactivities 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 countedunder the category of “what else I did” as “couldn’t remember.” Likewise, if a time slot was lostdue to the researcher (such as failing to make a necessary clarification with a student), thiswas counted under the category of ‘what else I did” as “missing data.” The number of occasionsthat students could not remember how they spent their time out of school amounted to thirteentimes, and equalled 750 minutes or 12 1/2 hours for the 17 days; the number of occasions thatthe data were missing due to the researcher was six times, and equalled 180 minutes, or 3hours for the 17 days.Daily activities were entered in minutes on a data sheet for each student. Twenty percent ofthe 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; andone instance of a straight miscalculation. The reported daily figures were summed at the end ofthe week, and these weekly totals for each category were entered for each student. At the end ofthe 17 days, three weekly tabulations had been made, and these were summed giving a reportedtotal time spent in minutes for each out-of-school activity. The sums for all the variousactivities 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 eachstudent had spent participating in the various activities.Using percents representing approximate proportions of the day spent leisure reading, thesample 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 teacherto read for 20 minutes each school night for homework. If reading was reported on the clocksheet by these students in this class for these days, 20 minutes was deducted—or 15 minuteswas deducted it only 15 minutes occurred—and included under the category of “homework.”83Students’ times ranged from spending 19% of their out-of-school time reading for leisure tozero time spent reading for leisure out of school. A median split was made at 5%, creating agroup 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 of26 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 readingonly, frequent readers read approximately an average of 23 minutes per day, and infrequentreaders read approximately an average of four minutes per day. Among the four classes whichparticipated in the study, all but one class was relatively equal in the division between frequentand infrequent readers. One class, however, had twice as many infrequent readers as it didfrequent readers.Table 2 displays the average time in minutes and percentage of time spent per activity overall 17 days for male and female, for frequent and infrequent readers, as well as for the entiresample. Activities have been rank ordered based on the amount of time from “watchingtelevision” to “going to the library.” Tables 3 and 4 further this information by presentingthese minutes and percentages per school day and per weekend day respectively.All of the categories for activities are self-explanatory except “other” which represents allthe “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 Guidesor 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 activitiesthat did not fall within the realm of the listed categories.On the average, these grade-five students reported approximately 351 minutes or about 6hours of leisure time out of school per day, approximately 5 hours per school day and 10 hoursper weekend day. The one group that seems to spend a bit more leisure time are the maleinfrequent readers. Conjectures about why this is so would be purely speculative, but it may bedue 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 activity84Table 2Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per Activity Over All 17 DaysActivity Freq. Reader lnfreq. Reader Freq. Reader lnfreq. ReaderBoys Girls TotalWatch 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%)85Table 3AveraQe Time in Minutes & Percentace of Time Spent per Activity per School DayBoys Girls TotalActivity Freq. Reader lnfreq. Reader Freq. Reader lnfreq. ReaderWatch 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%)86Table 4Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent per Activity per Weekend DayBoys Girls TotalActivity Freq. Reader lnfreq. Reader Freq. Reader lnfreq. ReaderWatch 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%)87except recreational writing which remained the same, and practice for a lesson and doinghomework 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 videogames (increased by 23 minutes per day), going to the store (increased by 28 minutes perday), reading (increased by 16 minutes per day), and watching videos (increased by 26minutes per day).Television was by far the number one activity, clocking in an average of 107 minutes perday—about 1 1/2 hours per school day, and two hours and 36 minutes per weekend day. Therewere virtually no gender differences to report for the percentage of out-of-school time spentwatching television. However, frequent readers did watch slightly less (2%) than theinfrequent readers. When looking at the number of minutes spent watching television, it seemsthat 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, approximatelyone hour and 38 minutes per school day and three hours per weekend day. It also appears thatboys spent a greater percentage of their time in sports than girls, spending twice as manyminutes—with the male frequent readers spending the most time—approximately 55 minutesper school day, and about 3 hours per weekend day.As for gender differences, the remaining activities do in fact reflect some differences but notat the level of significance. Boys reported a greater percentage of their time, as well as numberof minutes, doing homework (8% vs. 6%), playing video games (7% vs. 4%), writing forrecreation (2% vs. 1%), doing hobbies (2% vs. 1%), and going to the library (1% vs. 0%) ascompared to the girls in this sample. They also spent more minutes practicing for lessons ofvarious kinds (185 vs. 134), and watching movie videos (236 vs. 187). Girls, on the otherhand, 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 thehouse (4% vs. 3%), listening to music (4% vs. 3%), going to the store (5% vs. 3%), playing88games (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 infrequentreader spent a greater percentage of his/her out-of-school time, as well as number of minuteswatching television (32% vs. 29%), doing “other” activities (13% vs. 11%), playing videogames (6% vs. 5%), listening to music (4% vs. 3%), going to the store (5% vs. 3%), playingwith 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 theminutes of the infrequent reader when it came to playing sports (16% vs. 14%), reading forrecreation (10% vs. 2%), and playing games (4% vs. 3%).Table 5 displays means, standard deviations, and medians for minutes per day spent leisurereading for male and female, for frequent and infrequent readers, as well as for the entiresample. Reading includes books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail that one hasread 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 thebook, magazine or comic book; what the newspaper article was about; or who they had read mailfrom. Allen et al. (1992) and Anderson et al. (1988) found this practice to be a more validindicator of actual reading.Table 6 presents the average percentage of out-of-school time spent reading over all 17days for male and female, for frequent and infrequent readers as well as totals for the entiresample. Figure 1 graphically displays these percentages translated into average minutes spentreading various materials for male and female, frequent and infrequent readers. These gradefive students (N. = 53) spent a daily average of approximately 21 minutes reading when allmaterials were taken into account. Considering the materials separately, the students spent anaverage of approximately 15 minutes per day reading books, 4 minutes reading comic books, 1minute reading newspapers and magazines, and seconds reading mail. Frequent readers spent an89Table 5Mean. Standard Deviation, and Median for Time per Day in Minutes Spent Leisure ReadingBoys Girls TotalMaterials Frequent Infrequent Frequent InfrequentReader Reader Reader ReaderBooksM 14 3 32 5 1522 3 14 3 17hid 7 4 34 4 7MagazinesM 1 0 2 0 12 1 5 1 3hId 0 0 0 0 0NewspapersM 2 2 1 1 13 2 3 2 30 2 0 0 0Comic BooksM 13 1 3 0 417 1 5 0 95 0 0 0 0MailM 1 0 0 0 02 0 1 1 1mcI 0 0 0 0 090(Table 5 cOntinued)Boys Girls TotalMaterials Frequent Infrequent Frequent InfrequentReader Reader Reader ReaderAll Rec. ReadingM 30 7 37 6 2122 4 13 4 1923 5 36 7 13Numbers have been rounded which may cause some discrepancies.91Table 6Percentage of Out-of-School Time Spent on the Average Reading Over All 17 DaysBoys Girls TotalMaterials Frequent Infrequent Frequent InfrequentReader Reader Reader ReaderBooks 4 1 9 1 4Magazines 0 0 0 0 0Newspapers 1 1 0 0 0ComicBooks 3 0 1 0 1Mail 0 0 0 0 0All Rec. Reading 8 2 11 2 6Note. Numbers in the table columns may not add up correctly due to rounding.92MailMail:ComicsComicsNewsNewsMgzMgzBksBks— — — AI‘ ‘ ‘ .. \I_ _ — F / F F F — F F F F F F — F F F F0 100 200 300 400 500 600Minutes Over 17 DaysFiQure 1. Average minutes spent reading various materials.Z Male FRFemale FRMaleiRFemale IR93average of approximately 34 minutes reading each day when all materials were taken intoaccount: 23 minutes for books, 8 minutes for comic books, 1 minute for newspapers andmagazines, and about a half of a minute reading mail. The boys in this group spent on theaverage approximately 30 minutes per day leisure reading. They spent 14 minutes readingbooks, 13 minutes reading comic books, two minutes reading newspapers, one minute readingmagazines, and one minute reading mail. The girls spent on the average approximately 37minutes 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 allmaterials were taken into account: four minutes for books, one minute for newspapers, a half ofa minute for comic books, and seconds for magazines and mail. The boys in this group spent onthe average approximately seven minutes per day leisure reading. They spent three minutesreading books, two minutes reading newspapers, one minute reading comic books, and secondsreading magazines and mail. The girls spent on the average approximately six minutes per dayleisure reading: five minutes reading books, one minute reading newspapers, and secondsreading comic books, magazines and mail.Figure 2 presents the total minutes reading for leisure on school days and weekends for thisgroup of grade-five students in February and March. The amount of time spent leisure readingfor 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. Bothfrequent and infrequent readers’ times increase for the weekend; however, in the frequentreader, the girls time increased almost two and a half times (28 mm. vs. 72 mm.), and theboys’ 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 thissample by displaying percentile rankings for total reading time, which is further broken downby category. For each type of reading material, time is given in minutes. The amount of timerepresents total time in minutes spent over the 17 days. The student or students at the highest9480706050Time 403020100School Days WeekendsMale FR2 Female FRMaleIRFemale FRFigure 2. Average minutes spent reading on school days and weekends.95Table 7V2ritinn in Amount of Iicuir Rr1innPercentile Totalrank Books Magazines News Comics Mail Reading98 90 0 150 893 0 113393 791 60 0 35 0 88687 720 0 0 0 0 72083 590 30 0 30 0 65079 585 0 0 0 15 60074 485 0 0 0 10 49570 420 0 0 0 0 42064 150 0 0 240 0 39057 0 0 0 330 15 34547 105 75 0 0 0 18026 83 0 0 0 15 9815 45 0 0 0 0 456 10 0 0 0 0 10Note. Amount of reading time is given in minutes.96rank (98) spent 90 minutes reading books, 0 minutes reading magazines, 150 minutes readingnewspapers, 893 minutes reading comic books, and 0 minutes reading mail. Over the 17 daysin 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, closerinspection reveals that it was the frequent readers who were pulling this average up with theboys reading 30 minutes per day, and the girls reading 37 minutes per day. Infrequent readerswere doing much less: 7 minutes for the boys, and 6 minutes for the girls. Materials includedbooks, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail. Over the 17 days during the months ofFebruary 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. Frequentreaders spent on the average 10% of their out-of-school time reading, as compared to 2% forthe 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 groupof 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 daysindicates 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 materialswere 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 averageapproximately 7% (6 hours and 29 minutes) of their time to reading books, 2% (2 hours and12 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 theaverage 4% (3 hours and 55 minutes) of their leisure time to reading books, 3% (3 hours and36 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 theirleisure time to reading books, 1% (47 minutes) to comic books, .04 (25 minutes) tomagazInes, .03 (16 minutes) to newspapers, and .01 (4 minutes) reading mail. The infrequent97readers devoted approximately 1% (1 hour and 5 minutes) of their leisure time to readingbooks, .04 (23 minutes) to newspapers, .02 (9 minutes) to comic books, .01 (5 minutes) tomagazines, and apparently received very little mail. Infrequent-reader boys devoted 1% (54minutes) to books, 1% (35 minutes) to newspapers, .03 (16 minutes) to comic books, .01 (4minutes) to magazines, and one minute to reading mail. Girls devoted 1% (1 hour and 16minutes) to books, .02 (12 minutes) to newspapers, .01 (5 minutes) to magazines, twominutes 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 othermaterials except for newspapers for which both groups spent the same amount of time. Ninetypercent of this sample (N. = 53) never received any mail to read, 87% never reported readingfrom any magazines, 74% never reported reading from any newspapers, 60% never reportedreading 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 splitswere made for each gender. The median for girls was 15 and for boys 16. Five girls and threeboys were eliminated since their scores fell within the median score. The mean and standarddeviation for girls was 15.59 (3.16); for boys, it was 16.95 (4.77). The mean of internalscores was 12.5 with a standard deviation of .90 for girls, and the mean of internal scores forboys was 12.13 with a standard deviation of 2.47. The mean of external scores was 18.27 witha standard deviation of 2.34 for the girls, and for the boys, the mean of external scores was21.1 with a standard deviation of 2.38.With as gross a measure as median splits to determine the internals and externals, it wasnecessary to compare the sample population to the norming population. Median splits may havethe effect of the sample setting its own standard for locus of control. To avoid this effect, thesample 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 was98found that the males were not significantly different from the forming population. While thefemale mean (15.59), based on the construction of 95% confidence intervals, for this study issignificantly different from the population mean for grade-five females (17.00) in 1973, thismay 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 scoredaccording to the directions given by the authors. A scoring sheet was used for each student, andonly recreational reading scores were used since only that subscale was administered. Therange of possible scores on the recreational subscale is 0 to 40. The scores for the grade-fivestudents in this study ranged from 17 to 40. The mean was 30.68 with a standard deviation of4.91. The median was 31 with skewness at -.54.Classroom Factors.The groups of grade-five students found in four classrooms, in three separate schools, fromone suburban school district near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, were similar in regardto gender distribution, ability, ethnicity, and economic backgrounds, however, the students allhad 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 teachersrequired 20 minutes of reading each school night, with bookmarkers signed by his/her parentthat their child had in fact read that night for the required time. Each morning at school, therow that had all their bookmarkers signed were given points, and then rewarded at the end of theyear with a small token gift. The other teacher requiring students to read at home, felt that thiswas being accomplished by taking the students to the library on a weekly basis and insisting thateach student check out a novel, and read it during that week.The results of these three approaches—encouraged, signed bookmarkers, weekly trips to thelibrary—are of interest. The two classrooms that were encouraged but not required to read outof school for leisure read on the average for 24 minutes per day during this 17 day period in99February and March. This represented 7% of their out-of-school time. Frequent readers fromthese 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 signedbookmarkers, after deducting the first 20 minutes for those school nights and tabulating thoseminutes as homework, continued to read an additional 21 minutes per day, representing 6% oftheir out-of-school time. Frequent readers from this classroom read an additional 33 minutesper day, representing 9% of their out-of-school time, and infrequent readers read an additional8 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 novelfrom 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 forrecreational 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 requiredparents to sign a bookmarker spent more time on the average reading during their out-ofschool time. Infrequent readers from three classrooms spent 2% of their out-of-school timereading for leisure, and infrequent readers from the class that had weekly trips to the libraryspent 1% of their out-of-school time reading for leisure. When considering actual minutesspent reading, the infrequent readers from the classroom requiring 20 minutes of reading onschool nights read an additional eight minutes as compared to the other classrooms where theinfrequent reader read from four to six minutes for leisure.100Main AnalysesLeisure Reading.Two different statistical procedures were used to explore the question of how leisure readingmay 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 minutesspent book reading (.Ei 52 = 5.26, p. = .03), percentage of leisure time spent book reading (Ei52 = 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 thedependent variable of total minutes spent reading all materials—books, magazines, newspapers,comic books, and mail. Whether minutes spent reading or percentage of leisure time spentreading were analyzed, no ethnic differences could be found at the .05 level of significance forbook reading or for reading all materials. A multiple classification analysis indicated a .411correlation of the dependent variable—minutes spent book reading—with a combination of theseindependent variables. In other words, gender and ethnicity accounted for 17% of the variancein the amount of minutes spent book reading. When percentage of leisure time spent bookreading was analyzed, a multiple classification analysis indicated a .536 correlation of thedependent variable with a combination of the independent variables—gender and ethnicityaccounted for 29% of the variance. A multiple classification analysis for minutes spent readingall materials produced a correlation of .363, indicating that gender and ethnicity accounted for13% of the variance in total minutes spent reading, and a second multiple classification analysisproduced a correlation of .459, indicating that gender and ethnicity accounted for 21% of thevariance 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 spentreading all materials, percentage of time spent book reading, and percentage of time spentreading all materials indicated a significant negative correlation (-.26) between socioeconomicstatus and minutes spent reading all materials (p. = .03). This finding continued to be truewhen analyzing for percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials (-.27, p. = .03). This101finding did not hold, however, when only book reading was analyzed. Multiple regressionanalyses found no correlations among ability—as measured by the comprehension scores on theGates-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 allmaterials.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 bookreading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials, attitude toward recreationalreading, gender, and ethnicity was investigated using t-tests and chi-square analyses. Allprocedures revealed no relationships with locus of control at predetermined levels ofsignificance ( = .05).Attitude Toward Recreational Reading.How does attitude affect one’s decision to spend time reading for leisure? How did theindependent variables affect the dependent variable? Multiple regression analyses wereconducted, and within the correlation matrix significant positive correlations were foundbetween 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) andattitude for recreational reading.A second set of multiple regression analyses used percentage of leisure time spent bookreading and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials as the dependent variables.Within the correlation matrix, significant positive correlations were found between percentageof leisure time spent reading all materials and attitude (.44, p = .00), and percentage ofleisure time spent book reading and attitude (.26, = .04). Negative correlations were foundbetween SES and attitude for recreational reading (-.29, p = .02).102Classroom 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 ofrewards in the classroom for leisure reading, time provided for leisure reading (USSR), andthe students’ observations of the teacher reading for pleasure. A series of t-tests and analysesof variance indicated no differences between gender, ethnicity, teaching methods for reading,school library use or classroom library use, providing materials in the classroom for leisurereading, reading aloud to students, using rewards for recreational reading, or the students’observations of the teacher reading for pleasure and attitude toward recreational reading atpredetermined levels of significance (p = .05). No significant correlations were found betweenability and attitude toward recreational reading when either minutes or percentage of leisuretime were analyzed, nor between time in school for reading (USSR) and attitude towardrecreational 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 rewardsfor leisure reading; students’ observations of parents’ and siblings’ reading and reading avariety 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 theordinal position of the student. Only two independent variables had a significant effect on thedependent variable—attitude toward recreational reading. Analyses of variance found asignificant 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 parentsreading newspapers and attitude toward recreational reading (j = 2.55, p. = .01).1 03Classroom Factors.The influences that the classroom may have had on time spent reading for leisure for thisgroup of students were investigated by analyzing a variety of school variables explored throughthe use of interviews. These variables included reading aloud to students, provision of materialsin 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, timeprovided for leisure reading (USSR), and the students’ observations of their teacher reading forpleasure.A series of t-tests were conducted analyzing the independent variable of what the teacherwas doing during USSR. Only students were asked this question during the interview. Althoughthis was as an open-ended question, possible responses had been precoded based on the pilotstudy. 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 thistime and the dependent variables—minutes spent reading books (I = 2.01, p. = .05), totalminutes spent reading all materials (I = 2.33, p. = .02), percentage of leisure time spentreading 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 remainingindependent variables—teacher reading aloud to the students, various leisure reading materialsin the classroom, use of the school library and a classroom library, teaching methods forreading, and the use of rewards for leisure reading in the classroom—and the dependentvariables—minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage ofleisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. Exceptfor the variable of teaching methods for reading, these independent variables were exploredthrough the student interview, the parent interview, and the teacher interview. The answersfor these questions, except for going to the school library, had been precoded into the followingcategories: “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “often.” Only the students were given a scale indicatingthese possible choices. The responses given by the parents and the teacher were also coded into1 04these categories but not until after the interviews were completed. Going to the library wasasked as an open-ended question, however responses had been precoded to allow for all possibleanswers.Teaching methods for reading were only explored with the teachers, and was asked as anopen-ended question. Some expected responses had been precoded, but space was left foradditional answers.Multiple regression analyses were conducted for the amount of time provided for USSR, andagain no significant effects were found. This open-ended question was asked in all threeinterviews.Home Factors.Some of the influences that the home may have had on time spent reading for leisure wereanalyzed with 40 variables found in 13 clusters. These included encouraging your child to readbooks, 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 rewardsfor leisure reading; students’ observations of parents’ and siblings’ reading and reading avariety 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 thebirth 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 provisionof a space for reading in the home.A series of t-tests were used on the independent variables representing a student’s reportedobservation of a sibling’s various reading behaviors. Each student was specifically asked ifhis/her sibling read books, magazines, newspapers, mail, or comics. The observation by thestudent of siblings’ reading books had a significant effect with the dependent variable of minutesspent reading books (t = 4.71, p... = .00). This was not the case for the other dependentvariables—total minutes spent reading all materials (I = 1 .54, = .13), percentage of leisure1 05time spent book reading (j = 1.52, p. = .13), or percentage of leisure time spent reading allmaterials (1 = 1 .62, p. = .11). The observation of siblings reading comic books had a signficanteffect on all the dependent variables: minutes spent reading books (j = 2.27, p. = .03); totalminutes spent reading all materials (1 = 2.65, p. = .01); percentage of leisure time spent bookreading (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 thatthese findings were a factor for girls who were frequent readers. The observation of siblingsreading newspapers had a significant negative effect with the dependent variable of percentage ofleisure time spent book reading (1 = -2.01, p. = .05). It seems that the more newspaperreading by the sibling observed, the less time a student spent reading books for leisure. Thisfinding 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 ofleisure time spent reading all materials (1 = -.82, p. = .42).A series of t-tests were used with the independent variables representing the variousreading materials that a student would observe his/her parent reading. Each student wasspecifically asked if his/her parent read books, magazines, newspapers, or mail. A significantnegative effect was found between the independent variable of observing one’s parent readingbooks, 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. Therewere no significant effects or trends, positively or negatively, for the other dependentvariables—minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading all materials, andpercentage of leisure time reading all materials.A series of analyses of variance were used to analyze how the independent variable—distanceof the home to the library—might effect the dependent variable—time spent reading. Asignificant 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, thisappeared to be due to an outlier. These effects were not noted for the dependent variables of106minutes spent reading books, total minutes spent reading all materials, or percentage of leisuretime spent book reading.A series of anaylses of variance found a significant effect between the independent variable ofthe 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 ofleisure time reading all materials (E3 51 = 3.69, , = .02). No significant findings occuredfor 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 realdifferences to report for the remaining variables encouraging your child to read books,magazines, newspapers, and comic books; reading together; listening to your child read; talkingwith him/her about leisure materials; reading aloud to your child; providing materials; timespent 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 ofthe home from the library; education levels of parents; languages used in the home; number ofplaymates of the child; size of family; or birth order position.Reasons for ActivitiesThe first part of the student interview (Appendix 4) explored reasons, feelings,encouragement, likes and dislikes, other possibilities—such as what would make the activitymore fun, and what if anything would get one to spend more time—as well as values andexpectations for these reasons. A series of questions repeated through three different activitesidentified by the clock-sheets as the student’s number one activity, that which had the mostamount of time over the last three weeks; his/her number two activity, the next most amount oftime; and finally, the activity of leisure reading. Out of 53 students, no one had reading as theirnumber one activity; 10 had reading as their number two activity. The reading data for theseindividuals were treated with all the other reading data. During the interview, Activity107Two questions were skipped for these ten students. Activity One was television for 83% of thestudents, 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, andwriting, playing games, doing homework, and watching videos at 2% each.Reasons, likes, and feelings were collapsed into one category since the purpose of thesequestions 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 beinginterviewed to get at “the why” for doing these things. Reasons given by these grade-fivestudents for participating in their particular leisure activities are shown in Table 8. Theseresponses were given by the students and are listed in the order of magnitude found in thefrequencies 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 meansaccessible; 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 consequencesrefers 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 beoral (praise, etc.), as well as visual (observing someone participating), or physical(participating together). The amounts of encouragement that all of these 53 students receivedfor 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 activitesduring the 17 days were predominately in reading. Sixty-four percent of the students admittedthat someone did try to get them to spend more time reading for leisure. This person wasusually 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 the108Table 8Reasons for Participating in Leisure ActMtiesActivity One Activity Two Leisure ReadingEnjoyment Enjoyment EnjoymentRelief from Boredom Relief from Boredom Relief from BoredomAvoid Neg. Conseq. Encouragement To LearnAvailability Other AvailabilityEncouragement Avoid Neg. Conseq. EncouragementTo Learn To Learn OtherOther Availability109Table 9EricouraQement for Leisure ActivitiesActivity One Activity Two Leisure ReadingOral SupportWho1 7%Sibling (9%)Father (6%)Mother (4%)Teacher (2%)Peers (2%)Daily Participation by Parent2 hrs. or more (23%)1-2 hrs. (51%)TogetherHour 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 aweek’; and “often” means “almost everyday.’110students acknowledged during the interview that someone tried to get them to spend time in theirfirst activity. The person mentioned most for this small group was a sibling, followed by theirfather, mother, teacher, and friend. Verbal encouragement for the second activity was true for49% of the group. This time the mother is mentioned as the person giving this support most ofthe time, followed by the father, peers, sibling, and extended family. All of these findings had todo with oral support.Parents spending time participating in the activity on a daily basis is another type ofencouragement. In leisure reading, most parents (51%) reported spending 1-2 hours each dayreading 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 specificamount 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 than2 hours (23%) in this activity than in reading, which only had 6% spending more than twohours. Less than an hour was reported by 17% of the parents, and 9% reported notparticipating at all in the first activity. The students’ second activity had a more evendistribution for parents’ time among the categories: 26% spent less than an hour; 25% spent1-2 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 threeactivities. This response, however, was used by more parents in leisure reading. Sixty-sixpercent gave an answer that would fall under the category of “rarely” when asked how often theyread 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,” wastrue 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% ofthe parents in leisure reading, 25% of the parents for Activity One, and 15% of the parents forActivity Two.111Have students received encouragement for all their activities? In leisure reading, theanswer is “yes” for 64% of the students when it comes to oral or verbal support. This supportwas given by the mother in 62% of the cases. As for actually doing it—visual support—51% ofthe parents participated from 1-2 hours everyday in leisure reading. Physical support—doingit together—predominately had very little support. Sixty-six percent of the parents werereading with their children once a week or less. In regard to the other activities, this finding ofspending time together once a week or less was also true in Activity Two; however, Activity Onehad twice as many parents participating on a daily basis than for Activity Two or leisurereading. Visual support was provided by 51% of the parents in the first activity. Activity Twohad a more even distribution, but it also had more parents spending more than two hours eachday (11%) on the activity with their child.Reasons for Reading or Not ReadingFor the analyses of reasons around reading, it was decided to observe the frequencies for thetwo. 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% ormore 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 readinggroup, and 6 boys and 7 girls in the infrequent reading group. The most popular reason thatthese frequent readers expressed for reading during their leisure time was “enjoyment”—ll ofthese readers made statements that came under this category. “To learn” was mentioned by fourof 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 thefrequent readers. The reasons that infrequent readers gave for not reading during their leisuretime were categorized as “other things were available and allowed” for six of the students; thatreading was “not enjoyable” was mentioned by five of them; that “something was missing for theactivity” of reading was mentioned by two of the students; and that books or materials were “notavailable” was each mentioned by at least one of the infrequent readers.112In order to make reading more fun for infrequent readers, “content” and “format” werementioned. “Content”—referring to style, characters, or plot—was mentioned by six of theinfrequent readers. “Format”—referring to physical characteristics such as length, theinclusion 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 thestudents for making reading more fun for them. On the other hand, one of the infrequent readerswas satisfied with reading, and one could not think of anything to make it more fun. Four of thefrequent readers also said that the content could be improved to make reading more fun; butthree already found reading to be satisfactory. Two of the frequent readers mentioned that ifreading materials were more “available” that this would make reading more fun; whereas atleast 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 withthese students and the predominate answer for frequent readers was that of satisfaction—sixmentioned that really nothing would get them to spend more time. However, three studentsmentioned that having materials more “available” would get them to spend more time readingduring their leisure. Two mentioned not having “other things available and allowed,” or havingmore “time” would get them to spend more time reading. The most popular response for theinfrequent readers came under the category of “other.” Four of the infrequent readers had avariety of answers that could not be categorized under any of the existing categories. Threementioned “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”; havingreading materials “available,” and not having “other things available and allowed” for them to dowas each mentioned by at least one of the infrequent readers.The use of rewards for leisure reading was investigated through interviews with theteachers, parents, and students. Whether or not these rewards were given presently or in thepast, 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 were113asked who sponsored these rewards in the school. Table 10 shows responses for these 26students—frequent readers and infrequent readers. Observing the frequencies for the twoextremes, apparently five of the frequent readers were presently being given some kind ofreward for leisure reading by the teacher on a daily basis. Also, three of these frequent readerswere being given rewards by their parents on a daily basis at home for leisure reading. Therewas a discrepancy between students and parents on this matter since none of the latter reportedanything 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 theinterview. The results for the questions that explored the reasons, expectations, and valuesaround reading are shown for the 13 frequent readers in Table 11, and the 13 infrequentreaders in Table 12. The responses listed under the heading of Reason represent the categorywhich 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 “reallyimportant,” “important,” “somewhat important,” to “not at all important.”Expectations and values around reading were explored with these two extreme groups offrequent and infrequent readers. Both groups seem to be predominately interested in readingfor enjoyment. However, expectations for enjoyment were stronger for the frequent readersthan the infrequent readers. Seven of these frequent readers were “quite sure” that readingwould be enjoyable, and the value they placed on enjoyment was much higher—”veryimportant.” In contrast, infrequent readers were “slightly sure” that reading would beenjoyable, and they felt that enjoyment was “not at all important.” It was also noted thatfrequent 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 fromboredom.” Values placed on these outcomes were also much higher for more of the frequentreaders.114Table 10Use of Rewards in the School and in the Home for Leisure ReadingSchool HomePresent Past Present PastFR 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 readersIR = infrequent readers115Table 11Reasons. Expectations. and Values for Reading of Frequent ReadersReason Expectation Value1 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) aQuite sure (1)2 OTHER Not at all sure (j)a a1 AVAILABILITY Slightly sure (1) Not at all important (1)aMissing data.116Table 12Reasons. Exoectations. and Values for Reading of Infrecuent Readers. Reason Expectation Value1 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)aSlightly 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)aBOREDOMaMissing data.117SummaryIn 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 theirleisure 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 materialsaccounted for a minuscule amount of time—newspapers (.03) (20 minutes), magazines (.02)(13 minutes), and mail (.01) (5 minutes). Percentage of students’ times ranged fromspending 19% of their out-of-school time reading for leisure to zero time. These grade-fivestudents spent a daily average of approximately 21 minutes reading, when all materials weretaken into account. Students spent an average of approximately 15 minutes per day readingbooks, 4 minutes reading comic books, 1 minute reading newspapers and magazines, and secondsreading mail. Eighty-five percent of this sample used books, 40% used comic books, 26% usednewspapers, 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. Boysfound in the group of frequent readers spent 8% of their out-of-school time reading, whilegirls spent 11% of their time reading; within the group of infrequent readers, boys and girlsboth spent 2% of their out-of-school time reading.2. Significant gender effects for minutes spent book reading, percentage of leisure time spentbook 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 oneeconomic group—and total minutes spent reading, and percentage of leisure time spent readingall materials. The higher the SES score, the less time was spent reading.4. Positive correlations were found between minutes spent book reading, total minutes spentreading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure timespent reading all materials and recreational reading attitude. Negative correlations were foundbetween socioeconomic status—within one economic group—and attitude for recreational readingand for both minutes spent reading and percentage of time spent reading, whether for books only118or for all reading materials. A significant effect was found between seeing parents read, as wellas observing one’s parents reading newspapers, and attitude toward recreational reading.5. Significant relationships were found between seeing the teacher read during UndisturbedSustained Silent Reading and minutes spent reading books, total minutes spent reading allmaterials, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials.6. Observation by the student of siblings’ reading books had a significant effect on the numberof minutes the student spent reading books. The observation of siblings reading comic books alsohad 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 allmaterials. The observation by the student of siblings reading newspapers had a significantnegative effect with the percentage of leisure time spent book reading. Significant effects werefound between the parents’ report of providing a place in their home for reading and thepercentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading allmaterials.7. The number one reason for participating in a leisure activity was enjoyment, while thenumber two reason was relief from boredom.8. The amount of encouragement that all of these 53 students received for their activitiesduring the 17 days was predominately in leisure reading. This person providing theencouragement was the mother for 62% of the students; the father for 26%; the teacher for6%; 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 anhour, and 2% reported not reading at all. Reading together had very little support. Sixty-sixpercent of the parents were reading with their children once a week or less. When observingthe 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 forleisure reading by the teacher on a daily basis. Also, three of these frequent readers were beinggiven rewards by their parents on a daily basis at home for leisure reading.1199. The most popular reason that these frequent readers expressed for reading during theirleisure time was “enjoyment.” Both groups—frequent and infrequent readers—seem to bepredominately interested in reading for enjoyment; however, expectations for enjoyment werestronger, and the value students placed on enjoyment was much higher for the frequent readersthan for the infrequent readers. It was also noted that frequent readers expressed more reasonsto read than did infrequent readers, and the values placed on these outcomes were much higherfor the frequent readers.10. The reasons that infrequent readers gave for not reading during their leisure time werecategorized 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 “notavailable.”11. Content and format were the most frequently mentioned in order to make reading more funfor infrequent readers. “Content”—referring to style, characters, or plot; “format”—referringto physical characteristics such as length, the inclusion of visuals or auditory effects. Frequentreaders also said that the content could be improved to make reading more fun; but some alreadyfound reading to be satisfactory or better.12. Satisfaction was found to be the predominate answer for frequent readers for the questionof “what if anything would get you to spend more time reading?” Other frequent readersmentioned, however, that having materials more “available” would get them to spend more timereading 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 theinfrequent readers came under the category of “other”—answers that could not be categorizedunder any of the existing categories. Other infrequent readers mentioned “content,” that nothingwould 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 bediscussed in the following chapter.120CHAPTER VDiscussionThe problem to be investigated in this study is why children who can read either elect to reador not to read during out-of-school leisure time. The ability to read is defined as reading at thelevel of one’s peers in grade five. This was arrived at by scoring at the 34th percentile or aboveon the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (1992), as well as beingrated 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 dividedinto two groups: frequent readers, defined as students who are capable of reading at the level oftheir peers and who choose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-school time, andinfrequent readers—students who are capable of reading at the level of their peers but rarelychoose reading as a possible activity during their out-of-school time. These groups wereformed by listing the sample in rank order using percents for the reported amounts of timespent reading out of school. This included all reading of books, magazines, newspapers, comicbooks, and mail not meant for school. Students’ times ranged from spending 0 to 19% of theirout-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 readon the average 23 minutes per day; infrequent readers read on the average less than 5 minutesper day.Clock-sheetsStudents 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 themfun to work with (J. Shapiro, personal communication, July 13, 1993; Whitney, 1992). Upon121first viewing the clock-sheets, they seemed complicated. However, once the student experienceda trial run of filling out a clock-sheet, he/she usually found them to be intriguing. Somestudents, observing others using the instrument, changed their minds about not participating inthe study. If this happened on the first day, they were allowed to join the study if they cameback 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 becauseof the data that would have been missing.Students found the clock-sheets were simple to use, and in addition, the clock-sheets didinitiate 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, possiblyaccounting for long period of times—but no longer than 18 hours later, and learning to focus onsmall details during a fairly large chunk of time. Students with low-reading abilities, as wellas 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 toverify activities that seemed out of the ordinary, such as playing hockey and listening to musicsimultaneously (this is possible when one wears a Walkman); not having time for meals; or notqualifying 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 consultationseveryday 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) toverify 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) toestablish 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 dailydiary is considered a self-report method, it would seem to be much more reliable than a selfreport interview or questionnaire if one expects children to give accurate information (Carp &1 22Carp, 1981). This view is based on the fact that the time frame has been lessened between whenthe 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 reallyno incentives to misrepresent their activities except perhaps due to laziness. One of the finalquestions of the student’s interview directly asks “what do you think this study is about?” Allstudents answered “what we do outside of school,” or reasonably close to that statement. No onementioned reading for leisure.Students had numerous types of categories to use for reporting all their activities includingthe 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 suchactivities did not happen. There were times when it was somewhat difficult to decipher whatwas 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 teneseraker; and one youngster “got my elouence (10.00).” There were times of sadness reported: astudent kills her hamster; crys; holds her other hamster; can’t sleep that night. Each of thesestages was documented in the “what else I did” section (El to E4) of the instrument. There werehumorous times too: El “I got an egg thrown at me”; E2 “I had to talk to the principal”; E3 “Ihad to wipe the egg off.” One student reported on a Saturday Weekend Night clock-sheet, “junkfood night” which started at 8 p.m. and ended at 11 p.m.; the Sunday Weekend Day clock-sheetindicated “not feeling well” from 9 a.m. to noon. Playing with Barbies seemed to be an activitythat 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 activityspace. There were also reported incidents that were somewhat novel, all of which wereexplained to the researcher during a consultation time: “sitting in line-ups”—--children sit inlines according to their age at Daycare; “rocked”—wasn’t rocked as a baby so student presentlyrocks themself on the floor; “quality time”—family discussion time.1 23Leisure Reading Comparisons.The question that needs to be addressed is how did this group of grade-five students compareto other samples reported in the literature in regard to how much time was spent reading out ofschool? This group spent on the average 21 minutes per day reading out of school for leisurefor 17 days during the months of February and March. This figure was qualified even morewhen it was reported for a school day, an average of 17 minutes, and a weekend day, an averageof 33 minutes. This time frame—21 minutes—represents on the average 6% of a student’s timeout of school. From this sample of grade-five students (Ij. = 53), 85% read books, 40% readcomic books, 26% read newspapers, 17% read mail, and 13% read magazines. Frequentreaders spent an average of 10% of their out-of-school time reading, as compared to 2% for theinfrequent readers. Boys found in the group of frequent readers spent, an average of 8% oftheir out-of-school time reading, as compared to the girls who spent an average of 11% of theirtime reading. In the group of infrequent readers, boys and girls both spent an average of 2% oftheir out-of-school time reading.Are these students spending more time, or less time, reading out of school as compared to theother grade-five sample groups from around the world? It is very difficult to make thisjudgment due to the various procedures found in the literature. For example, wheninvestigating leisure reading not only were different times of the year under consideration, butalso numerous lengths of time for the activity of reading. Time frames varied from a specifiedthree 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 threeyears (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, aswell as in minutes, comparisons will only be made with the studies that did likewise.1 24The most recent studies that comparisons can be made took place in the early 1990’s (Allenet al., 1992; B. M Taylor et al., 1990), and early 1980’s (Anderson et al., 1988) within theUnited States. In the former group (Allen et aL, 1992), fifth graders were estimating about 5minutes 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 notreported. The other group of fifth and sixth graders (B. M. Taylor et al., 1990) read books for15 minutes each night from mid January to mid May, but this figure included assigned readingand leisure.reading. Other types of reading were not investigated, and data for infrequentreaders were not reported. In the 1980’s, it was reported that fifth graders were spending amedian of 4.6 minutes per day reading books (Anderson et al., 1988), and 2.6 minutes per dayreading magazines, newspapers, comics, and mail during the months of November to May, butthat most of the children, who placed above the national average on a standardized readingcomprehension 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 foundthat grade-five students were spending 7.2% (125.5 minutes over four school days) of theirleisure time reading; of these capable readers, 24% were not reading books, 66% were notreading 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 thatgrade-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 samplewas similar to national norms.Considering the time element only, it appears that these grade-five students in BritishColumbia, Canada, during the early 1990’s were spending more time leisure reading out ofschool than the fifth-grade children who participated in the two studies in the United States inthe 1990’s, as well as the fifth-grade children who participated in the one study in the 1980’s.1 25Incidentally, one of the studies that took place in the 1990’s, as well as the one study in the1980’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 inBritish Columbia, Canada, are spending less of their time reading than the students in Irelandduring the late 1980’s, but more than the Irish students in the early 1980’s. The figure of7.2% of one’s leisure time for Irish students in the late 1980’s equalled 125.5 minutes overfour days, which would equal 31 minutes per day, as compared to students in Canada reading 21minutes per day or spending 6% of their leisure time. It was not reported what those percentsin Ireland in the early 1980’s represented in minutes. The time of year was not reported forthe former study, whereas June was the month for the latter study. The readers thatparticipated in the June study were not necessarily all capable readers either, since it wasreported that participants represented the national norms. These differences—time of year andability—could have had an affect on the outcome which in turn affects the ability to makeabsolute comparisons between the studies.With the focus of this study being on the capable infrequent reader, it seems appropriate tomake the statement that not all grade-five students are “crazy” about reading. Grade-fivestudents were chosen for the target population to insure that frequent readers would be foundfor comparison purposes when investigating the infrequent reader. It has been a long standingbelief that students at this level are more likely to be reading quite extensively in their leisuretime (Duggins, 1989; Greaney, 1980; Lamme, 1976; Maxwell, 1977; Neuman, 1980; Terman& Lima, 1926; Whitehead et al., 1975), compared to other grade levels, and would thereforeguarantee a sizeable population of readers for the comparison.Information on the infrequent reader, however, is not always reported: some studies do notreport this at all (Allen et al., 1992; B. M. Taylor et al., 1990); one found that most childrendid little or no book reading (Anderson et al.,1 988); one reported that one-third of the capablereaders 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 26Greaney & Hegarty (1987) reported that 18% of the capable readers did not do anyreading; whereas earlier, Greaney (1980) reported that 22% did not devote any time to leisurereading. Maxwell (1977) reported that 25% of the P6 (grade-five) students of mixed abilityin 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 girlsreading periodicals (magazines/comics) during a four week period.In British Columbia, Canada, only 4% of the sample (N. = 53)—all capable readers—did notreport any leisure reading during the 17 days of February and March. Fifteen percent of theentire sample did not report any book reading, and 4% did not report any reading ofnewspapers, comic books, magazines, or mail.There is some controversy within the literature over gender differences. A number ofstudies 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 comicsare distinguished from magazines, grade-five boys in Ireland have been found to be readingmore comic books than girls (Greaney, 1980). Other studies have found no significant genderdifferences 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. Asignificant gender effect was found for minutes spent book reading, and percentage of leisuretime 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 totalminutes spent reading all materials. When all reading materials were analyzed, the boys—beingheavy comic book readers, as well as spending twice as much time reading newspapers—hadgained 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 leisure1 27over 17 days during the months of February and March (boys = 18 minutes; girls = 22minutes). 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 average6% of a student’s time out of school (boys = 5%; girls = 6%). However, when the data arebroken down between frequent and infrequent readers, boys found in the group of frequentreaders spent approximately 8%—or 30 minutes on the average—of their out-of-school timereading as compared to the girls who spent 11%—or 37 minutes on the average—of their timereading. 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 toreading magazines and mail. Girls devoted 9% of their leisure time to reading books, 1% tocomic 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 approximately2% 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 whowere spending six minutes on the average per day reading for leisure. Boys found in theinfrequent readers devoted 1% to reading books and newspapers, minuscule amounts of time toreading 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 comicbooks or mail.Whether one inspects the data for the entire group, or the two sub-groups, there are genderdifferences to be reported. There are differences in the amounts of time spent reading—whetherreading time is expressed in actual minutes or percentage of one’s leisure time—differences intypes of materials, and differences in days of the week spent reading—school days versus aweekend days.The literature on leisure reading has reported positive correlations between socioeconomicstatus and leisure reading (Greaney, 1980; Heyns, 1978; Landy, 1977; Long & Henderson,1972; Maxwell, 1977; Moffitt, 1992; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Whitehead et al., 1977;128Wiseman, 1967). The only controversy to be found was that Greaney (1980) had reported thata student was a frequent book reader when the father’s occupation tended to be of the middle andupper SES levels at grade 5, whereas Moffltt (1992) had reported that SES levels for bookreaders were when the mother’s and the father’s occupation groups tended to be of high and lowSES levels for grades 9-12 rather than at the middle level. Hansen (1969) found no significantrelationship with father’s occupation and independent reading. Unlike other findings in theliterature, the present study found a significant negative correlation between socioeconomicstatus 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 samplewas 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 warrantsfurther study at a later time. However, data from the clock-sheets was not speculative anddocumented evidence was provided as to what these students were doing during the 17 days oftheir leisure time in February and March. The top 25% of the SES scores were selected, and outof 14 students in this group, three were frequent readers. The data for the 11 remainingstudents were inspected for all activities, and the percentage of time for each individual wastabulated. 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 thisindividual: under “other”—spending time with the family, doing art, going to church, being aspectator, waiting, talking, spending time with a pet was 19%; playing sports—18%; helpingaround the house, watching television, and watching movie videos—13% each; playing withpals—9%; playing games—6%; and doing homework, and going to the store—4% each. No timewas spent writing or reading for leisure. The rest of the students, except for one, had televisionas their number one activity. Time spent watching television ranged from 30-45% of one’sleisure time. The number two activity for this group of students was either playing sportswhich 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 up20% of their leisure time. “Other” included such things as attending meetings, spending time129with pets, being a spectator at an event, spending time with the family, going to a party, going tochurch, 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, to4% 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 whocome from families with higher incomes and higher education levels, as well as attending eventsoutside 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 beenreported to correlate with amounts of time spent leisure reading by some researchers, althoughLamme (1976) and B. M. Taylor (1990) did not find a relationship. The present studysupports these latter researchers since there was no correlation found between ability—asmeasured by the raw scores on the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie (1992)—andamounts of time spent book reading or total amounts of time spent reading all materials. Thismay have been due to the fact that only capable readers were included in the sample.Locus of ControlReports from the literature on locus of control have found significant correlations betweenSES and locus of control (Bartel, 1971; Willey, 1978), but the present study found nocorrelation. This was probably due to the fact that the sample was from a similar economicbackground. Locus of control has been reported as being a significant determinant of academicachievement (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 presentstudy found no relationship between ability and locus of control. Again this result may havebeen 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 findinggender differences for locus of control; whereas others have not found gender to be a significant130intervening variable (Barnett & Kaiser, 1977; D. Brown et al., 1984; Sherman, 1984). Thisstudy supports the latter group, in that no relationship was found between locus of control andgender with these subjects. Ethnic differences were reported by Battle and Rotter (1963) andD. Brown et al. (1984) for locus of control, but not by Milgram (1971). There was norelationship 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 ofcontrol correlated positively with reading readiness scores (Bartel, 1971), readingachievement (Matheny and Edwards, 1974; Nielsen and Long, 1981; Pani, 1991; Wooster,1974), and with reading comprehension (Boraks et aL, 1993). The present study, using thescores 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 readingattitude, but Blaha and Chomin (1982) did so when replicating the study three years later. Thepresent study found no correlation between attitude toward recreational reading, as measured bythe Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (1990), and locus of control, as measured by theChildren’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale (1973). Willey (1978) found thatlocus of control reached levels of significance with the number of books read in the summer, butthe present study did not find any relationship between locus of control and minutes spentreading books, total minutes spent reading all materials, percentage of leisure time spent bookreading, or percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials during the 17 days of datacollection in February and in March.Attitude Toward Recreational ReadinyFindings in the literature on reading attitudes have indicated that having a positive readingattitude 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 relationshipbetween these two variables, and the present study is in agreement—no relationship was foundbetween recreational reading attitudes and ability, whether the analysis was conducted usingminutes or percentage of leisure time. The reader needs to be cautioned, though, that all131students in the present study were capable readers. It has also been reported that students withhigher reading abilities spend significantly more time reading for recreation (Connor, 1954;Greaney, 1980; Long & Henderson, 1972; Maxwell, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1975), but thiswas not found to be true in the present study. Multiple regression analyses did not findcorrelations between raw score on the Gates-MacGinitie comprehension section (1992) andminutes 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 oftime spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spent reading all materials. Otherstudies have reported that positive reading attitudes correlate more highly with recreationalreading than with achievement (Allen et al., 1992; Greany & Hegarty, 1987; Long &Henderson, 1972). The present study also found significant correlations between a positiverecreational reading attitude and minutes spent book reading, total minutes spent reading allmaterials, percentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage of leisure time spentreading 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 forrecreational reading attitudes at the grade-five level.Duggins (1989), Greaney and Hegarty (1987), and Whitehead et al. (1977) have allreported finding no significant differences between socioeconomic status and reading attitudes.The present study did find a negative correlation between SES and attitude toward recreationalreading, whether the analyses looked at minutes or percentage of leisure time. This makes sensewhen one considers the significant negative correlation found between socioeconomic status andtime spent reading out of school earlier. However, the reader needs to be cautioned that this wasprobably 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.132Factors 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 makeany difference (McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, & Jenkins, 1992; Morrow &Weinstein, 1986); and home literary environments (Hansen, 1969). The present study did notfind significant relationships between recreational reading attitudes and reading aloud tostudents, providing various leisure reading materials in the classroom, use of school andclassroom 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 forpleasure.Throughout the literature, there is agreement over the influence of membership in a publiclibrary, 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 thenumber of books borrowed (Long & Henderson, 1972), and others to the regularity of thevisits—every ten days—(Whitehead et at., 1977). The present study found no effect forstudents’ membership in a public library and attitude toward recreational reading. There wasalso 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 readingwith the child, contributed significantly to the differences found in a study conducted in 1969where factors in the home environment explained a significant portion of the variance in achild’s reading attitude when it came to independent reading. The present study, however, didnot find any significant differences to report for these home variables of encouraging students toread various reading materials, or reading aloud to children. There were no effects foundbetween family size, or birth order, and recreational reading attitude. Home factors that didsignificantly effect recreational reading attitudes were observing parents reading, andobserving parents reading newspapers.133Does attitude influence one’s decision to spend time reading for recreation? The presentstudy has found this to be true.InterviewsThe purpose of the interview was to explore numerous factors that might have had aninfluence on a child’s decision to spend time reading for leisure. “The child is the expert (theonly expert) on his feelings, perceptions, and thoughts” (Hughes, 1988, p. 91), and it has beenreported (McEady-Gillead, 1989; Neuman, 1980) that the use of the interview might be theapproach to use when investigating leisure reading behavior. HMaking the interviewee feelaccepted, understood, and secure in the interview is perhaps even more important ininterviewing children than in interviewing adults” (Hughes, 1988, p. 93). In the presentstudy, a certain amount of rapport had already been established between the researcher and eachsubject 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 madeto increase the comfort zone. The interview was not conducted as an interrogation for 30minutes, but was broken up with scales, chatter, cards, snacks, and laughter. Time was givenfor 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 whena child, for example, could not decide what it was he/she liked about an activity. The researcherwould 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 likeabout 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 theactivity happened to be—and then having them imagine themselves in that position with theirfavorite program on, and then posing the question—”how do you feel when you watchtelevision?”—seemed to help get at some of those feelings. Although the interviews weredefinitely exploratory, the comfortable environment during the interview helped students not to134feel intimidated in sharing their likes, dislikes, desires, feelings, reasons, and thoughts for thevarious activities which they had spent a great deal of time in during the past 17 days. Inaddition, by the time the protocol had reached the subject of reading, the student was quiterelaxed, and used to thinking about these topics—likes, dislikes, feelings, etc..Initially, the decision had been made to only ask the frequent readers about theirexpectations and values concerning the reasons and rewards they gained from reading, but whenmany of the answers given by the infrequent readers sounded like the answers given by thefrequent readers, it was decided to ask these two question of all students except those that did notspend any time reading—two students.Classroom Factors.“The teacher has a significant influence on the amount of book reading children do out ofschool” (Anderson et al.,1988, p. 296). This influence has been described as having booksavailable in the classroom, reading aloud to the class, recommending books to them, talking tostudents about the books that the students had read, and requiring pupils to read a certainamount 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. Thepresent study supports these findings since there was no effect found between the student’sresponse that books were available in the classroom for leisure reading and time spent readingfor leisure.Reading aloud to the class has been found to make a difference for home reading by someresearchers (Fielding et al., 1984; Sirota, 1971), but not others (Landy, 1977; Whitehead etal., 1977). The present study supports the latter. No differences were found for reading aloudto the class and time spent reading. Providing time in the classroom for reading (USSR) wasreported by Lane (1985) and Wilson et al. (1986) to make a difference in the amount of timechildren spend outside of school reading. Morrow and Weinstein (1986) did not find this to beso. The present study supports the latter researchers. There was, however, a significantfinding for what the teacher was doing during USSR and time spent reading out of school. It1 35seems that students that observed the teacher reading during this time (USSR) were spendingmore 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), andWhitehead 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, inthat no difference was found between method of instruction in reading and time spent reading forleisure. The present study did have a small sample of teachers, but was similar in sample sizeas 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 mentionedthat 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. Thepresent 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 effecton 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 seemto have an effect.Providing a space in the home for reading has been documented by several studies as havingan 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 themost popular place in all of these studies but one. The present study also found a significanteffect between the parents’ report of providing a space for reading in the home and thepercentage of leisure time students spent reading books, as well as all materials. The favoritereading spot for 79% of these grade-five students was the bedroom.Providing various materials in the home for leisure reading, such as newspapers andmagazines has been reported by Neuman (1986a; 1986b) as significantly associated with136reading. Other studies (Landy, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1977) have found no relationshipbetween 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 wereprovided 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 independentreading (Hansen, 1973; Pluck et al., 1984). The present study supports the latter group ofresearchers. 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-fivestudents.Another influencing factor, according to the literature on leisure reading, was “parents asreading models.” This variable was found to be the best predictor of time spent reading forleisure (Clark, 1976; Pluck et at., 1984; Whitehead et al., 1977; Wiseman, 1967). Frequentreaders seem to be more likely to perceive their fathers (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), or aparent of the same sex (Landy, 1977), as having more time for reading books. Others have notfound this to be statistically significant (Hansen, 1973; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). The presentstudy supports these latter researchers regarding time spent reading. No differences werefound whether through information received during student interviews or parent interviews onparents’ reading of various materials and time spent reading for leisure. However, asmentioned previously, observing parents reading did have a significant postive effect on attitudetowards recreational reading.Other variables that were noted in the literature to be major determinants for leisurereading include receiving books for gifts (Covington, 1985; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987); beingencouraged 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 wasyoung (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 these137variables. There were also no differences to report for reading together, or listening to yourchild read.Throughout the literature, there is agreement over the influence of membership in a publiclibrary 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 sincethere were no differences found between students’ library membership, parents’ librarymembership, 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 animpact on the amount of reading students do outside of school. Heyns (1978) found that sixthand seventh grade students who lived less than seven blocks from the library read more books inthe summer than those who lived beyond walking distance. The present study did not find asignificant effect for this variable.Being a member of a relatively small family—about three children—has been reported asbeing 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 thelatter since no effect was found for this variable.Levels of education for the parents and its effect on leisure reading were reported as beingstatistically significant for the mothers’ level of education but not for the fathers’ (Moffitt,1992). Hansen (1969) also reported no significant relationship between fathers’ educationand leisure reading. The present study found no affect for mothers’ or fathers’ levels ofeducation.Two other variables investigated in the present study, but not noted in other studies found inthe literature on leisure reading, were the number of languages spoken in the home and thenumber of playmates reported by the student. There were no differences to report for either ofthese two variables and their effect on time spent reading for leisure.138Reasons 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 spent10% or more of their leisure time reading, and a group of infrequent readers who spent 1% orless of their leisure time reading. The responses from the student interviews wereindependently 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.” Theresponses categorized as “enjoyment” were given by 85% of the frequent readers.The reasons that infrequent readers gave for not reading during their leisure time werecategorized as “not enjoyable”, “other things were available and allowed,” “a preferred elementwas missing” for this activity, and “availability.” The responses that were categorized as “notenjoyable” included “if it’s not interesting, then I don’t read at all,” “it’ll just not interest mewhen I’m like reading if it gets good in one part of the chapter, and then it just slumps down, andit doesn’t really interest me any more,” “I’d rather be doing something else,H “reading isn’t mykind of thing, but I do. Well, sometimes it’s really boring,” andStudent: 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 andResearcher: Well when it gets boring why don’t you just put it back on the shelf like yousaid?Student: But it’s only been 10 minutes and you kinda of, Dad says “keep reading andreading.”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 suchstatements as “cause I spend lots of time watching TV; I find that more fun,” “TV and computer orpiano lessans,” “possibly like to do more skipping or practice things that we do in our skippingteam 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,” andStudent: 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?139Student: Yeah. It just says “go read a book or something.” I’ll go read to my sister becauseshe 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 justdon’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 justkind of bore me. I usually read before I go to bed, though, it kinda makes me sleepier orsomething.The responses that were categorized as “a preferred element was missing” for this activityincluded 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 meread them. Like once in a blue moon he lets me.”What would make leisure reading more fun for both groups? Both groups mentioned thingsthat were categorized as “content.” Thirty-one percent of the frequent readers made this type ofresponse, as did 46% of the infrequent readers. “Content” referred to style, characters, orplot. The infrequent readers’ second most popular response category was “format,” which wasmentioned by 39% of the students. “Format” referred to physical characteristics such aslength, the inclusion of visuals or auditory effects.The question “what if anything would get you to spend more time reading for leisure?” wasasked of both groups. Forty-six percent of the frequent readers responded with “nothing”—theyliked it just the way it was. The remaining frequent readers made statements that werecategorized under “availability,” “time,” and “other things are available and allowed.” Withthese considerations, they would spend more time reading.Infrequent readers talked about things which fell under the category of “other.” Thirty-onepercent of the infrequent readers responded with such statements as “if it wasn’t so noisey,” “ifsomebody who is kind of strict tells you, ‘you better do it or you won’t get whatever’—likepriviledges and stuff,” andStudent: I guess if I was the kind of person who liked to read like my Mom and Dad. My Momzips through a book about this thick in one day. I used to not even look at a book. But nowI’m getting slowly more into it.140Student: 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 havetroubles 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, thenyou’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 topractice?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 nothaving “other things available and allowed.” These reasons would get them to spend more timereading for leisure. Almost one-fourth of the infrequent readers said that really nothing wouldget them to spend more time.The use of rewards in the school and in the home for leisure reading were explored with eachstudent, 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 effectfound between rewards and attitude toward recreational reading for all 53 students. Whenobserving the frequencies, however, for the two extremes, apparently 39% of the frequentreaders were presently being given some kind of reward for leisure reading by the teacher on adaily basis. Also, 23% of these frequent readers were given rewards by their parents on a dailybasis at home for leisure reading. All of these seem to be non-contingent rewards—rewardsgiven for just participating.Expectations and values around reading were explored in this study, and the two extremegroups of frequent and infrequent readers seem to be predominately interested in reading forenjoyment (85% for both groups). However, expectations for enjoyment were stronger for thefrequent readers than the infrequent readers. More frequent readers were “quite sure” thatreading would be enjoyable, and the value they placed on enjoyment was much higher—”reallyimportant.” In contrast, infrequent readers were “slightly sure” that reading would beenjoyable, and they felt that enjoyment was “not at all important.” It was also noted thatfrequent readers had more reasons to read than infrequent readers. Frequent readers mentioned141reasons that were categorized as “enjoyment,” ‘learning,” “relief from boredom,”“encouragement,” “other,” and “availability” whereas infrequent readers mentioned reasonsthat were categorized as “enjoyment,” “other,” ‘learning,” and “relief from boredom.” Valuesplaced on these outcomes were also much higher for a greater number of the frequent readers.Research QuestionsDo children who have the ability to read do so out of school only when intrinsic reasons arepresent? These reasons are defined as feelings of competence, satisfaction, and self-determination; feelings of delight or other such similar reinforcements for its own sake. Thereasons for leisure reading given by this group of grade-five students designated as frequentreaders included statements which were categorized as “enjoyment,” “learning,” “relief fromboredom,” “encouragement,” “other,” and “availability.” Two of these categories would not beconsidered intrinsic reasons for doing things, “relief from boredom,” and “availability”; theother two, “encouragement,” and “other” might possibly be considered intrinsic depending onthe nature of the response. Fifty-nine percent of the frequent readers mentioned statementsthat 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 madestatements concerning “relief from boredom,” and 11% made statements having to do with“availability.” Therefore the question, are these students reading for leisure only whenintrinsic reasons are present?, appears to be no. Intrinsic reasons are present for 85% of thereaders, but there are other reasons present for these same readers. Fifteen percent of thereaders are not reading for intrinsic reasons. Reading for intrinsic reasons does seem to havehad an impact for this group of grade-five students, but they are not the only reasons forspending time leisure reading.How does locus of control affect leisure reading? With this group of students, locus ofcontrol had no effect on time spent reading for leisure. One possible explanation is that studentsby this age do not have to rely on generalized expectancy—beliefs about their behaviors and142rewards (locus of control)—when it comes to leisure reading. Students have already had a fairamount of experience with leisure reading by this time and will make their decisions based onthat experience.How does attitude affect one’s decision to spend time reading for leisure? For this group ofgrade-five students, the score received on the attitude measure correlated significantly withtime spent reading. This was true for both the number of minutes and percentage of leisuretime. It was also true when considering book reading only, or when considering all readingmaterials—books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail. Does a positive recreationalreading attitude cause a person to spend time reading for leisure, or does time spent reading forleisure effect one’s recreational reading attitude? Attitude and spending time reading seem to gotogether. “But which comes first?” is not a question that can be answered within the realm ofthis study. If it is possible to tease this relationship apart, further research would benecessary. This study did find that parents reading at home had a significant positive effect onone’s attitude toward recreational reading.Are there similarities and differences in classroom and home practices around leisurereading for these frequent and infrequent readers? Within the classroom, the only variable thatseemed to make a significant difference as to whether or not these grade-five students spenttime reading was having a teacher that read during USSR. Within the home, having siblings thatread books and comic books, as well as parents providing a space for reading were the onlyvariables that seem to make a significant difference in the amount of time spent reading. And aspreviously mentioned, observation of parents’ reading did have a significant effect on attitude.ConclusionsGrade-five students were chosen as the target population for this study to insure thatfrequent 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 presentstudy were compared with the others, confirming certain variables that possibly contribute toleisure reading behavior. As well, this study investigated the rewards and values associated143with the leisure activity of reading. It also identified what the grade-five students in thissample do with their leisure time. In addition, each student’s recreational-reading attitude wasinvestigated, along with practices around reading in both the classroom, and the home.Classroom practices aimed at reading were confirmed through personal interviews with theteachers and students, as well as by telephone interviews with the parents. Home practicesaround reading were verified through these same telephone interviews with the parents, as wellas through the personal interviews conducted with the students. Levels of socioeconomic statusand education levels for both parents were elicited through the telephone interviews. By usingthese techniques, variables were taken into account and added to the growing body of literatureregarding leisure reading. Throughout the study, gender, socioeconomic status (SES),ethnicity, and ability differences were reported. These variables were discussed in relation toleisure reading, locus of control, reading attitudes, and school and home variables. How didthese differences relate to the infrequent, reader who was capable of reading in grade five? Inthis study, it would seem that when it came to book or magazine reading, the infrequent readerwould tend to be a boy. If comic books and newspapers were being analyzed, the infrequentreader would tend to be a girl. The infrequent reader would tend to be from a higher level ofsocioeconomic status and to score low on an attitude measure for recreational reading. Therewere 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 wereavailable 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 impacton this decision? The expectations and values attached to the reasons may provide anotherexplanation for not reading. What were the expectations and values attached to some of thereasons given for leisure reading? Considering the extreme groups, “enjoyment” wasmentioned 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 44four 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 fourwere “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 allimportant.” Four of the infrequent readers felt that reading for enjoyment was “reallyimportant”; 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 beenjoyable, and more than half of them placed the highest value on enjoyment—it was “reallyimportant.” Half of the infrequent readers, on the other hand, were only “slightly sure” thatreading 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) mentionedreasons that were categorized as “enjoyment.” Twenty-one of the 26 infrequent readersmentioned 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 allsure.” 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 eachgroup? Thirteen of the frequent readers felt that enjoyment was “really important”; 11thought 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 likefrequent readers were stronger in their expectations around reading, and more of these studentshad 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 learningtheory for reading. The potential for reading to occur in leisure time is a function of theexpectancy that reading will lead to enjoyment in leisure time and the value of enjoyment. The145frequent readers were the ones doing the most reading. All of them mentioned this oneparticular reason or reward; many of them expected this to happen, and had placed a fairly highvalue on it. According to Julian Rotter (1982), individuals make decisions by consideringrewards (reasons) based on experience by attaching values to them. If one’s experience is nonexistent 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 generalizedexpectancy. They do not need to rely on their “beliefs” that their behavior has something to dowith receiving the reward (locus of control). This may be the possible explanation as to whylocus 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 orderto document the reasons for not reading during time out of school. These reasons have beenlisted several times in the last two chapters. Besides these reasons mentioned by the infrequentreaders 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 booksand 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 andyou’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 makeyourself 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 46Student: It doesn’t really get interesting for me. After awhile it just kind of keeps sayingthe 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 becontinued’ then you have to buy another,” “sometimes people die in them,” and “sometimes thefine print. Or on comics, it’s close together. Sometimes blurry, you can’t read it.” Eightpercent talked about “availability,” and 4% about “time.”For some time now the literature on leisure reading has reported what students were doingwith their leisure time. It was a purpose of this study to shed some light on why some childrenwho can read choose not to read. What seems to influence a grade-five student’s decision tospend time reading during leisure time? There is considerable evidence from this study thatchildren need role models. It appears to have helped significantly to have had a teacher whoreads during USSR at school and to have had siblings who read at home. Having parents who readat home also appears to have had a significant effect on the child’s attitude toward recreationalreading, and a positive attitude toward recreational reading had a significant effect on spendingtime leisure reading. As one infrequent reader commented when asked “what if any thing wouldget 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 zipsthrough a book about this thick in one day. I used to not even look at a book. But now I’mgetting slowly more into it.Students need to actually observe reading behavior. Talking about spending time reading, andassigning time for reading does not seem to be the answer. Another factor that had a significanteffect 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 spendtheir time out of school by using a sample from British Columbia, Canada. Because the focuswas recreational reading, other leisure activities reported in the results section were notdiscussed. However, it is interesting to note that frequent readers also watched a significantamount of television. Television was by far the number one activity for this group of studentsduring 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 47147minutes per day (one hour and 32 minutes per school day, and two hours and 36 minutes perweekend day). This was the figure for the entire sample, with both frequent and infrequentreaders spending approximately the same amount of time watching television. Despite thisactivity, the frequent readers were able to spend on the average 34 minutes per day reading (31minutes per school day, and 58 minutes per weekend day). Television does take time away fromother leisure pursuits, but it does not seem to displace the activity of reading for this group ofgrade-five students. There were, however, some students in the sample who spent much moretime watching television—up to 45% of their leisure time—and it would seem that for thoseindividuals, 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 wouldhave been he public library, not the library located at the school. The reported time spentgoing to the library by this group of grade-five students in British Columbia, Canada, duringthe 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 representedless than 1% of the out-of-school time for the entire sample. The group that used this facilitythe most was the male infrequent reader. Information provided from the interviews indicatedthat both frequent readers and infrequent readers lived predominately a mile or less from thelibrary, although some were closer and some were further away. Being that there were nosignificant differences for this variable, something else seems to be causing the male infrequentreader 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 samplewas drawn. The resulting restriction of range for socioeconomic status may have had an impacton the findings of this study.148Second, the diary-technique and the interview-technique were both used in thisinvestigation, and both procedures have received a fair amount of criticism. These procedurescan 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 isgenerally believed that using diaries is much more reliable than interview or questionnaireinstruments for establishing time spent in activities (Carp & Carp, 1981). Interviews wereused to explore the reasons and values attached to the activities documented in the diaries. Thefact 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 aparticularly bad time for accounting for leisure-reading behavior. The time of the year couldcertainly 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 understandablyhave 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 forsubjective answers. “Often” meant “almost everyday,” “sometimes” was “about two or threetimes a week,” and “rarely” meant “once a week or less.” It may be possible that other studieswithin the literature on leisure reading gave greater lattitude for these responses wheninvestigating these same variables. Consequently, comparative data from the present studymight be, to a certain extent, invalid due to these factors.Last, the reader must also remember that some of these analyses, like most conducted inresearch, are based on test results. Thus the findings are dependent upon how well theinstruments measure what they purport to measure. In addition, the less than desirablepsychometric 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, andtherefore effected the interpretation of the findings.149Implications.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, andall their intentions are certainly good. This study has examined some of these intentions and hasdescribed their impact on leisure-reading behavior. Some of these practices had a significanteffect, 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, andgrandparents.This study has provided documented evidence for librarians, authors, and publishers as towhat grade-five students want from their reading materials. Students were asked, “what wouldmake reading more fun?” Often students had more than one response to this question. Allresponses were categorized by two and sometimes three independent raters. Responses fell intoall of the available categories but the category with the most answers was “content.” Thirty-sixpercent of the students mentioned ideas that were categorized under “content.” This refers tostyle, characters, or plot. Some of the students made generalized statements, such as havingmaterials that were more exciting, funny, or interesting. Others were more specific about thematerials themselves, such as “if in the comic books, they had more jokes and riddles, and stufflike that. Like funner activities.” “Like magazines when they talk about a person, if they likegive more information on that person rather than only a little bit.” Some students had specificadvise 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 ifit’s not interesting than I don’t read at all.” “More action. Like every bit is action!” “I like itwhen 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 readerexplained what it was that made a book boring. “Well, they just talk. Like there’s usually threechapters, and they just talking and talking; no where in particular that just talking about whathappen 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 would150particularly like to read about: “thoroughbred books1” “hockey,” “murder books or else dyingbooks,” “books about my favorite TV shows,” and “right now I’m reading a skiing book; and onetime 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 dothings or the stories about those things? The student answered, “stories.” And one studentmentioned that the one thing that would make reading more fun for them is “if Roald DahI neverdied 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 mostpopular category was again “content.” This time 28% of the students made statements that werecategorized under this heading. Some of the statements were very general, such as “if the bookswere more exciting.” Other responses, however, were quite specific: “like if it’s got a goodproblem to it, and you have to find a solution for it,” “if I was at a good part, then I’d keep onreading to see what happens,” and “more action because then I’d want to read more.” Otherstudents 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 “MattChristopher books, and a whole set of Bunnicula Books.” “Content” seems to be a very importantfactor to this group of grade-five students who presently had spent 6% of their leisure timereading. Who knows how much more time they would spend reading if students could find whatthey wanted in leisure reading materials. Teachers and librarians need to insure that thematerials 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 thepredetermined alpha level ( = .05), but trends can indicate that there may be some thingsworth investigating further using a research design with more power that is, a larger samplesize. 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 usingmaterials for teaching reading, such as a reading series or technical materials. Trends in theanalyses indicated these variables might be having some type of interaction with the amount of151time spent reading. Possible influences that may be fruitful for further investigationsregarding students’ attitude toward recreational reading were: (1) effect of teacher behaviorduring USSR, (2) effect of a silent reading program that has students reading for pleasure inschool (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 manynonexperimental studies in education, consisted of volunteers from intact classrooms andtherefore limits the generalizability of these findings.152BibliographyAlexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.Allen, L., Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Multiple indicators of children’s readinghabits and attitudes: Construct validity and cognitive correlates. Journal of EducationalPsychology, (4), 489-503.Aliport, G. W. (1967). Attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory andmeasurement (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 guidedresponse to concerns of reading educators (25-36). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.Alvermann, D. E., & Guthrie, J. T. (1993). Themes and directions of the National ReadingResearch Center (Perspectives in reading research, No. 1). Athens: University of Georgiaand College Park: University of Maryland, National Reading Research Center.American Federation of Teachers and Chrysler Corporation. (1992). Kids. parents. andreading. Chicago: Author.Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how childrenspend 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 ofChicago Press.Askov, E. (1972). Assessment of attitudes towards reading in primary pupils . Madison:University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for CognitiveLearning.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 intellectualachievement responsibility attributions and performance. Paper presented at the meetingof the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 143 977)Baron, R. M., Cowan, G., Ganz, R. L., & McDonald, M. (1974). interaction of locus of controland type of performance feedback: Considerations of external validity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psycholoay, (2), 285-292.Baron, R. M., & Ganz, R. L. (1972). Effects of locus of control and type of feedback on the taskperformance 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 53Battle, E. & Rotter, J. B. (1963). Children’s feelings of personal control as related to socialclass 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 foroccupations 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: Adevelopmental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholoay, (9), 1462-1468.Boraks, N., Brittain, M., Under, F., & Bauer, D. (1993). An exploration of the impact ofpersonality factors on comprehension. In B. L. Hayes & K. Camperell (Eds.), Reading:Strategies. practices. and research for the 21st century (Vol. 13, 151-163). Yearbook ofthe American Reading Forum.Brewer, E. W., Dunn, J. 0., & Olszewski, P. (1988). Extrinsic reward and intrinsicmotivation: 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 andfemale 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), 1249-1250Burroughs, S. G. (1991). The implications for effective education of understanding pupilmotivation in schools as a multi-dimensional model. International Journal of Adolescenceand Youth, 2. (4), 251 -274.California Media and Library Educators Association, (1984, November). Literature/readingsurveys for libraria/media specialists and teachers: A packet of student questions. Paperpresented at the Annual Conference of the California Media and Ubrary EducatorsAssociation, 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. SanAntonio, TX: Development Associates.Cervantes, R. A. (1 976b, February). Self-concept. locus of control and achievement inMexican-American pupils. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on BilingualBicultural Education, San Francisco.154Charlton, T., & Terrell, C. (1987). Enhancing internal locus of control beliefs through groupcounselling: Effects upon children’s reading performance. Psychological Reports, Q (3),928-930.Chisom, Y. L. (1989). Increasing literature appreciation and recreational reading behavior ofintermediate grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, FortLauderdale, 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 andrecreational 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 ReadingForum.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. GovernmentPrinting Office.Condry, J., & Koslowski, B. (1979). Can education be made “intrinsically interesting” tochildren? 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 ofchildren. Educational Review, . (3), 221-227.Coombs, W. N., & Schroeder, H. E. (1988). Generalized locus of control: An analysis of factoranalytic data. Personality & Individual Differences, (1), 79-85.Covington, V. (1985). Leisure time readino versus teevsion viewing time for seventh aradereading students. (Research Study for ASC 579). Huntsville, Texas: Sam Houston StateUniversity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 275 989)Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children’s beliefs in their owncontrol of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. ChildDevelopment, . (1), 91-109.Crandall, V. J., Katkovsky, W., & Preston, A. (1962). Motivational and ability determinants ofyoung 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: Psychologicalstudies of flow in consciousness (15-35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Assessing print exposure and orthographicprocessing skill in children: A quick measure of reading experience. Journal of EducationalPsycholoav. ..2. (4), 733-740.Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure inchildren: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal ofEducational Psychology, (2), 264-274.155Cunningham, J. D. (1973). Adolescent reading interests in Greater Vancouver. aninterpretation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BritishColumbia, Canada.Curr, W., Hallworth, H. J., & Wilkinson, A. M. (1962). How secondary modern school childrenspend their time. Educational Review,i. (1), 3-11.Cutright, P., & Brueckner, L. J. (1928). A measurement of the effects of teaching ofrecreational reading. The Elementary School Journal, (2), 132-137.Danner, F. W., & Lonky, E. (1981). A cognitive-developmental approach to the effects ofrewards on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, (2), 1043-1052.Dave, R. H. (1963). The identification and measurement of environmental variables that arerelated to educational achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofChicago.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 ReadingAssociation, 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, NewOrleans, 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 SchoolJournal,.4. (3), 143-148.Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read?: lEA study of reading literacy. TheHague: 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. ContemporaryEducation, j (2), 77-81.Feather, N. T. (1982). Expectancy-value approaches: Present status and future directions. InN. 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 tradebooks in reading instruction. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.), The contexts of school-based literacylearning (149-162). New York: Random House.156Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1981). Attitudes and voting behaviour: An application of the theoryof reasoned action. In G. M. Stephenson & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Progress in applied socialpsychology (Vol. 1, 253-313). Chichester, England: John Wiley.Fleming, W. G. (1953). A study of the leisure-time reading habits of senior high schoolstudents with low sociometric status. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto.Flynn, T. M. (1991). Achievement, self-concept and locus of control in Black prekindergarten children. Early Child Development and Care, 4., 135-139.Foertsch, M. A. (1992). Reading in and out of school: Factors influencing the literacyachievement 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 readinginstruction. The Irish Journal of Education , 4. (1), 19-29.Greaney, V. (1980). Factors related to amount and type of leisure time reading. ReadingResearch Quarterly, j.. (3), 337-357.Greaney, V., & Clarke, M. (1975). A longitudinal study of the effects of two reading methods onleisure-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 Researchin 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 theoccupational 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. ElementaryEnglish. .Q. (1), 97-98, 122.Healy, A. R. (1965). Effects of changing children’s attitudes toward reading. ElementaryEnglish, 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 andqualitative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Houston, J. E. (Ed.). (1990). Thesaurus of ERIC descriptors (12th ed.). Phoenix: Oryx Press.157Hughes, 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 literatureand poetry affectively (37-45). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Johnston, W. A. (1992). Comparison and prediction of the level of career aspirations ofadolescent 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 certainpsychological, environmental, and socioeconomic factors in early adolescence. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. 145 409)Lane, B. A. (1985). A survey of the leisure reading of junior high school students in theprovince 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 ofsocial psychological attitudes (413-499). San Diego: Academic Press.Lewis, J. (1979). A reading attitude inventory for elementary school pupils. Educational andPsychological Measurement, (2), 511-513.Little, V. L., & Kendall, P. C. (1978). Note on locus of control and academic achievement ininstitutionalized 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 socialcorrelates. The Elementary School Journai,Z (3), 193-199.Lonky, E. I. (1975, December). Disequilibration as intrinsic motivation: Testing the cognitiveevaluation theory using Piacetian tasks in the classroom. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe Wisconsin Educational Research Association, Madison, WI.Lonky, E. I., & Reihman, J. (1980, September). Cognitive evaluation theory. locus of controland positive verbal feedback. Paper presented at the meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Oswego, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 195 324)MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1992). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (2nd Canadianed.). Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada.Manning, G. L., & Manning, M. (1984). What models of recreational reading make adifference? Reading World, (4), 375-380.158Martin, J. A. (1977). Effects of positive and negative adult-child interactions on children’stask performance and task preferences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23 (3),493-502.Matheny, K. B., & Edwards, C. R. (1974). Academic improvement through an experimentalclassroom 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 forteachers. The Reading Teacher, 4.3 (9), 626-639.McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1989, December). Children’s attitudes towardreading: Secondary analysis of data from a national study. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe National Reading Conference, Austin.McKenna, M. C., Stratton, B. D., & Grindler, M. C. (1992, November). Social desirability ofchildren’s responses to a reading attitude survey. Paper presented at the meeting of theCollege 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 readingattitudes. 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 intwo 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). 38thYearbook 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 onechildren 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 andmale adolescents. Readino Research and Instruction, 31 (2), 1-17.Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein, C. S., (1986). Encouraging voluntary reading: The impact of aliterature 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 Doorreaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.Murray, H. B., & Staebler, B. K. (1974). Teacher’s locus of control and student achievementgains. Journal of School Psychology, 12. (3), 305-309.Naditch, M. P., & DeMaio, T. (1975). Locus of control and competence. Journal of Personality.41 (4), 541-559.159Nell, V. (1978). Kinds of reading and kinds of motivation: Reflections on the psychology of thereading habit. Mousaion,2. (5), 63-71.Nell, V. (1988a). Lost in a book: The psychology of reading for pleasure. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.Nell, V. (1988b). The psychology of reading for pleasure: Needs and gratifications. ReadingResearch Quarterly, Z. (1), 6-50.Neuman, S. B. (1980). Why children read: A functional approach. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 12. (4), 333-336.Neuman, S. B. (1986a). The home environment and fifth-grade students’ leisure reading. )1Elementary School Journal, (3), 335-343.Neuman, S. B. (1 986b). Television, reading, and the home environment. Reading Research andInstruction, 25 (3), 173-183.Newhouse, R. C. (1974). Reinforcement-responsibility differences in birth order, gradelevel, 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, andreading 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 schoolpopulation. Developmental Psycholooy, 4. (3), 477-478.Nowicki, S., & Segal, W. (1973). Perceived parental characteristics, locus of controlorientation, 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 ofConsulting & Clinical Psycholooy , 4 (1), 148-154.Nowicki, S., & Walker, C. (1974). The role of generalized and specific expectancies indetermining academic achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, .4. (2), 275-280.Ollendick, D. G. (1979). Parental locus of control and the assessment of children’s personalitycharacteristics. Journal of Personality Assessment, 4.. (4), 401-405.Pani, M. K. (1991). Differences in locus of control and reading abilities among grade threechildren. Psycho Lingua, (1), 9-12.Picha, K. A. (1988). Leisure reading habits and preferences of anglophone grade 6 earlyFrench immersion students related to book promotional activities. Unpublished master’sthesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.160Plessas, G., & Oakes, C. (1964). Pre-reading experiences of selected early readers. IJiReading Teacher, 1i 241-245.Pluck, M., Ghafari, E., Glynn, T., & McNaughton, S. (1984). Teacher and parent modelling ofrecreational reading. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 1. (2), 114-123.Prawat, R. S., Grisson, S., & Parish, T. (1979). Affective development in children, grades 3through 12. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1.5. (1), 37-49.Purves, A. C. & Beach, R. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in resonse toliterature, reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council ofTeachers 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 (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. 290 133)Reiff, J. C. (1985). Investigating reading preferences, reading attitudes and teacherobservations of third graders. Reading Improvement, 22. (1), 29-33.Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection andevaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman, (Eds.), Measures ofpersonality and social psychological attitudes: Vol. 1. Measures of social psychologicalattitudes (1-16). San Diego: Academic Press.Roettger, D., Szymezuk, M., & Millard, J. (1979). Validation of a reading attitude scale forelementary students and an investigation of the relationship between attitude andachievement. Journal of Educational Research, (3), 138-142.Ronnholm, P. 0. (1992, December/1993, January). The secret of their success: Many factorscontribute 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 ofhuman 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 ofreinforcement. Psychological Monographs, (1), 1-28.Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internalversus 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.161Schon, I., Hopkins, K. D., & Davis, W. A. (1981, April). The effects of books in Spanish andfree reading time on hispanic students’ reading abilities and attitudes. Paper presented atthe American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 204 096)Schwenn, E. A., Klausmeier, H. J., & Sorenson, J. S. (1970, March). Motivational proceduresin school settings: The effect of individual adult-child conferences in reading. Paperpresented 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 ofPersonality 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 CollegeReading Association.Shapiro, J., & White, W. (1991). Reading attitudes and perceptions in traditional andnontraditional 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 developmentalcharacteristics to children’s reading ability. The Elementary School Journal, (5),262-270.Sherman, L. W. (1984, August). Developing perceptions of control: Cross-sectional andlongitudinal analyses. Paper presented at the convention of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Toronto. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 458)Sherman, L. W., & Hoffman, R. J. (1980). Achievement as a momentary event, as a continuingstate, 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 theteacher 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 ofchildren. Educational Review, 1Q. (3), 233-247.Sparks, P., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1991). Expectancy-value models of attitudes: Anote on the relationship between theory and methodology. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 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 schoolswhich consistently educate outstanding students in English. Urbana, IL: University ofIllinois.162Squire, J. R., & Applebee, R. (1968). A study of the teaching of English in selected Britishsecondary 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 dwellingcharacteristics. (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 tocreativity. 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 inhigh 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 ServiceNo. 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 ofcontrol, and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psycholooy, Z2 (4), 506-51 0.University of British Columbia, Computing Centre (1986). UBC SPSSX: Statistical package fgjthe 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 63Whitehead, F., Capey, A. C., & Maddren W. (1975). Children’s reading interests (SchoolsCouncil 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 themeeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, Texas. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. 358 408)Willey, D. L. (1978, March). The relationship of student locus of control to self-esteem andsix measures of reading performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the SoutheasternPsychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 178786)Wilson, P. T., Anderson, R. C., & Fielding, L. G. (1986). Children’s book reading habits: A newcriterion for literacy (Reading Ed. Report No. 63). Urbana: Illinois University, Center forthe Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 277 999)Wiseman, S. (1967). Children and their primary schools. London: Great Britain Departmentof Education and Science.Wolfle, D. (1961). National resources of ability. In A. H. Halsey (Ed.), Ability and educationalopDortunity (49-65). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Wooster, A. D. (1974). Acceptance of responsibility for school work by educationallysubnormal boys. British Journal of Mental Subnormality, (38), 23-27.s9OpuaddyAppendix 1: After School Day165(0(0AFTERSCHOOLDAYUmTUCTJONSI.Ch.ckoUIebexeaindktIngwhatyoudidThIs,whatIdidout-of-schoolon____________yesterdayout.o(-achool2.ThinkabouttheUmeyoudidthemandplacethecode______________whichIsnexttothatactivityIntothecirclesoftheabout15mInutes.clockatheappropriatetime.Eachcircleequals/MIDN1GHT3.Someactivitiesneedtobecompletedwith1CS.thlsD(thma(n(eadninformation.4.Herearesomespecialcodes:S(alsoplagi7(trewspodafton).IPLATZD:11Iiwhatwedid__________________AIOwlthmylrlendsatthisMfriend,atthis0EQUALSIswhatwedid___________________101*3LI/L.lkedonthephone1*3asportcalled___________ABOUTiasportcalled______________Co___________ISMINUTESA30 asportcalled_________________________________________A4I]agamecalled___________9—3MGigamecalled_______________MElagamecalled______________ASC]avideogame(Nintendoorother)[jrN...11IDIDDIOmyhomeworkC]workonahobbycalled_______________D2Elhelpamundthehoueet’NHERTfl31]workonahobbycalled_______________Ela(practice/lesson)for__________________84CII(pracUce/leasonlfor_________________IWATCHZD/USTFI(KDCI(itOamovievideocEli0televisionC3[Ito(radio,records.tipes.CDslDI[Ireadmallfrom__________________________112C]wrotealetterNOTforschoolto_____________CodeN______________2NtxI]readanewspapertOOTbrschoolabout_______inLIreadanewspaperNOTforschoolabout_______D4DreadamagazineNOTforschoolcalled______IXIDreadabookNOTforschoolcalled[1readabookNOT(orschoolcalledI]wrotesomethIngNOTforschoolIdiary.Journal,stoiy.poetry)iiiDreadcomicbook,called_____________WHATELSSDWIDO?ERD_______830830E4IWYTTOFllithelibraryF2t]thestore1 67Appendix 2: Weekend DayiNSTRUCTIONSI.CheckofftheboxesIndicatingwhatyoudidyesterdayout-of’achool.2.ThInkabouttheLimeyoudidthemandplacethecodewhichisnocttothatactivityintothecirclesoftheclockattheappropriatetime.Eachcircleequalsabout15mInute..3.Sonicactivitiesneedtobecompletedwithinformation.4.Herearesonicspecialcodes:H(bathing)1) (dressIng)E(eating)8(sleepIng)T(banspoitalion).IFLAYED*it]withmyfriendsatthisiswhatwedid______________________All]withmyfriendsatthisiswhatw,iiiil____________________NJI]/talkcdonthephone1.31]asportcalled________________A31].sportcalled____________1.31]asportcalled_______________M1]agamecalled________________U(] agamecalled_____________U[Jgamecalled______________ASLIavideogame(NintendoorotherlIWATCHED/LISTENEDCl[Itoamovievideo(2I]totelevisionCl[]to(radio,records,tapes,CD’s)oi0readmallfrom_______________________[IwrotealetterHOTforschoolto___________-WLIreadanewspaperNOTforschoolabout—I]readanewspaperHOTforschoolabout—0readamagazineNOTforschoolcalled______DO[1readabookNOTforschoolcalledDOLireadabookNOTforschoolcalledDO l]wrote somethingNOTforschool(diary.journal,story,poetry)ui[1readcomicbookscalled____________—-WHATELSEDW11)07EIEJ_______Ei______l0____IWCFTOFROttielibrary1’3lJIhestore(0WEEKENDDAYThIsI.whatIdidout-of.choo1on______________CodeINQONUNCR_______TIME______10IOLD—-______________1)1OmyhomeworkBREAKFA81)21]helparoundthehouse_______________/ToI1)30workonahobbycalled_______________0workonahobbycalled____________/WIwD1[Ialpractice/lcssonfor7NIGIIT1].lpraclice/lessoii)for—°‘‘LCLOCK(::)56WAEUP169Appendix 3: Weekend NightTlidIPLAYEDIswhatwedid_____________________________*iDwithmyFriendsatthisAZCwithmyFriendsatthisioQiswhatwedid______________________________*20/talkedonthephone*3[1asportcatted_______________________*31]asportcalled(-:)(-•()/*3[]a sportcalled9—A4C]agamecalled_________________________A4EJagamecalled_________________________*40agamecalled__________________________ASC]avideogame(Nintendoorother’IDIDiiiOmyhomework0a(praclice/Iesson)for________________113[1workonahobbycalled_______________112UhelparoundthehouseDINI4ER1130workonahobbycalled______________114Cia(practice/lesson)br_______________IWATCHED/U$TVDCl (10amovievideocEltotelevisiones ci10(radio,records,tapes.C13’slDLDreadmallFrom________________0wrotealetterNOTForschoolto________1)13[1reada newspaperNOTForschoolabout__noDreadanewspaperNOT(orschoolabout_.I]readamagazineNOTForschoolcalledriI]readabookNOT(orschoolcalled1)5DreadabookNOTforschoolcattedoEl wrotesomethingNOTforschool(dlasy.ournal. story. poetry)U?El read comicbookscalled___________WHATELSEDIDIDO?EID______rtLJ______E40______IwrTOFRCubelibraryrlOubcstoreaWEEKENDNIGHTINSTRUCTIONSThisIswhatIdidout-of-schoolon_____________I.Checkofftheboxesindicatingwhatyoudidyesterdayout-of-school.Code#_______________2.ThinkaboutthetimeyoudidthemandplacethecodewhichtanexttothatactivityInto thecirclesoftheclockattheappropriatelime.Eachcircleequalsabout15minutes.3.SomeactivitiesneedtobecompletedwithinFormatIon.4.Herearesomespecial codes:Sbathing)D(dressing)E(eating)S(sleepinglT(transportation)._____2_______10EQUALS NIABOUT________[15MINUTES-171Appendix 4: Student Interview172TIME INTERVIEW AM ConfidentialSTARTED PMSTUDENT INTERVIEWCode________The purpose of this interview is to explore with you why you spend timeout-of-school doing the things that you do. The interview will take about25 minutes and contains questions about some of your out-of-schoolactivities 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 acomplete and accurate account of your response. Your answers arecompletely 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 activityThe 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 atalking-survey of why you choose the things that you do. So it may takeyou some time to think of these reasons. Please take your time so you canthink of them. We are not in a rush. Your teacher knows you will be gonefor 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 tothink about it.1. Tell me what you like about (activity #1).WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET1 732. Is there anything you dislike about (activity #1)?3. Is there someone who tries to get you to spend time on(activity #1)?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8noanswer... 9A. Who? father . . 1mother . . 2step-parent . . 3sibling 4extended family . . 5sitter 6teacher 7peers 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” SHEET6. What are your reasons for participating in (activity #1) whenyou are out-of-school?WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET1747. What if anything would get you to do more of (activity #1)during your leisure time?8. GIVE STUDENT EXPECTATION SCALEUSE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWERHow sure are you that (activity #1) during your timeout-of-school will lead to (the reinforcements mentioned onthe sheet for activity #1)?WRITE OTHER REASONS ON CARDS9. CUE CARDS--ONLY USE CARDS MENTIONED“These are the reasons you mentioned for (activity #1). Lookat the cards, decide which reasons are most important to youwhen it comes to (activity #1), and arrange them in order ofimportance on the chart. You can have some reasons being ofequal importance, so place them right next to each other ifthat is true”.USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWERSKIP TO QUESTION 19 IF READING IS A #2 ACTIVITYREPEAT QUESTIONS FOR #2 ACTIVITYI want to know what you Uke about (activity #2); take a few minutes tothink about it.10. Tell me what you like about (activity #2).WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET1 7511. Is there anything you dislike about (activity #2)?12. Is there someone who tries to get you to spend time on(activity #2)?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer... 9A. Who? father 1mother 2step-parent . . 3sibling . . 4extended family . . 5sitter 6teacher 7peers 813. 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” SHEET15. What are your reasons for participating in (activity #2)when you are out-of-school?WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET1 7616. What if anything would get you to do more of (activity #2)during your leisure time?17. GIVE STUDENT EXPECTATION SCALEUSE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWERHow sure are you that (activity #2) during your timeout-of-school will lead to (the reinforcements mentionedon the sheet for activity #2)?WRITE OTHER REASONS ON CARDS18. CUE CARDS--ONLY USE CARDS MENTIONED“These are the reasons you mentioned for (activity #2). Lookat the cards, decide which reasons are most important to youwhen it comes to (activity #2), and arrange them in order ofimportance on the chart. You can have some reasons being ofequal importance, so place them right next to each other ifthat is true”.USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWERREPEAT QUESTIONS FOR LEISURE READING. F I19. What does leisure reading mean to you?IF ANSWER IS INCOMPLETE: leisure reading is reading youdo for your own enjoyment or information. It is not forschool. It can include books, comics, newspapers,magazines, or mail.1 77I want to know what you like about leisure reading; take a few minutes tothink about it.20. EVERYONE BUT “ZERO” READERSTell me what you like about leisure reading.WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET (FORFREQUENT READERS ONLY)21. What do you dislike about leisure reading?22. Is there someone who tries to get you to spend time onleisure reading?rarely . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. Who? father 1mother 2step-parent . . 3sibling . . 4extended family . . 5sitter 6teacher 7peers 823. What if anything would make leisure reading more fun foryou?24. (dropped)1 7825. EVERYONE BUT “ZERO” READERSWhat does it make you feel like when you read for leisure?WRITE THESE ON ‘REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET (FORFREQUENT READERS ONLY)26. What are your reasons for PARTICIPATING/NOTPARTICIPATING in leisure reading out-of-school?WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING” SHEET27. What if anything would get you to do more reading duringyour leisure time?SKIP TO QUESTION 30 FOR INFREQUENT READER28. FREQUENT READER: GIVE STUDENT EXPECTATION SCALEUSE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWERHow sure are you that reading during your timeout-of-school will lead to (the reinforcements mentionedon the sheet for reading)?WRITE OTHER REASONS ON CARDS1 7929. FREQUENT READER ONLYCUE CARDS--ONLY USE CARDS MENTIONED“These are the reasons you mentioned for readingout-of-school. Look at the cards, decide which reasons aremost important to you when it comes to readingout-of-school, and arrange them in order of importance onthe chart. You can have some reasons being of equalimportance, so place them right next to each other if that istrue”.USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWER30. Who reads aloud to you?father . . . 1mother . . . 2step-parent . . . 3sibling 4extended family . . . 5sitter 6teacher 7peers 8no one 9Tell me about your classroom environment:31. Are there books provided in your classroom for leisurereading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 932. Are there magazines provided in your classroom?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 918033. Are there newspapers?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 934. Are there comic books?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . .935. About how often do you get to go to your school library?never 1monthly 2every 3 weeks 3bi-monthly . . .4weekly 5bi-weekly . 6daily 7whenever . . . . 8don’t know . . . 9A. About how often does the class get to go as a group toyour school library? never 1monthly 2every 3 weeks 3bi-monthly . . .4weekly 5bi-weekly . . . 6daily 7whenever . . . . 8don’t know . . . 936. Is their a library in the classroom?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 918137. Do you ever see your teacher reading for his/her ownenjoyment?rarely . . . 1sometimes - . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer. 9A. IF YES, When?______________________USSR... 1everyday . . . 2when we read . . . 3reading aloud . . . 4once a week . . . 538. Are rewards given for leisure reading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer. . . 9A. Like what?B. Who sponsors these contests?teacher . . . 1librarian . . . 2principal . . . 339. Have you ever been given rewards for readingout - of-sc h o o I?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . 91 8240. Does your teacher read library books aloud to the class?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know...8no answer... 9A. IF YES, About how often?whenever . . . 1alternate days . . . 2daily . . . 3once a week . . . 4once a month . . . 541. Are you given time for leisure reading in school--USSR?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. About how much time?____________________B. How often?__________42. IF USSR IS PROVIDED, what does your teacher do duringUSSR?paperwork . . 1errands 2talk 3read 4don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . .9Tell me about your home environment:43. Does someone take you to the public library?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3• don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 918344. Are there magazines at home?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 945. Newspapers at home?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3don’t know . . . 8no answer... 946. Are you given books or subscriptions for gifts?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 947. Do your parents read aloud to you? rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 948. Do you remember them reading to you when you wereyounger?started stopped49. Are you given rewards by your parents it you read leisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. Like what?18450. Do you remember them giving you rewards forreading for leisure in the past?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . .. 3don’t know . . . 8no answer... 951. Do you have a favorite spot in which you can read at home?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer. . 9A. Where is that place at home where you like to read?52. Do you ever see your father/mother reading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 953. Do you ever see your brothers or sisters reading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. What do they read?books 1magazines . . . 2newspapers . . 3mail 4comics . . . 51 8554. What do your parents read?books 1magazines . . . 2newspapers . . 3mail 455. Do your parents go to the library?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . .. 3don’t know . . . 8no answer... 956. Are you a member of the public library? non-member . . 1member.... 257. What languages are spoken at home?58. At home, do you have many friends to play with?five or more friends . . . 3three to four friends . . . 2one to two friends . . . 1no friends . . . 059. What do you think this study is about?A. If reading, when did you know?60. Do your parents understand and speak English?no . . . 1yes . . . 21 86Thank you very much for helping me with my study.TIME INTERVIEW ENDEDAMPMA. Total length of interview:______________minutesB. Date of interview:_______ ___C. Gender of respondent:male 1female 2187REINFORCEMENT VALUE CHART (0- +3) F I“REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING”(EXPECTATION SCALE)“How sure are you that when you (activity #1) during your timeout-of-school that___________(0) not at all sure (+1) slightly sure (+2) quite sure (+3) extremely sureYou will not be bored. 0 +1 +2 +3You will learn something. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . . .“You will experience enjoyment. 0 +1 +2 +3You will receive encouragement from others 0 +1 +2 +31. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . . .“1. 0 +1 +2 +31. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . .5. 0 +1 +2+35. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . .5. 0 +1 +2 +36. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . .6. 0 +1 +2 +36. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you (activity #2) during your timeout-of-school that”You will not be bored. 0 +1 +2 +3You will learn something. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . .You will experience enjoyment. 0 +1 +2 +3You will receive encouragement from others. 0 +1 +2 +310. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . . .“10. 0 +1 +2 +318810. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . .14. 0 +1 +2 +314. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . .14. 0 +1 +2 +315. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . . .“15. 0 +1 +2 +3FREQUENT 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 +3You will learn something. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . . .“You will experience enjoyment. 0 +1 +2 +3You will receive encouragement from others. 0 +1 +2 +320. 0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that when you . .20. 0 +1 +2+320. 0 +1 +2+3“How sure are you that when you . .25. 0 +1 +2+325. 0 +1+2+3“How sure are you that when you . .25. 0 +1+2+326. 0 +1+2+3“How sure are you that when you .26. 0 +1+2+326. 0 +1 +2+30 +1 +2+30 +1 +2+31 89Appendix 5: Teacher Interview190TIME INTERVIEW_______AMConfidentialSTARTED PMTEACHER INTERVIEWClass CodeAs 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 needto account for any possible influences on their leisure activities. Theinterview will take about 10 minutes and contains questions about some ofthe practices in your classroom, as well as questions about some of yourown leisure activities. The interview is being taped so that it will beeasier for me to have a complete and accurate account of your response.Your answers are completely confidential and can only be identified by acode number.1. What does your reading program consist of this year?reading series . . . 1novels . . . 2library books . . . 32. IF APPROPRIATE, Do you supplement the reading series withtradebooks?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3A. How do you define tradebooks?191B. Would these be abridged or shortened versions?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3What percent of your tradebooks would be abridged?C. About how often would you use tradebooks?What percent of your reading program would be used fortradebooks?________3. Are there books accessible in your classroom for leisurereading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3A. How many?____4. Are there magazines accessible in your classroom for theStudents?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3A. How many?5. Are there newspapers accessible in your classroom for theStud e n t s?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3A. How many?_ ___1926. Are there comic books accessible in your classroom for thestudents?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3A. How many?_______7. What is the procedure in your room for using the schoollibrary?A. How often can an individual student go to the library?never 1monthly . . . . . 2every 3 weeks 3bi-monthly . . .4weekly 5bi-weekly . . . 6daily 7whenever . . . 8don’t know . . . 9B. How often does the class go to the library?never 1monthly 2every 3 weeks 3bi-monthly . . .4weekly 5bi-weekly . 6daily 7whenever . . . . 8don’t know . . . 98. Do you have a library within your classroom?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 39. Do you use rewards for reading out-of-school?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3A. What are they?1 93B. What percent of the time do you use these rewards?%10. How often do you take time to read aloud a tradebook to theentire class?whenever . . .1alternate days . . . 2daily . . . 3once a week . . . 4once a month . . . 511. Not counting free time, about how much time do you providefor leisure reading in school?___________________________(/week)___________(Id ay)A. Is that a structured time, i.e., USSR or SSR?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 312. Forgetting the curriculum guide for the moment, what isyour personal goal this year for your class?A. In reading?THESE NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR PERSONALREADING RATHER THAN THE CLASSROOM PROGRAM.13. Including magazines, newspapers and books, how much timeduring the week do you estimate you spend reading forleisure?1 9414. Have you been able to find time to read books?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3don’t know . . . 815. Are you a member of the public library?non-member . . 1member... 216. How many subscriptions to magazines do you currentlyhave?none... 0one... 1two.... 2three . . . 3more... 4don’t know . . . 817. Subscriptions to newspapers?none . . . 0one... 1two.... 2three . . . 3more... 4don’t know . . . 818. During the previous year have you given books orsubscriptions as gifts?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3don’t know . . . 8THANK YOU.TIME INTERVIEW ENDEDAMPMA. Total length of interview:___________minutesB. Date of interview:________________(ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE TEACHER) 1951. WHAT PROCEDURE DID YOU FOLLOW SO THAT CHILDREN COULD FILL IN THECLOCK-SHEETS?time ot school ... Idid them t home... 2both elternetlves... 32. HOW DO YOU DOCUMENT A STUDENT’S PROGRESS IN READING?3. WHAT EXPECTATION OR DEMANDS DO YOU HAVE IN PLACE TO INSURETHAT CHILDREN ARE READING AT HOME?WHAT AbOUT JOURNAL WRITING?4. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE DIFFERENTLY-ABLED STUDENTS. HOWARE THEY DIFFERRENT?5. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE STUDENT POPULATION IN THiS SCHOOL?IN YOUR CLASS?1 96Appendix 6: Parent Interview197_______AMPMConfidentialPARENT INTERVIEWStudent Code #BEFORE INTERVIEW, LIST SUBJECT’S #1 AND #2 ACTIVITES.RECORD OF CALLSjl Date Time Outcome12- 4 —: - --5Hello! I’m Patricia Whitney from the University of British Columbia. If yourecall from the permission letter you received, my study centers on howchildren 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 aboutyour leisure activities, some questions about home/school practices, andfinally a few questions on family background information. Your answersare 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 thanhis/her name, I will use the expression “this child” so that you know I amonly referring to your child in grade-five. I also want you to know that myquestions are only to find out “what is” the situation in your home and donot imply that you should be doing these things.TIME INTERVIEWSTARTED198What is your relationship to the child?father 1mother 2step-parent . . . 3sibling . . . 4extended family . . . 52. Approximately how much time during the day do you spend93. Do you try to get this particular child in grade five torarely . . . 1sometimes . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 94. About how often do you and he/she_____________together?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR #2 ACTIVITY.5. Approximately how much time during the day do you spend96. Do you try to get this particular child in grade five torarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 91 997. About how often do you and he/she____________together?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR LEISURE READING.8. What does leisure reading mean to you?A. IF RESPONSE DOES NOT INCLUDE TYPES OF READINGMATERIALS, ADD THAT NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES/BOOKSARE ALL INCLUDED IN THIS CATEGORY.9. Approximately how much time during the day do you spendreading for leisure?10. Have you been able to find time to read books for leisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 920011. Have you been able to find time to read magazines forleisure?rarely . . - 1sometimes . . . 2often 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 912. Have you been able to find time to read newspapers forleisure?rarely - . . 1sometimes . . 2often 3don’t know . . 8no answer . . . 913. How often do you try to get this child to read a book forleisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know 8no answer . . . 914. How often do you try to get him/her to read a magazine forleisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer. . 915. How often do you try to get him/her to read a newspaper forleisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . 8no answer 920116. How often do you try to get him/her to read a comic bookfor leisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . 8no answer. . 917. About how often do you and this child read together forleisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 918. How often do you take this child to the public library?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know. 8no answer. 919. Have you tried to get him/her to join the public library?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . 8no answer. 920. Are you a member of the public library? non-member . . 1member 220221. How many subscriptions to magazines do you receive in yourhome?none 0one 1two 2three 3more 4don’t know. . . 8no answer . . . 922. Subscriptions to newspapers? none 0one 1two 2three 3more 4don’t know. . 8no answer . . 923. During the previous year how often have you given books, orsubscriptions as gifts to this child?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often.. 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 924. About how often do you read aloud to him/her fromtradebooks or library books?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know. . . 8no answer . . . 925. When did you first start reading to this child?Started___________Stopped“until he/she could read” How old was that?20326. About how often do you listen to this child read each week?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know. . . 8no answer . . . 927. How frequently does he/she converse with you aboutbooks--not school books--which he/she has read?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 928. How often do you use rewards to try to get him/her to readfor leisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. Like what?B. Did you ever use rewards with this child for reading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 929. Do you have a space in your home for this child to read?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 920430. Would you describe your son/daughter as being a sociableperson or more of a loner?five or more friends . . . 3three to four friends . . 2one to two friends . . . 1no friends . . 0I know that it is difficult to know everything that happens at school sothese next few questions will be based on what you think happens in thischild’s classroom.31. At school do you know if this child has access tobooks for leisure reading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . 2often... 3don’t know...8no answer . . . 9A. What makes you think that?32. Does this child have access to magazines at school?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. What makes you think that?20533. To newspapers?rarely . . - 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3don’t know. . . 8no answer. . . 9A. What makes you think that?34. To comic books?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. What makes you think that?35. How often does he/she have access to the school library?never 0monthly 1every 3 weeks 2bi-monthly . . .3weekly 4bi-weekly . 5daily 6whenever . . . . 7don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. What makes you think that?36. Does he/she have access to a classroom library?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . * 8no answer . . * 9A. What makes you think that?20637. At the school how often are there rewards given for readingout - of-school?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. What makes you think that?38. In the past have rewards been given to this child forreading out-of-school?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 939. How often does the teacher read aloud library books to theclass?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . 2often ... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. What makes you think that?40. How often is there time given in school for leisurereading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer. . . 9A. What makes you think that?207THESE LAST FEW QUESTIONS ARE STRICTLY FOR STATISTICALPURPOSES.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 . . . 14-5 blocks . . . 26-10 blocks . . . 3more . . . 445. From what countries or part of the world did your ancestorscome?CODE #___A. IF MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY NAMED: Which one of thesecountries are you more likely to identifywith?Can you decide on one?CODE #__MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY... 88B. Method of Response Names one country 1Names two or more countries, chooses one . . . 2Names two or more countries, can’t choose . . . 3Can’t name any country . . . . 4No information . . . . 546. What about the father/mother of this child? Where didhis/her ancestors come from?______ _ __CODE #208A. IF MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY NAMED: Which one of thesecountries is helshe more likely to identify with?Can you decide on one?CODE #_____MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY... 88B. Method of Response Names one country 1Names two or more countries, chooses one . . . 2Names two or more countries, can’t choose . . . 3Can’t name any country . . . . 4No information . . . . 547. 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: Isthat full time or part time?Yes, full-time student . . . . 1Yes, part-time student . . 2No 3A. What is the highest grade or year of regular school youhave ever attended?____________________B. Did you finish that grade (year) and get credit for it?Now attending this grade (year) . . . 1Finished this grade (year) . . . 2Did not finish this grade (year) . . . . 3C. IF LESS THAN EIGHT YEARS ASK, Did you receive a highschool diploma or pass a high school equivalency test?Yes 1no 2209D. IF MORE THAN 12 YEARS, What degree or degrees did youreceive?_____________________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 asvocational school? Yes ...... 1no 2A. What was your main field of vocational training?_ ____ ____ __Code #51. How about “the other parent”, is he/she now attending orenrolled in school? IF YES: Is that full time or part time?Yes, full-time student . . . . 1Yes, part-time student . . 2No 3A. What is the highest grade or year of regular school he/shehas ever attended?___ ___B. Did he/she finish that grade (year) and get credit for it?Now attending this grade (year) . . . 1Finished this grade (year) . . . 2Did not finish this grade (year) . . . . 3C. IF LESS THAN EIGHT YEARS ASK, Did he/she receive a highschool diploma or pass a high school equivalency test?Yes 1no 2D. IF MORE THAN 12 YEARS, What degree or degrees didhe/she receive?_ _CODE #Was this a 4 year program or a 2 year program?52. Besides what you’ve told me about his/her regularschooling, did he/she ever attend any other kind of school,such as vocational school?Yes 1no 2don’t know . . . 8210A. What was his/her main field of vocational training?__________________________Code #_____53. What kind of work do you do? What is your main occupationcalled? Occupation:___________ __Code #MajorA. Tell me a little more about what you actually do in thatjob. 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 1no 254. What kind of work does the other parent do? What ishis/her main occupation called? Occupation:_Code #___MajorA. Tell me a little more about what he/she actually does inthat job. What are some of his/her main duties?Thank you very much for taking the time to answer thesequestions on the telephone. Again, please remember that myquestions were only to find out “what is” the situation in yourhome and at school, and do not imply that you should be doingthese things.TIME INTERVIEW ENDEDAMPMA. Total length of interview:____minutesB. Date of interview:211Appendix 7: Letter of Invitation to ParticipateTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 212Children’s Out-of-School ActMtiesDepartment of Language Education2125 Main Mall______Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4jJ Dear Parent/Guardian: Fax: (604) 8223 154Your child is invited to participate in a research project. This project which has been approvedby the principal is designed to explore students’ activities out-of-school. The purpose of thisstudy is to find out what grade-five students do with their time out-of-school and why theychoose these activities.Participating in the project will entail completing a daily activity sheet for ten minutes eachmorning at school for a period of three weeks, answering questions from a selection of readingpassages, filling out two attitude scales, and possibly taking part in a twenty-five minuteinterview at school. If your child is randomly selected for an interview, you will also be askedto participate in a fifteen minute interview over the telephone. Only the researcher will haveaccess 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 theclass. Your child may withdraw at any point.I am a doctoral student at the University of British Columbia in the Faculty of Education andwould be happy to discuss any questions you may have at 682-8257 or you may contact myadivsor, 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 DateIf selected for an interview, I consent! I do not consent to my child_________________(name of student)participating in an interview.Parent/Guardian’s Signature DateAs indicated above, if you are selected for a telephone interview, what would be the best time tocall?. ; the telephone rumber where you can be reached at thattime:________________213Appendix 8: Certificate of Approval from UBC Ethics Committee214The University of British Columbia 892-112Office of Research ServicesBEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES SCREENING COQ(I1EE FOR RESEARCHAND OTHER STUDIES INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTSCERTIFICATE of APPROVALINVESTIGATOR: Shapiro, J.UBC DEPT: Language EducINSTITUTION: School DistrictTITLE: Children’s out-of-school activitiesNUMBER: B92—112CO—INVEST: Whitney, P.APPROVED: APR 8 1992The protocol describing the above—named, project has beenreviewed by the Committee and the experimental procedures werefound to be acceptable on ethical grounds for researchinvolving human subj ects.Dr. R.D. ratleyV Director, Research Servicesand Acting Chairman

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078133/manifest

Comment

Related Items