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 1994-12-31

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

Item Metadata


ubc_1994-954094.pdf [ 4.13MB ]
JSON: 1.0078133.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078133+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078133.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078133+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078133+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078133+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0078133 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

INFLUENCESON GRADE-FIVESTUDENTS DECISIONSTO READ:AN EXPLORATORYSTUDYOFLEISURE READING BEHAViORbyPATRICIA WHITNEYBA., Mount Saint Mary’s College, 1967M.A, San Francisco State University, 1986A THESISSUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHEREQUIREMENTS FORThE DEGREEOFDOCTOROFEDUCA11ONinTHEFACULTYOFGRADUATESTUDIES(Department of Language Education)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITYOF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember, 1994© Patricia Whitney, 1994In presenting this thesis in partialfulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of BritishColumbia, I agree that the Library shallmake itfreely available for reference and study.I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarlypurposes may be granted by the headof mydepartment or by his or her representatives.It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gainshall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of Pc1. e E-cLc-ttoThe University of BritishColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate_______________DE-6 (2/88)IIAbstractThe purpose of this study was to explore why a child who is a capable reader either electstoread or not to read during out-of-school leisure time. A sample ofgrade-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 meanswere conducted forout-of-school activities, amount of reading (books, magazines, newspapers, comic books, andmail), and affective beliefs and values. A series of analyses ofvariance, 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 effectswere found forgender, attitude toward recreational reading, teacher behavior during Undisturbed SustainedSilent Reading, reading behavior of siblings and parents, and provision ofa space for reading inthe home.I’’Table of ContentsAbstractITable of Contents iiiList of Tables vIList of Figuresv iiAcknowledgement viiiChapter 1 Introduction 1Theoretical Framework 4Definitions9Statement of the Problem9Research Questions10Significance of the Study1 0Organization of the Thesis 11Chapter 2 Literature Review1 2Leisure Reading1 2Locus of Control and Intrinsic Motivation25Attitude Toward Recreational Reading3 1Other Variables3 8Summary 51Chapter 3 Method55Design55Subjects 55Instruments58Procedure6 2Analyses70Chapter 4 Results 79ivPreliminary Analyses.80Clock-sheets80Locus of Control97Attitude Toward Recreational Reading98Classroom Factors98Main Analyses1 00Leisure Reading1 00Locus of Control1 01Attitude Toward Recreational Reading101Classroom Factors1 03Home Factors1 04Reasons for Activities1 06Reasons for Reading or Not Reading111Summary 117Chapter 5 Discussion1 20Clock-sheets1 20Leisure Reading Comparisons1 23Locus of Control129Attitude Toward Recreational Reading1 30Interviews1 33Classroom Factors1 34Home Factors1 35Reasons for Reading or Not Reading1 38Reseach Questions1 41Conclusions1 42Limitations147Implications1 49Bibliography1 52VAppendices1 64Appendix 1. After School Day1 65Appendix2. Weekend Day1 67Appendix 3. Weekend Night169Appendix 4. Student Interview1 71Appendix 5. Teacher Interview1 89Appendix 6. Parent Interview1 96Appendix 7. Letter of Invitation to Participate211Appendix 8. Certificate of Approval fromUBC 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 perActivityper School Day85Table 4 Average Time in Minutes & Percentage of Time Spent perActivityperWeekend 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 Reading95Table 8 Reasons for Participating in Leisure Activities 108Table 9 Encouragement for Leisure Activities 109Table 10 Use of Rewards in the School and in the Home for Leisure Reading . 11 4Table 11 Reasons, Expectations, and Values for Reading ofFrequent Readers 11 5Table 12 Reasons, Expectations, and Values for Reading of Infrequent Readers 116List of FiguresFigure 1 Average Minutes SpentReading Various Materials92Figure 2 Average Minutes Spent Reading on SchoolDays 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, forkeeping me on task with a clear“readingTMfocus. This project tooka very long time, and I appreciate your time in the office andon the telephone. A very special thank youto David Bateson for your effort in introducing metothe language and nuances of statistics. I am most gratefulfor the time you gave so warmly tome. Thank you Claire Staab forthe energy you gave to this project, and for droppingeverything else to give your full attentionto the thesis when it was required. I reallyappreciated your sense of humor and moral support duringthese years.This study would not have been possible without theapproval of the school district, theprincipals, and the teachers. After spending severalyears at the university, it was mostenjoyable to be back in the fieldagain. Thank you. The children who participated in thestudyalso need to be recognized and their parentsas well. There would have been no study withoutyour cooperation. Thankyou.Finally, the support and encouragement of my colleaguesstudying for their doctorates, myfamily, friends, and David—thankyou. 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 mightbe the result of varying values. As Purves andBeach (1972) remarked some timeago, the amount of time one would have for reading duringleisure time would depend not only on one’s ability to readbut also on the rewards one wouldgain from the experience—toquote Asheim (1956), “when a man can read and has readingmaterials readily available, hedoes 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 graduallydevelop stable beliefs andexpectations about their likes and dislikes” (Burroughs,1991, p.257).Maybe a disinterest in reading during leisure time reflects the lackof support found withinthe culture. A recent lEA study (InternationalAssociation for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement) involving 30 countries, reported that“Finnish nine-year-olds ranked first inreading books, cartoons, newspapersand magazines” (Ronnholm, 1993, p.14). One principaland reading educator at a school withinthat country commented thatFinland is a highly literate society, publishing booksand newspapers at a higher per capitalrate than most other industrialized nations. Finland alsoleads the world in percentage ofnewspaper subscribers. Public librariesare everywhere, and everyone has free access tobooks. According to the lEA study, Finns value reading highlyas a leisure activity.(Ronnholm, 1993, p.14)In summary, for whatever reason, there seemsto be an erosion of intrinsic interest inreading as some children matriculate through elementaryschool. Whatever the reasons for notreading for leisure might be, the trendseems to be getting worse (Elley, 1992; Foertsch,1992). This intrinsic interest in readingrefers to reading for the delight or joy or satisfactionthat one can receive from readingduring leisure time. The purpose of this study is toexplorewhy a child either elects to reador not to read during out-of-school leisure time. Grade level isone criterion for investigatingpossible similarities (Athey, 1985; Russell, 1961)for“affective mobilizers”—a termused by Holmes to denote “beliefs, values and attitudes thatpredispose an individual to persist ina field of endeavor” (Athey, 1985, p.528)—in bothfrequent- and infrequent readers. This current investigationwas conducted at the grade-fivelevel because the general concensus seemsto 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 childrenwho arecapable readers do not read during their out-of-school time—aliteracy; (2) what aretherewards, expectations, and values attached to leisure reading for these twogroups—frequent-and infrequent readers; and (3) what is the support found in the classroomas well as in thehome environment for these leisure activities chosenby students, the proposed study will focuson 53 grade-five students found in three schools withchildren 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? Thelatter, being theOrganismic approach, asserts that cognitive and affective processes are takingplace: a personis consciously aware that one’s behavior will have certainoutcomes. Social learning theorytries to integrate these two trends in American psychology, the stimulusresponse orreinforcement theories, and the cognitive theories.The general formula for behavior is that the potential fora behavior to occur in anyspecific psychological situation is a function of the expectancy that thebehavior 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, thepotential for reading to occur inany specific situation (e.g., leisure time) is a function of the expectancy that readingwill 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 inthe determination of” (1955, p.255)all three of these variables. In later writings, Rotter (1975; 1982) describesthe 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 relationto 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 outsideofschool, 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 onexperience. When one has experienced areward during a particular situation, then one will, afterso many experiences, generalize thatthis particular situation provides these rewards.Expectations can also be generalized acrosssituations. When one perceives one situation to be similarto another, then he/she generalizesthat what is likely to happen in this new situation willbe based on what happened in situationsthat were perceived to be similar. Whether or not these generalizations ofsimilar situationsare relevant to a new situation may or may notbe true. Rotter maintains that “the more thesubject tends to differentiate a specific situation fromother situations as a result of moreexperience in the specific situation, the less significant the generalization effectfromexperience in other situations” (1954, p.166). Accordingto this theory then, as studentshave more experience with leisure reading, their expectanciesfor certain rewards will becomemore stable. They will not have to base their expectancies on generalizationsfounded onsimilar situations, such as reading in the classroom. Readers eventuallywill differentiatebetween reading for leisure and reading for work, school,instruction, etc..Rotter has also defined expectancy “as the probability heldby the individual that aparticular reinforcement will occur as a function of a specific behavior on hispart [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 thereinforcement received in a specificsituation is a fifth variable, according to this author,developed by Rotter to explain howreinforcements affect expectancies. “We were interested ina variable that might correct orhelp us to refine our prediction of how reinforcements changeexpectancies” (Rotter, 1975,p.56). “The variable of internal versus external control ofreinforcement” (Rotter, 1966,p.3) is the belief one has over the control of reinforcement.The effect of a reinforcement following somebehavior on the part of a human subject, inother words, is not a simple stamping-in processbut depends upon whether or not theperson perceives a causal relationship betweenhis own behavior and the reward. Aperception of causal relationship need not be all ornone but can vary in degree. (1966,p.1)These beliefs are on a continuum scale ranging frominternal to external. People who believethat their own behavior has everythingto do with receiving reinforcements are considered to7have an internal locus of control. Those whobelieve their behavior has nothing to do with it,that is, the reinforcement is receivedbecause of luck, fate, or powerful others, are consideredto be external in their locus of control.Julian Rotter is not a behaviorist (Shapira, 1976). Hehas 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 experienceis non-existent or limited, then theindividual resorts to generalized expectancy basedon 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 timewhen there are a number of alternatives thathave rewards of similar value.Deci (1975) has chosen to focus on onlyone 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 areexamples of extrinsic rewards while the latter areexamples of intrinsic rewards. A person who is highlyinternal on locus of control may bemotivated intrinsically or extrinsically (Deci,1975). A person whose locus of control isexternal will not be motivated intrinsically orextrinsically because of the belief that one’sbehavior has nothing todo with the expected reward; rewards are given by powerful others,luck, or fate. An example of a classroomsituation reflecting these various beliefs wouldbe astudent reading during Undisturbed Sustained SilentReading (USSR) expecting to be rewardedwith praise because one participatedas a reader. This is an example of a student with aninternal locus of control who is expecting an extrinsicreward. Another student reading duringUSSR, expecting to be rewarded with thepleasure or enjoyment of reading in itself, is anexample of a student with an internal locus of controlwho is expecting an intrinsic reward. Astudent reading during USSR, expecting tobe rewarded with praise because the teacher likeshim/her, is an example of a student withan 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 behaviorand the other expects this reinforcementbecause of powerful others—the teacher happensto like him/her.Deci (1975) is willing to “view Rotter’s conceptof internal locus of control as being anecessary condition for intrinsic motivation”(p.91). Deci defines intrinsically motivatedbehaviors as “behaviors which a person engages into feel competent and self-determining”(p.61). This matches very well withRotter’s view that a person decides that one likesto berewarded with satisfaction, feelings of competence,and self-determination. They have placedahigh value on this reinforcement and theyexpect that their behavior will provide them withthis type of reward. Intrinsicmotivation is believed by Deci to be the reasona child wouldstrive for success. At the sametime, the outcome of this effort could definitely affect one’sexpectation. If one’s behavior broughtabout a reward in a particular situation, one’sexpectancy for this reward to repeat itselfin the future would increase. If one’s behavior didnot result in a reward, thenone’s expectancy would, in time, begin to change. Intrinsicmotivation and locus of control seem closelytied to one another (Stipek & Weisz, 1981).In summary, the argument has been madethat the potential for a behavior (reading) tooccur in any specific psychologicalsituation (e.g., leisure time) is a function of the expectancy(two types, expectancy for a certain kind ofreinforcement, or expectancy that generalizesfrom a series of situations) thatthe behavior (reading) will lead to a particular reinforcement(what is in it for you whenyou read?), and the value of the reinforcement (how much doyouvalue rewards, feelings of delight,or other reinforcements?). It would seem logical that theseareas—leisure time, leisure-timereading, expectancies for certain kinds of reinforcementduring reading, as wellas the values attached to these reading reinforcements, also knownasrewards or reasons for doing things—needto be investigated when exploring intrinsic interestin reading and why childrenwho are able to read choose not to readas a possible activity duringtheir out-of-school time. Inan investigation of children who rarely choose to read,it alsomakes sense to investigate theircounterpart: children who do choose to read. Exploring both9groups will give a morecomplete picture to this complex question of whya child either electsto read or not to read during their leisuretime.DefinitionsThe following definitions willapply to this study:Capable Reader: A student whoscored at the 34th percentile (which is onestandard deviationbelow the mean) or aboveon reading passages found in the Gates-MacGinitie ReadingTest(1992), and was indicatedby the teacher as reading at grade level or above.Reading: This includes allreading of books, newspapers, comic books, mail, andmagazines notmeant for school, and takesplace outside of school.Frequent Reader/Infrequent Reader: Thesample will be listed in rank order using percentsrepresenting approximate proportionsof the day reportedly spent leisure reading.With theuse of a median split, the decision willarbitrarily be made to call the students abovethe linefrequent readers and the studentsbelow the line infrequent readers. Logically, the reasoningfollows that one group read forleisure more frequently during their time out of schoolthan theother group.Intrinsic Rewards or Reasons: Theseare defined as feelings of competence, satisfaction,andself-determination; feelings of delightor other such similar reinforcements for its ownsake.Extrinsic Rewards or Reasons: Easilyapparent or tangible rewards like money, praise,prizes, tokens, or grades.Statement of the ProblemThe problem to be investigatedin this study is why a capable reader either electsto read ornot to read during out-of-schoolleisure time. Since this is an exploratorystudy the purposeis to generate questions and examinethe various answers in orderto document the reasons fornot reading during timeout of school.10Research QuestionsThe following questions will be a part of this exploration:1. Do capable readers read out of school only whenintrinsic 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 classroomand home practices around leisurereading for frequent and infrequent readers?Significance of the StudyWhy is it significant to investigate why capable readerschoose not to read as a possibleactivity during their leisure-time? “Aliteracy, a termdescribing 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 gradualend of the classical age of reading”(Steiner, p.44). He believes we know astonishingly littleabout “the techniques and habits offeeling . . . which surround our reading of a book” (p.44).If educators are serious about the goal of life-long readingfor their students, then this areamerits investigation. “We know more about how information froma text is stored and retrievedfrom memory than we do about why an individual mightelect to interact with a text in the firstplace” (Alvermann, 1987, p.25). Knowing the factors thataffect why readers choose to read ornot to read may assist teachers in planning their programsand providing materials to match orreflect these factors.Psychology as a scientific endeavor relies upon similarities amongsubjects that canform the basis for generalizations andultimately scientific laws. If persons who canbegrouped on the basis of one criterion, e.g., grade level or reading score,tend to exhibitsimilar affective mobilizers, then that fact in itselfcan 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 theliterature about readers. What are the“affective mobilizers” at this age? “We need to know theintrinsic worth of reading for eachperson in a group or class” (Russell, 1961, p.112).11Organization of the ThesisThe thesis is organized infive chapters. Chapter One has presented the problem and therationale for the study. The questionsexamined have been outlined, and the terms that areusedin the thesis have been defined.Chapter Two presents a review of the related literatureconcerned with the theoretical aspects of leisurereading, locus of control and intrinsicmotivation, attitude toward recreational reading, andother variables—found in the classroomand in the home. Chapter Three describes the researchdesign and methodology of the study.Included in this chapter area description of the nature and selection of the sample, theinstruments, the procedures followed, and the dataanalyses for the study. Chapter Fourpresents the results of the data analyses. Chapter Fiveincludes a discussion of the results, aswell as conclusions, limitations, andimplications for future research.12CHAPTER IILiterature ReviewThe concept of readingthroughout this thesis will be limitedto reading for leisure, fun, orpleasure outside of theclassroom or school unless otherwisenoted. As well, recreationalreading and leisure-timereading will also be considered synonymous inthis paper. It is notclear at times within theliterature whether expressions suchas “interest in reading,”“amounts of reading,” “readingbehavior”, “voluntary reading,” and “activereaders” includereading for school.Reported differences forgender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, andability will bediscussed in each sectionand will be limited to those studiesmentioned in that section of thereview. These findingswill then be analyzed to show howthey represent the infrequentreaderat the grade-five level in thesummary section of this chapter.Leisure ReadingA review of the literatureon recreational reading revealsthat there is no shortage ofsurveys (A. Taylor, 1982)regarding children’s and youngpeople’s leisure-time readinginterests. However, theredoes appear to be a lack of empiricalevidence on the development ofaleisure-reading habit (Greaney,1980). The following review hasbeen limited to studieswhich includeintermediate-grade students, witha particular focus on grade five, inBritain andNorth America during thelast twenty-four years (1970 to thepresent) that focus on theinterest in reading—whichincludes amounts of time spentreading for leisure—rather thanreading interests or preferences.There are two reasons for limitingthe review to studies thatinclude grade five: first,because it is one of the years of the “readingcraze” (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 presentstudy.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 isinvolved, sincethey found that girls of certain ability groups tended to read more thanboys 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 todoso” (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, andage 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 devotedto 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 shouldbe noted that some ofthese students must have been poor readers since the sample was “similarto a national norm”.A book reader was likely to attend a girls’ school in a rural area, wasa 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 unlikelyto 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 whichwas 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 fourdays (Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, and thefollowing Monday) using the same diary technique. The sample consisted ofa 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 minutestonewspapers). 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 thatthissample population was in the fourth quartile for reading achievement andverbal abilitymeasures, one can assume that these infrequent readers were capable of reading.In Scotland, Maxwell (1977) investigated the progress of reading among 5000studentsbetween 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 fora period ofseven days” (p.55). Out-of-school reading could include reading for school—whethera project16or other classwork, reading for pleasurebecause of something which interested them in school,as well as reading for none of these reasons. The sample population was of mixedability,equally representative for gender distribution,and for socioeconomic status. Ethnic backgroundwas not reported. Findings were reported for the numberof books and ephemera—comic books,newspapers, and magazines—that a student had read over the sample time period ofone week.From ages 8 to 15, it was reported that girls read more than boys when it cameto books, butwhen it came to ephemera, girls readless 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% ofthe 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 thisstudy as having the smallest proportion ofinfrequent readers: 19% were infrequent readers of books and 4% were infrequentreaders ofephemera. At the next level when students transferto secondary school—Si (similar to grade7)—the population of infrequent readers then beginsto 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 mustbe noted, however, that since this sample populationconsisted of students of mixed ability, it is conceivable that some of these infrequentreadersmay have found reading too difficult.An extensive study on out-of-school activities was conductedby Anderson et al. in the early1980’s in Illinois to find out whether out-of-school activities were relatedto readingachievement. The investigation took place in two different schools: asmall village school for aperiod of 8 weeks (early March to mid May) anda 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 moreboys 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 wereto 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 nationalaverage on astandardized reading comprehension test, it is reasonable to conclude that this wasa 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 includereading forschool since this was not explicitly stated as in the other studies mentionedpreviously. Most ofthese children did little or no book reading. A median of 4.6 minutes wasconsidered a typicalamount of reading per day on books. Other types of reading—comics, mail,newspapers, andmagazines—amounted to a median of 2.6 minutes perday. While gender differences were notreported, it was stated that “girls read more than boys” (p.296). The researchersconcluded,after factoring out other possibilities, that based on the fact that “the class thatread the mostaveraged 16.5 minutes per day while the class that read the least averaged only4.1 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 withoutthe influenceof their teacher, it was surmised that teachers mightbe able to help more children to become so.This conclusion was based on interviews with eight avid readers who talkedabout “teachershaving books available in the classroom, readingto the class, recommending books to them,talking to them about books they had read, and requiring themto read a certain number ofbooks” (Fielding, Wilson, & Anderson, 1984, p.155). In answer to theresearch question,results showed that of all the ways children spent their time, reading bookswas the bestpredictor of reading achievement.Other researchers have not been able to substantiate that timespent reading at home isrelated to reading achievement gains. B. M. Tayloret al. (1990) investigated the effects of timespent reading at school and at home on reading achievement. The sample populationincluded164 grade-five and grade-six students who kept daily reading logs, at theend of each 50 minutereading class, on their school and home book reading. Both readingat school and reading at homecould have been assigned or self-selected. The sample included three classes ofabove average18readers, six classes of average readers, andtwo classes of below average readers. Descriptionsfor gender, ethnicity, and SES werenot given, nor was the location of thestudy given in thisreport.Each school day students completed sentences locatedin their reading logs which asked forminutes, page numbers, and title of book forassigned reading as well as pleasure readingduringreading class, and minutes only for assignedreading and pleasure reading at home onthe daybefore. These records were kept for 17 weeksfrom mid January to mid May. Students averaged15.0 (SD = 13.6) minutes of readingper day at home and 15.8 (SD = 4.1) minutesat school.The range in amount of time for homereading was quite large and may have beeninfluenced byreading ability, since it was reportedthat part of the sample was reading at abelow averagelevel. On the other hand, because the datafor home reading was combined—minutesfor assignedreading and minutes for pleasure reading—thisfigure would have included time for homework—assigned reading—which could also have hadan influence on total time. The significantfindingfor the study was that the amount of timespent on reading during the reading periodsat schoolcontributed significantly to gains in students’reading achievement, whereas time spentreadingat home was not significantly related to readingachievement. Neither gender nor abilitydifferences were reported, nor was there anyfurther descriptive information provided onstudents who did little reading—the infrequentreader.Allen et al. (1992) designed a study usinggrade-five students to “assess the convergentvalidity of a variety of indicators of readinghabits and dispositions” (p.489) in ordertovalidate 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 varietyofinstruments. Some tables indicate that thesample dipped to 43 students. However, 61 studentsdid complete the daily diaries that were animproved version of those used by Andersonet al.(1988). The school wasa private university school in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, whichattemptedto include diverse levels of socioeconomicstatus. Eleven percent of the sample receivedfinancial aid. Neither ethnicity nor abilitylevels were reported in the description ofthesample.19Students filled out the daily diaries for 15days from mid April to early May, Sundaythrough Thursday, during the first few minutes oflanguage arts, which could be in the morningor the afternoon. It was reported that these fifthgraders spent a mean of 10.2 minutes pernight reading books for pleasure with a median readingtime of 5 minutes. When all readingmaterials were included—comics, books (with orwithout titles) assigned or unassigned,newspapers, and magazines—it was reported that thesestudents spent an average of 21.3minutes per night reading with a median readingtime of 16 minutes. This figure would haveincluded homework—assigned reading. Becauseability levels were not reported in the sampledescription, it is not known if all of these participantswere capable readers.A few significant relationships were noted. Theresearchers found “negative correlationsbetween watching television and book reading (-.28),and between watching television and allreading (-.34). The correlation betweenbook reading and television watching increased to-.38(p< .01) when reading comprehension was partialledout’ (p.496). Gender differenceswere not reported nor was there any mention ofthe infrequent reader.In the early 1970’s, a three yearstudy was undertaken to investigate the reading habitsof65 children as they matriculated through grade four, five, and six, and therelationship betweenthese habits and achievement on standardized readingtests (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 schoollocated in central NewYork.For three years, during the school year,students filled Out a reading record each time theyread a book. Information is not givenas 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 readinga 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 booksduring these years, but since it wasnot reported that all children were capable readers, thismay be part of the explanation. As forthe relationship between reading habits and reading abilitymeasures, only the habit of seeking20out books by known authors was foundto have a consistently moderate relationship. All otherreading habits, such as rereading books,selection of books, and sources of books wereeitherdisplayed or not displayed in equal proportionsby all types of readers. “Reading habits appearto be very diverse in the intermediate grades’(p.25). It was also reported that criticalreaderswere not always avid readers and that capablereaders sometimes were not readingat all. Thisis not to say that reading leveldoes not play a small role in children’s reading sincethere wasevidence of a relationship between thenumber of books read and children’s readingtest scoresfor all three years (Lamme,1976).Long and Henderson (1972), interestedin the amount of time students spent readingindependently, whether in school or at home, conducteda study with 207 fifth-graders. In twosuburban schools near an industrial city,students were given booklets with sheets withsectionsmarked off in 15 minute intervals torecord all spare-time activities. Theseself-reportscovered an unspecified two week period.In the end, 57 students were eliminatedbecause it wasfound that 33 were not readingat grade level according to their comprehension score on theGates-MacGinitie Test, and 24 had incompleterecords due to absentism. The remainingsamplepopulation consisted of 75boys and 75 girls, all Caucasian, with 65% havingfathers in white-collar jobs and 35% havingfathers in blue-collar jobs.The researchers found a “relative rarity”of reading—i 1/2 hours per week on theaverage(p.198); and “time spent reading waspositively related to socioeconomic status,to intelligence,and to all four scores fromthe Gates-MacGinitie test” (p.197). There was nosignificantdifference found betweenboys and girls for the activity of reading. However, the activityofreading was not categorized into varioustypes of leisure reading (books, comics, ornewspapers). It was reported that one thirdof the sample population did not read duringthe twoweek period.Rasinski (1987) interviewed 26 third-and 40 fifth-grade students from twoelementaryschools representing high- and low-socioeconomicneighborhoods, and two ditferent ethnicpopulations—Caucasian/Black. The purpose of thestudy was to find out if differences existedinthe frequency and the amount of timedevoted to reading at home (measured through theuse of21self-report) by high- and low-performing elementarygrade readers, based on performance ofthe Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. Theinterview questions, however, did not delineate betweenreading materials, but instead were generalizedto reading—”how often he or she read at home”(almost every day, 4 or 5 times a week, 2 or3 times a week, hardly ever), and “estimate thenumber of minutes spent reading at one time” (10minutes or less, between 10-30, more than30). The latter question was given to only the fifthgraders. Another confounding factor wasthat reading at home was notdefined; students may have included reading for school as wellasfor leisure.Evidence revealed that 80% of the high-ability readingstudents were reading at least fourtimes a week, whereas only 25% of the low-abilityreading students were reading that often.There were greater lengths of timespent 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 werethey reported when describing the samplepopulation. The reading behaviors of theinfrequent reader were reported. In the third-gradegroup, one subject of thehigh-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 fromthelow-ability group chose this category.In summary, studies seemto underline the fact that book reading and periodical reading,which includes magazines and comic books,shows an overall decline as childrenmove throughthe grades (Lamme, 1976;Maxwell, 1977; A. Taylor, 1982; Whitehead et al., 1975),although Moffitt (1992) has reported anexception for this decline in older adolescents.Withinthis decline, there are reported genderdifferences. A number of studies have shown thatthereare more non-book readers amongthe boys at grade 5 (Greaney, 1980; Greaney& Hegarty,1987; Whitehead et al., 1975),at grade 7 (Whitehead et al., 1975), at grade9 (Moffitt,1992; Whiteheadet al., 1975), and at grades 10-12 (Moffitt, 1992). Girls not onlyreadmore books (Maxwell, 1977)but they also read more periodicals (A. Taylor, 1982;Whiteheadet al., 1975). However, when comics aredistinguished from magazines, 11-,12-,and 13 year22old boys have been foundto be reading more comic books than girls (A. Taylor, 1982). Thiswasalso true for grade-fiveboys in Ireland (Greaney, 1980). Other studies have found nosignificant gender differences in the numberof 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 havealso been reported by some of these researchers.Maxwell (1977) reported thatsocioeconomic background played a strong part indetermining how many books were read.Good readers who had attended primary schools of highsocioeconomic status or whose fatherswere employed in non-manual occupations were readingmore books than were good readersof lower social backgroundby the time they reached Secondary 2 (grade eight). Goodreaders of lower socioeconomic background weremore likely to cut down on books as theygrew older. (p.11 8)Others have also found positivecorrelations between SES and leisure reading (Greaney, 1980;Long & Henderson, 1972;Whitehead et al., 1977).Ethnic differences werenot 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 havinga higher level of reading ability seems to becorrelated with amounts of timespent leisure reading. However, Lamme (1976) did not findarelationship between reading habits and abilityto read, other than seeking out books by knownauthors, although it was reportedthat 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, reportedthatamount of time spent on readingat home was not significantly related to reading achievement.Although grade five is one of theyears when students are reading, this is not the case forallstudents. Findings have revealed thatstudents at this age were reading 2.95 books duringthemonth of February/March in Englandand in Wales in 1 971, but it also revealed that amongthese capable readers, 15.8% of theboys and 9.4% of the girls were not reading books;as well,17% of the boys and 12% ofthe girls were not reading periodicals (magazines/comics)eitherduring this month. In Ireland,in 1980 for three days in June, it was revealed thatgrade-fivestudents were only spending an average of 5.4%of their leisure time reading; 44% werenotreading 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 sincethe 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 theirleisure 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 fourdays (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’swere reading anaverage of 19.5 books, although some of these books may have beenread in school. Somechildren, however, read virtually nothing. Anotherstudy reported fifth-grade studentsspending on the average one hour anda half per week reading during the two week period of datacollection, with one-third of these capable readers notreading during this time frame (Long &Henderson, 1972). In the early 1980’s, it was reported that fifth-graderswere spending onthe average 4.6 minutes per day reading books, and2.6 minutes per day reading comics,newspapers, magazines, and mail during the months fromNovember to May, but that most of thechildren, who placed above the national average ona standardized reading comprehension test,did little or no book reading during this extensive time frame (Andersonet al., 1988). Finally,in the mid 1980’s, froma 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 orless each week. How much time students would spend at onetime reading at home also varied between these twogroups of fifth-graders: 60% of the highability students would spend morethan 30 minutes at one time reading at home, 35% wouldspend between 10-30 minutes, and5% would spend 10 minutes or less; 35% of the lowability students would spend more than30 minutes, 45% between 10-30 minutes, and 20% 10minutes or less (Rasinski, 1987).There are, of course, criticisms to be made of some ofthe studies mentioned in the review.Some did not give adequate descriptions of their samplepopulations for such variables as gender(Allen et al., 1992; Rasinski, 1987;B. M. Taylor et al., 1990) or ethnic background (Allenet24al., 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 andthisinformation was not reported in some studies (Greaney& Hegarty, 1987; Long & Henderson,1972; Rasinski, 1987). The term “reading’ was sometimes used ina 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. Tayloret at., 1990).Are students spending more time, or less time, leisure reading? Itis very difficult if notimpossible to make this judgementdue to the various sampling procedures found in thesestudies. For example, when investigating leisure reading, not only were differenttimes of theyear under consideration, but also numerous lengths of time were used fordata collection forthe activity of reading. General time frames includeda 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. Tayloret al., 1990), or over three years (Lamme, 1976). Themethod of data gathering was also diverse, including questionnairesabout reading (Whitehead etat., 1975), interviews (Rasinski, 1987), botha questionnaire and an interview (Lamme,1976), daily diaries accounting for all leisure activities (Allenet at., 1992; Anderson et at.,1988; Greaney, 1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Long& Henderson, 1972), and daily readinglogs (B. M. Taylor et al., 1990). Findings werealso reported in different forms, such asnumber of books (Lamme, 1976; Maxwell, 1977; Whiteheadet 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 approachesadd to the difficulty of making direct comparisons. Underlyingalt of these weaknesses is the major weakness of expecting childrento give accurate informationwhen asking them to recall howmuch time they spend leisure reading through self-reportinterviews or questionnaires. This isa problem for a few of these studies (Maxwell, 1977;Rasinski, 1987; Whitehead et al., 1975).25The present study used the diary-technique (Allenet 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 andvaluesattached 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 bothapproaches, an indepthanalysis was possible and adds to the literature on what contributesto the development of theleisure-reading habit. The focus is on the capable infrequent reader rather than thefrequentreader which has been traditionally the focus for all studiesmentioned in this review.Grade-five students were chosen as the target population for thisstudy 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 intheir leisure time(Whitehead et al., 1975), compared to other grade levels, whichguaranteed 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, thisstudy investigatedone area that has not been investigated at this level or any otherlevel, as far as this author isaware of, the rewards and values associated with the leisure activity ofreading. It also fills thegap of what grade-five students do with their leisure time in a representative Canadiansample.Locus of Control and Intrinsic MotivationLocus of control is the belief one has regarding the control ofrewards. Having an internallocus of control is believed to be a necessary condition forintrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975,p.91). An internal locus of control means that an individualbelieves that his/her behavior haseverything to do with receiving a reward. Intrinsic motivationmeans 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 ofcontrolbehaviors 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 ofcontrolliterature, it was necessary to expand the scope of this review to include investigationsin areasother than reading and intrinsic motivation.Several studies investigating children’s locus of control in learning situations havereportedfinding 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 highschool students but didfind that, in the poor reading classes, males had significantly higher internalscores thanfemales.Willey (1978) found significant correlations of locus of control withSES for studentsrepresenting a broad range of SES backgroundsat 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 significantat 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 (betweenthe 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 weremore internal than “Black leaders.” On the other hand,Milgram (1971) reported the absenceof 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 inan 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 controlorientation as asignificant determinant of academic achievement” (Nowicki & Duke, 1983,p.24). Whether achild was Black or White, according to this report, having aninternal 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 relatedto higherachievement in academic settings for children ranging in age from 7to 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 ontheeffects rewards have on subsequent interest. Whena person’s locus of control has an internalorientation, he or she can be motivated either intrinsically and extrinsically. Theuse of thelocus of control dimension in predicting an individual’s intrinsicmotivation response to variousexternal rewards is considered at best a complicated prediction (Lonky& Reihman, 1980).Praise, an external reward, can be interpretedas either reinforcement to a person’scompetence or as a controlling aspect to keepa student on task. Several studies (Danner &Lonky, 1981; Lonky & Reihman, 1980; Martin, 1977) have foundthat children with aninternal locus of control increase in motivation following praise,whereas those with anexternal locus of control decrease in motivation in responseto 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 forothers. Baron and Ganz(1972) and Baron, Cowan, Ganz and McDonald (1974) foundexternally-oriented children to bemore sensitive to the controllingaspect of verbal reinforcement.What affect do rewards have on intrinsic motivation? Afterreviewing the literature,Condry & Koslowski (1979) concluded that “taskextrinsic rewards tend to have detrimentaleffects on both the performance of a task and the individual’ssubsequent interest in the task”28(p.255) when it comes to learning. Taskextrinsic rewards are similar to non-contingentrewards; rewards are given for just participating. Contingent rewards, on theother hand, aregiven depending on the quality of the performance.Murphy (1986) concluded thatcontingent reward exercises, in genera!, an undermining influence onintrinsic motivation,at least in the short term. However, this may be ameliorated when task parametersareconsidered. Secondly, non-contingent reward tendsnot to exercise an undermining influenceon intrinsic motivation, but neither does it tendto 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 solvingstrategies than non-rewardedsubjects. (p.24)Brewer, Dunn, and Olszewski (1988) have cautionedothers to avoidthe oversimplification that token programs somehowpossess an inherently inimical qualityin and of themselves. Instead of focusing exclusively onthe token reward system itself, amore productive focus would be on the conditions under which tokenreward systemsundermine intrinsic interest. (p.166)How locus of control affects the learner in a reading situation—allkinds of reading, notjustreading for leisure—has not been investigatedas heavily as in other learning situations.Differences in locus of control and reading abilities amonggrade-three students was reportedbyPani (1991) when examining the effects of culture andlocus of control on reading performanceamong tribal and nontribal Indian students inIndia. The poorest performance was evidencedbysubjects with external locus of control. Chariton and Terell (1987)reported significant meangains in reading age for grade-three students afterenhancing internal locus of control beliefsthrough group counselling for 15 weeks. Bartel(1971) found that by second grade, first-grade reading-readiness scores correlated positivelywith internal locus of control for high-achieving middle-class children. Gains in readingcomprehension and language mechanics forgrade-five students whose teachers were internalrather than external in their locusof controlwere reported by Murray and Staebler (1974).Boraks, Brittain, Linder, and Bauer (1993)reportedly found that locus of control scorescorrelated positively with reading comprehensionfor their sample of grade-four and grade-fivestudents. Wooster (1974), in his investigationwith boys (age 13-15 years) consideredby the British to be educationally subnormal,foundbetter results on a measure of reading ability for studentswhose locus of control scores wereinternal. Matheny and Edwards (1 974) alsofound a statistically significant correlation29between locus of control scores and reading achievementwith students in grades two to seven.Willey (1978), investigating the relationshipof locus of control to self-esteem and sixmeasures of reading performance with elementary and junior highstudents, found the locus ofcontrol measure to be a significant predictor of oral reading scoresand number of bookscompleted in a six-week summer reading tutorial program. Advancedreaders in Nielsen andLong’s study of high school seniors (1981) had significantly higherinternal locus of controlscores. However, Nielsen and Long also found that inthe best reading groups there were nogender differences in locus of control; however, in thepoor reading classes males had higherinternal locus of control scores.In a study examining locus of controland reading attitude for 431 inner-city children inColumbus, Ohio, D. H. Brown, Engin, and Walbrown (1979) failedto find a relationshipbetween these two variables for a sample ofstudents from grade four, five, and six. They didfind, however, a significant relationshipfor 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 internalresponsibility for successes (1+), and a subscore forbeliefs in internal responsibility forfailures (1-) Lefcourt, 1991.] Three years later Blahaand Chomin (1982), conductinga similar study with 322 inner-city grade-five students usingthe same instruments, reported five readingattitude 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 reporta willingness to assume personalresponsibility for successful academicachievement also tend to perceive themselves as freefrom difficulties with reading, beingless anxious about reading activities, valuingreading-type activities for their extrinsicreinforcement value and for their intrinsicvalues as a source of information, learning, and emotionalsatisfaction, and valuing theirreading group. (p.30)Whitney (1986), investigating the relationship between locusof control and intrinsicallymotivated reading for grade-six children,found no differences between students with aninternal orientation and students with anexternal orientation. The study examined students’30leisure reading for a period of six weeks and concludedthat students felt that they were “toobusy” for free-choice reading activities.One variable that might possibly strengthen the prediction ofa relationship betweenintrinsically motivated reading and locus of control mightbe 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 accountedfor, but very fewresearchers have reported the reinforcement values for their subjects,whether these werestudies of achievement (Nowicki & Duke, 1983) or studies in other areas. Inits simplestsense, according to social learning theory, reinforcement value is thesubjective 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 goalobject orreinforcement, the object chosen has the greater reinforcement value’ (Feather,1982,p.412).Over 30 years ago, when investigating the value of intellectual gainswith students fromgrade one, -two, and -three using the Children’s Achievement WishesTest, Crandall et al.(1962) found this value to be predictive of achievement for girls butnot for boys. Much later,Naditch and DeMaio (1975) found that reinforcement value moderatedthe relationship betweenlocus and control and competence measures when investigating grade-ninestudents 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 locusof control.In summary, it appears that there isa significant correlation between locus of control andsocioeconomic status. As well, locus of control orientation appearsto be a significantdeterminant of academic achievement. Thedebate on how rewards affect intrinsic motivationcontinues around this controversial topic. Some studiesin the field of reading have found locusof control orientation to reach levelsof significance for reading achievement, predicting oralreading scores, and reading attitudes, as well as for the number of booksread in a summerreading program (Blaha & Chomin, 1982; Matheny& Edwards, 1974; Willey, 1978). Other31studies in reading have reported that locus of controlcorrelates positively with reading-readiness scores, reading comprehension, and significant meangains in reading after enhancinginternal locus of control beliefs (Bartel, 1971; Borakset al., 1993; Charlton & Terell,1987). As well, advanced readers have been foundto 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 controlhas remained substantial, with more than700 studies being reported using the Children’sNowicki-Strickland Internal-External (CNSIE)scale (Strickland, 1989) alone, there is relativelylittle research investigating therelationship of this variable with reading orintrinsic 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 withextreme scores who do seem to haveageneral 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 thebetter measures of locus of control as ageneralized expectancy presently available for children (p.444). Thisstudy not onlyinvestigated beliefs in control over rewards usingthe CNSIE scale, but also explored reportedreasons for leisure reading.Attitude Toward Recreational ReadingRecreational reading of books, magazines, newspapers, and comicbooks, and how one feels orthinks about this activity would seem to be a necessarycomponent of an investigation into howone spends his/her time out of school. “Notheory of social behavior can be complete withoutincorporation of attitude functioning, and it isdoubtful that complex social behavior canbepredicted without a knowledge of attitude’ (Shawand Wright, 1967, p.14). An attitude isdefined by Allport (1967) as “a mental and neuralstate of readiness, organized throughexperience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’sresponse to allobjects and situations with which it is related” (p.8).32By the age of 11pupils will have formed attitudes towards reading from the influence of thehome from early childhood and their experiences inschool in the last six years. Theseattitudes will already be affecting the voluntaryuse they make of their reading skills.(Gorman, White, Orchard, & Tate, 1981, p.53)Reading attitudes have been investigatedby 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 thearea of leisure reading, “far more attentionhas been focussed in the literature oncognitive factors” (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987, p.16).Only recently has an instrument beenconstructed which includes measures for recreational-reading attitudes (Mckenna & Kear, 1990). Greaney& Hegarty (1987) referred to severalstudies which reported that growth inpositive reading attitudes parallels growth in levels ofreading achievement (Healy, 1965;Roettger, Szymezuk, & Millard, 1979; Rowell, 1972;Walberg & Tsai, 1984); and higher levels of readingachievement correlated significantly withamount of leisure reading (Connor, 1954; Greaney,1980; Long & Henderson, 1972; Maxwell,1977; Whitehead et al., 1975).A favorable attitude would appear tobe a necessary precondition to a willingness to devotesome leisure time to reading; a child who does not havea favorable attitude is likely toselect other forms of leisure activity from the wide range of availablealternatives.(Greaney & Hegarty, 1987, p.5)This review is limited to those studiesthat have investigated children’s recreational-readingattitudes, as well as those studies that haveinvestigated nonschool, voluntary, free, leisure, orout-of-school reading, and have included an attitudemeasure in that investigation.A Survey of Reading Attitudes (Wallbrown, Brown,& Engin, 1975) is one attitudemeasurement scale that includes a dimension forleisure reading. “Reading as Enjoyment”, oneof the eight dimensions of attitude towardreading addressed in this survey, purports to assessone’s preference for reading activities and leisure-timereading (Shapiro & White, 1991).Blaha and Chomin (1982) reportedscores for “Reading as Enjoyment” as being significantlyrelated to verbal academic aptitude for grade-fivestudents. 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 ina33school situation where no direct reading instructiontook place viewed reading as being anenjoyable way to spend time, as compared to children ina traditional classroom situation usingbasal reading instruction.The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) (McKenna& Kear, 1990) consists of twosubscales: one for academic reading and one forrecreational reading. McKenna, Stratton,Grindler, Rakestraw, and Jenkins (1992) used thisinstrument to examine differences inreading attitudes between students in a traditional basalsetting and students in a whole languagesetting from grades one to five. They reported findinga decline in recreational-readingattitudes as students matriculated for both methodsof instruction. Significant main effectswere observed for grade level (steadydecline) and gender (girls had better attitudes), but notfor method of instruction. Several recentinvestigations have used the Elementary ReadingAttitude Survey (ERAS) as an instrument for measuringrecreational and academic readingattitudes. Allen et al. (1992) investigating the validityof a new instrument—LiteratureRecognition Measures—reported correlationsbetween the amount of time spent reading booksduring nonschool time and the ERASrecreational scale for grade-five students. When exploringthe relationship between reading comprehension andattitudes toward recreational and schoolreading, Boraks et al. (1993) found no differenceswithin their sample of grade-four and -fivestudents. Cloer and Pearman (1993) examinedgender differences for attitudes towardrecreational and academic reading with students fromgrades one to six in 15 different schools.Using the ERAS with these childrenas well as their teachers, they found that boys, girls, andteachers all had significantly lower academic readingattitude scores as compared torecreational reading attitude scores. In thisstudy, the boys’ attitude scores towardrecreational and academic reading declined withincreasing grade level, whereas the girlsmaintained high attitude scores towards recreationalreading throughout the six grades.Duggins (1989), conducting a three-year study onmiddle school students’ reading attitudesand interest in reading,used the Literature /Reading Survey (California Media & LibraryEducators Association, 1984) with 753 grade-six studentsof varying ability, ethnicity, andsocioeconomic status. This instrumentconsists of 21 items that focus on attitudes about34reading, 16 items onuse of free time, 16 items about reading interests, and 19 items onknowledge of literature. Except for gender differences—femaleswere 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 theway they claim to spend their leisuretime. Differences in knowledge of literature was nosurprise since this subtest on the surveymeasured ability as it is defined in schools. “Asone might expect, in an urban community witha high percentage of immigrants, suburban children were more knowlegeableabout Americanchildren’s literature than all but the gifted inner-citysixth graders” (p.1 0).The Reading Attitude Inventory (Lewis, 1979) wasused by Reiff (1985) wheninvestigating grade-three students’ learning styles,reading styles, and attitudes. It was foundthat even though students indicateda generally favorable reading attitude, playtime andtelevision were preferred above reading. Greaney and Hegarty’s (1987)investigation ofgrade-five students’ leisure-time readingused a slightly modified version of Lewis scale intheir study of leisure habits, andreported that “attitude to reading correlated more highly withleisure-time reading than any of the other variablesincluded in the study; the correlationbetween attitude and time was significant evenafter controlling for sex, reading achievementand library membership”(p.3).The Assessment ofAttitudes toward Reading inPrimary Pupils (Askov, 1972) was usedbyMorrow and Weinstein (1 986) in their examinationof grade-two students’ voluntaryuse oflibrary centers at school and reading attitudes, andwhether or not these two variables couldbeaffected by a literature program emphasizing theenjoyment of books. It was reported thatteacher-initiated literature activities and enhancementof school library centers had no affecton students’ attitudes toward reading, noron their reading habits at home. Althoughobservations of behavior during free-choice time atschool indicated that attitudes had becomemore positive, the researchers suspect that “the inventorywas 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, andDavis (1981)developed and adapted Spanish versions of measures of reading attitudesand academic selfconcept. They reported that reading attitudes had improved significantlybetween 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 monthsat 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-fourstudents’ readingattitude. All but the control group were given 30 minutesof recreational reading each day atschool for one year. There was no recreational reading forthe control group. The ManningReadingAttitude Inventory was used as a pre- and post-test.Students that had been exposed tothe peer interaction model and the teacher-studentconference 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 waspositively related to attitude towardreading for grade-five students. The study focused onindependent 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 relatingthis to the home literaryenvironment” (p.22). Grade-four students participated in the study andfindings revealed that“factors in the home environment explaina significant portion of the variance in a child’sreading attitude” (p.22) when it comesto independent reading. Fleming (1953), investigatingleisure-time reading habits and attitudes ofsenior high-school students using an instrumentconstructed for the purpose of the investigation, foundthat there were no significantdifferences in reading attitudes between the groups of upperto lower sociometric status.Other investigators have developed a questionnaire whichincludes only a few questions onattitude. Lane (1985), using a student questionnaire with323 grade-seven students to assessattitude toward leisure reading, reported that 93% of the girls foundleisure reading to beenjoyable as compared to 65% of the boys. Gorman et al. (1981) developedtwo instruments,36one for informationabout pupils’ response to voluntary reading, and one for information aboutpupils’ attitudes to reading in general. After analyzing theanswers in these questionnaires forgrade-six students, it was reported that reading at home correlated with mean readingperformance scores. “The mean reading performance scores werehigher for pupils whoexpressed confident, positive attitudes, but the correlation coefficients,although consistent,were low” (p.81). Whitehead et al. (1977), usinga questionnaire that included questions onattitude with students aged 10, 12, and 14, found “an associationbetween ability andattainment and favourable attitude to school” (p.76) while examiningvoluntary reading.Ability and attainment were strongly linked with amount of book reading;a child’s favorableattitude towards school was positively associated with voluntaryreading. Healy (1965)measured attitude toward reading with grade-five studentsby asking them in a questionnairehow much they liked reading. There werethree categories for the data: “liked”, ‘neutral”, and“disliked”. This question was asked at the beginning of theschool year before the students weretaught reading using an experimental teaching method, and then againat the end of the schoolyear. The purpose was to determine the influence of initialreading experiences—when studentsfirst entered school—upon attitudes, andto assess the effects of changing attitudes towardreading after this grade-five experience. A positivechange of attitude was reported at thispoint. At grade seven, 65% of these students were availablefor a follow-up assessment. Thistime reading attitude was measured using an achievementtest and the number of books read. Itwas found that there was a significant difference between theexperimental group and thematched sample (control group) in total reading achievement gainsand in number of books readduring the first semesterat the grade-seven level.Besides attitude measurements, other instruments haverecently been developed to measurereading habits and dispositions, suchas those reported by Cunningham and Stanovich (1990;1991), and Stanovichand West (1989). These studies used literature recognition measurestoindicate relative individual differences in exposure to printoutside of school (Allen et al.,1992).37In summary, there have been a variety of instruments used to investigate readingattitudesand 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 factorsthatseem to have improved students’ reading attitudes: givingstudents time to read, having booksavailable in a student’s first language, teacher-student conferences, peer interactionsaroundrecreational reading, teaching methods, and home literary environments. Positivereadingattitudes seem to be linked with higher levels of reading ability. Students with higherreadingabilities seem to spend significantly more time reading forrecreation, although two studiesreported that positive reading attitudes correlate more highlywith recreational reading thandoes achievement. Ability level was reportedly unrelated to library centeruse in one study.One study found that there is a steady decline in recreational-reading attitudes fromgrades oneto five; another study reported this was only so for boys. According to anotherstudy, therewere no significant differences in interest for reading and how students spenttheir leisuretime, other than that girls were twiceas 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) reportedlyfound that ingrades four to six, this significant difference was only inregards to recreational reading; girlsstill maintained high attitude scores for recreational reading.Gorman et al. (1981), however,found no significant differences between grade-six boys’ andgirls’ attitudes towards voluntaryreading, except to the question “I don’t like it when I haven’tgot anything to read at home.”Girls responded positively to that statementsignificantly more frequently than did boys.Morrow and Weinstein (1 986) reportedthat girls engaged in the use of library centers duringtheir free-choice time at school significantly more oftenthan did boys.Socioeconomic status and reading attitudes were investigatedby some of these researchers,and it was reported that there were no significant differencesbetween SES and attitude toreading (Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), between SES and the linked variablesof ability and38attainment with a favourable attitude to school whichwas positively associated with voluntaryreading (Whitehead et aL, 1977), or between SESand the reported degree of interest inreading, the kinds of books read, or theuse of free/leisure time (Duggins, 1989). Duggins’study was the only one to report on any possible ethnic differences forreading attitude, and nosignificant differences were to be found.Does attitude influence one’s decisionto spend time reading for recreation? The answerseems to be a tentative “yes”. Tentative because while some have foundit to be, not all studieshave found this to be true. This is one ofthe 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 seeminglybe impossible tounderstand their choices for activities during out-of-schooltime.Other VariablesStudents spend time in at least two environments during the day—theclassroom, and thehome. What impact these two environments have on eachindividual’s decision to read isdifficult to measure—perhaps impossible—but they needto be accounted for in order toascertain what effect either environment might have. Although therehave been numeroustheoretical discussions throughout theliterature, there have been very few studies which haveincluded these environmentsas variables of interest. This review will be limited to thosestudies that have investigated eitherclassroom practices around reading, home practicesaround reading, or both, and whether or not these environmentsaffect the amount of time astudent spends reading for leisure.“A great deal has been writtenabout techniques to encourage recreational reading, but littleresearch has been conducted todocument their effectiveness” (Manning & Manning, 1984,p.376). Quite often one finds such sweeping statementsasThe amount of independent readingfor both boys and girls is positively correlated with theavailability of printed material, ownership ofa 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 maybe true in some studies, it is not the case for allinvestigations. As well, some studies thathave reported these claims have had some seriousshortcomings in their methodologies. How thesevariables might possibly relate to theclassroom and leisure reading will be considered first, followed bythose that might be relatedto the home.One of the most extensive surveys investigating school organizationand methods wasconducted by Whitehead et al. (1977) in England and Wales. Schoolquestionnaires werecompleted by 381 schools—i 93 primary schools where the head teacheror principal filled outthe questionnaire, and 188 secondary schools where the head of theEnglish 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 ofbook reading with 50 schools with the lowestaverage for amount of book reading. The investigation “failedto produce clear indications as tothe characteristics which differentiated thetwo sets of schools” (p.86). Because of thesedisappointing results, another statistical approach wasused by “taking each school variableseparately and considering its relevanceto book reading by means of cross-tabulations withamount of reading” (p.86), and again results were inconclusive onsuch variables as listeningto the teacher read stories, being allowedto take books home from the school library, or theratio between the number of books available inthe school library and the classroom libraryand the number of pupils.What did they find? First, how the schools organized their classesseems to have affectedthe amount of voluntary reading out ofschool. Schools which organized their students accordingto ability had the most nonreaders. Schools which had vertical groupings(variety of ages) hadsignificantly more readers. Even after lumpingvertical groupings with mixed abilitygroupings, the schools that had streamed their pupilsby ability had far more non- and lightreaders. Whitehead et al. suspect this maybe part of the explanation for the lack of voluntaryreading as the child matures, since this kind of organization beginsin the junior schools.Second, how the schools structured their curriculum—structured versusintegrated40timetables—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 usualsubject divisions.This finding was significant for boys, but not for girls. Third, the last schoolvariable thatWhitehead et al. found to have a significant impact on voluntary reading wasat the secondarylevel when they compared the use of teaching materials—class sets of coursebooks,comprehension books, thematic anthologies, novels, short stories, other prose books, andareading list of titles of books available in the classroom or school library—on theamount ofreading. “The amount of voluntary book reading was lower in schools thatused class sets ofcourse books, comprehension books or thematic anthologies” (Whiteheadet al., 1977, p.96).Although the difference was not statistically significant for boys, it was forgirls.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 minutesper day” (p.296), thatthe teacher was considered a “significant influence.” Since this studyincluded 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 readersto be prolificreaders out of school without the influence of their teacher, but it was surmised thatteachersmight be able to help more children to become so. This conclusion, however, wasbased oninterviews with only eight avid readers who talked about “teachers having booksavailable inthe classroom, reading out loud to the class, recommending books to them, talkingto them aboutbooks they had read, and requiring them to read a certain number of books” (Fieldinget aL,1984, p.155).“Favorable school conditions will increase the amount of reading childrendo” (Fielding etal., 1984, p.158). What are some of these practices in the classroom that maycontribute tospending time leisure reading? What does it meanto have an influential teacher? Findings arenot always in agreement. Teachers having books available in theclassroom 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 librariesdo 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 booksdonot always satisfy the needs and interests of the students” (p.48). Thisinvestigation 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 readis another supportedfactor contributing to amounts of time studentsspend 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 insecond, 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 tookplace at school, athome, or both. In one study, junior-high school students claimed thatmore class discussion ofcertain books would improve their leisure reading (Lane, 1985).Another classroom practice that was found tobe 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 certainnumber of books has also been reported (Fieldinget al., 1984; Squire & Applebee, 1968) as a factor influencing amounts oftime spent readingout of school, but this would seem to fall under the category of homeworkrather than readingfor pleasure. Squire and Applebee (1968) were able to teaseout assigned reading outside ofschool from unassigned personal reading, and reported that British highschool students spentmore time per week than American high school students on unassignedpersonal reading.42Providing time in the classroom for reading seemsto 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 schoolorganization,curriculum arrangement, and types of materials on amount of voluntaryreading, they did notfind any conclusive evidence for the influence of method ofinstruction on voluntary reading.Nor did Mervar and Hiebert (1989) whencomparing the effects of the skills oriented approachand the literature based approach on the amount ofhome reading, or McKenna, Stratton,Grindler, Rakestraw, and Jenkins (1992) when comparing the basal approachto reading withthe whole language approach while investigating leisure-readingattitudes. Moffitt (1992),when comparing the high schools that participated in astudy that measured the importance ofleisure reading, found that the religiously affiliated highschool had the fewest readers (40%did not read) whereas, the university high school reported only17% not reading, with theremaining three regular high schools at 23%, 27%, and 24% ofstudents not reading in theirleisure time. Picha (1988), investigating how much leisure reading grade-sixanglophonechildren in early French immersion did in English and in French,reported that the languagepreference for the children’s leisure reading was English. The children whoread a great dealin English also read significatly more than theother children in French. Leisure reading inthis study, however, was defined as reading done in a person’s freetime which could be atschool during USSR or at home. Two studies where the researcherwas also the teacher(Greaney, 1970; Healy, 1965) did report a significant effect for theirmethod of instruction.Healy (1965) followed a program wherethe children were allowed to choose reading groups accordingto interest, select readingmaterials from a wide variety, elect child leaders on a rotating basis, andplan creativeactivities. A combination of small group instruction, flexible grouping,reading partners,and individualized instruction was used. Reading skills were inventoriedand remediedthrough other language arts instruction using small groups, partners,games and clinicalteaching. (p.269)Although it was not reported what happened inthe 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 readby the time thesestudents were at the junior high level (the experimental group).Since it was not explicitly43stated where these books were read or for whatpurposes, 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 readingapproach ingrade six. Both groups used the same classroomlibrary and were taught by Greaney. Aftereight months, the experimental group—using the individualized approach—readmore books anddevoted significantly more time to book reading during leisure time. However,the amount oftime spent reading for leisure when all materialswere 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 spentreading for leisurewas not significant, but the number of booksread or proportion of books read, was significantfor a greater number of subjects in the experimentalgroup (Greaney & Clarke, 1975).Two studies reported school related reasons for not reading for grade-sevenstudents. BothHealy (1965) and Landy (1977) found that some of their nonreaders had experienceddifficulties in learning to read, and had experienced difficulties in their earlyschool years.Landy (1977) also found that many of the nonreaders had conceptions of readingthat Shapiro(1981) has discussed in regard to instructional practices in the classroom.Landy (1977)describes nonreaders as those students who have “associated reading with schoolrelatedprojects and for that reason have negative or work connotation associated withit” (p.262).Ability differences has been one variable consistently reported in investigationsof leisurereading behavior. Studies reviewed in this section forschool and home practices that havereported differences are somewhat mixed in theirresults, however. These results have rangedfrom finding that ability is strongly linked toamounts 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 spendmore time than at school, whathappens at home that might encourage reading for leisure also needs to beexplored. Examininghome practices related to reading, and whetheror not these practices affect the amount of time44a student spends reading for leisure out ofschool, seems more reasonable than reporting levelsof socioeconomic status orlevels of education for the parents when investigating howstudentsmight develop the leisure reading habit(Dave, 1963; Greaney, 1980; Hansen, 1969; Neuman1986a; 1986b). As pointed out in a publicationby the Nation’s Report Card (Foertsch,1992), it is important to understand “theextent to which home support is available forreading” (p.21). Levels of socioeconomicstatus or education levels of parents do notbythemselves provide answers. Greaney andHegarty (1987) found that “considerable variationin patterns of leisure reading occurswithin individual SES categories” (p.15).However,traditionally, socioeconomic status has been reportedin the literature and continues to beincluded along with other variables moresensitive to the home environment. Most studieshavefound that SES correlates positively withleisure reading (Greaney, 1980; Heyns, 1978;Landy, 1977; Long & Henderson, 1972;Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Whiteheadet al., 1977;Wiseman, 1967), although, Hansen (1969)found no significant relationship with father’soccupation and independent reading, andGreaney and Hegarty (1987) found “in general, theamount of time given to book readingcorrelated more highly with the home press variablesthan with SES” (p.11).Levels of education for the parents andits 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 andindependent reading for grade-four students.The evolution of home press variables,considered more sensitive to amounts of timespentreading for leisure than to levels ofSES or education of parents, seems to havesurfaced heavilyin the area of readingachievement (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 thesestudies in the literature, Hansen (1969), investigatinggrade-fourstudents’ independent reading attitude,devised a questionnaire to measure the home literaryenvironment: “1) availability of literarymaterials in the home, 2) amount ofreading done45with the child, 3) readingguidance and encouragement, and 4) parentsas model readingexamples” (p.21-22). This home literaryenvironment 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 significantrelationship” (Hansen, 1969, p.22). Ina secondpublication, Hansen (1973) reported onfurther analyses of the home literary environmentvariable to tease out which of the fourfactors were possibly contributing to the significanceofthe home environment, theanalyses revealed that reading guidance andencouragement, whichincluded amount of reading done with thechild, stood out from the other two components.Availability of reading materials, and parentsas reading models ranked much lower.Greaney and Hegarty (1987) alsoincluded a press for reading in their investigation ofleisure reading for grade-fivestudents. This press for reading included: parentalinterest inreading, provision of space or opportunityfor reading, availability of readingmaterials,parental reading, reading with the child,purchasing of reading materials, and encouragementto read. As mentioned above, the authorsfound this home press variable to correlate muchmore with amount of time givento book reading during leisure time than with socioeconomicstatus. After a series ofchi-square analyses on these different components of thehome pressvariable, they reported that heavyreaders—defined as reading more than one hourfor fourdays—were more likely to have had booksbought for them by parents during the previousyear,were more likely to have fathers whowere perceived as having more time toread books, weremore likely to read in bed, and weremore likely to have received encouragementto readparticular books.Identifying variables in the home environmentthat might influence children’s leisurereading at the grade-five level wasthe sole objective in an investigationby Neuman (1986a;1986b). The study was reported fromtwo perspectives: answers obtained fromparentinterviews (1 986a); identifying and representingstudents in quartiles based on TV viewingand leisure reading, and thencomparing home environments (1986b).Data was assembledfrom one hour telephoneinterviews with the parents of 84 students inthe first analyses(1986a) and 59 in the second(1986b), from the Boston area of the UnitedStates. The sample46was 64% Caucasian, 14% Hispanic, 13%Black, and 7% other. Mean socioeconomic class wasslightly lower middle, with 24% of the sample beingsingle parents (Neuman, 1986a). Basedon the interviews, it was estimated that thegrade-five students of these parents spent anaverage of 15 minutes per day reading for leisure. All participantswere members of a publiclibrary. Neuman reported that family socioeconomicstatus correlated positively with thereading process variables. “Children’s leisurereading behavior, including the number ofbooks read, the time spent reading, and family discussionsof books and magazines, weresignificantly and positively correlated with higherstatus” (Neuman, 1986a, p.338; 1986b).The home variables which had significant correlationswith leisure reading, even aftercontrolling for gender and SES, indicated that theparents of children who read more provideddiverse leisure activities for exploring the environmentoutside of the home, gave theirchildren the space to develop independence andresponsibility, and encouraged their children toread. This last variable was the strongest of the threecorrelates. Parents of readers “wereinclined to help children relate their reading ofnewspapers, 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 readingdid not seem to correlate with leisurereading. However, “the frequency of being readto as a young child” and the “availability ofdaily newspapers and magazines” were both significantlyassociated with reading (p.340).Although the same findings are reported where studentsare placed into quartilesrepresenting heavy to light TV viewing, and heavyto light readers of leisure, there are someinteresting patterns.Parents of light TV viewers--light readers requiredtheir children to do more householdchores than others in the sample; . . . children inthe light reading groups were alsoexpected to spend more time on homework eachnight than the heavy reading groups.(Neuman, 1986b, p.179)Apparently, parents of heavy readers readto their children when they were young on a dailybasis, whereas parents of light readers did notestablish a regular routine. As well, parents oflight readers read fewer books themselvesthan did the parents of heavy readers.“Encouragement” means “discussing his reading; readingto him” (p.98) according to Hansen(1973); means “encouragement to reada particular book’ (p.11) for Greaney and Hegarty47(1987); and to Neuman (1986a), it means to be “inclinedto help children relate their readingof newspapers, magazines, and books to everydayevents” (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 withinthe literature. First, “discussingthe child’s leisure reading” has been found to havea 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 encouragedto read a particular book.Second, the amount of reading to a child, while the child was young, was also foundto have asignificant effect on the amount of time spent reading for leisure (American FederationofTeachers & Chrysler Corp., 1992; Covington, 1985; Hansen, 1973; Neuman1986a; 1986b).Third, providing newspapers and magazines was significantlyassociated with leisure reading inone study (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b), while otherstudies (Landy, 1977; Whitehead et al.,1977) reported a positive association between amount of book readingand the ownership of asignificant number of books—more than ten—but found no relationship between thenumber ofnewspapers and amount of book reading, unless these were “quality”newspapers (Whitehead etaL, 1977). Some studies have found that frequentreaders were provided books by theirparents (Clark, 1976; Covington, 1985; Fieldinget al., 1984; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987),while others found this not significant to independent reading(Hansen, 1973; Pluck, Ghafari,Glynn, & McNaughton, 1984). Fourth, several studieshave found that “parents as readingmodels” was found to be the best predictor of timespent 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 theirfathers (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 variablesthat have been reported as having asignificant affect on leisure reading are the provision of diverse leisureactivities (Landy,1977; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b),and the space to develop independence and responsibility(Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). Providing a space in the home for reading hasbeen documented by48several studies as having an impact onthe amount of time spent reading for leisure (Fieldingetal., 1984; Greaney, 1980;Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Landy, 1977). Reading inbed or thebedroom seems to be the most popular placewith all these studies but one. Familysize hasbeen included in several studies on leisurereading, and although some have found amount ofbook reading to be positivelyassociated with small families—about three children—(Greaney,1980; Landy, 1977; Whiteheadet al., 1977), one study reported no significant relationship(Hansen, 1969). Birth order was foundto 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 membershipin a public library and how itcorrelates with reading outside of schoolor one’s attitude toward recreational reading(Greaney, 1980; Heyns, 1978;Holmes, 1932; Landy, 1977; McKenna& Kear, 1990),although, some have limitedthis finding to the number of books borrowed (Long& Henderson,1972), and others to theregularity of library visits—every ten days—(Whiteheadet al.,1977). Distance betweenthe home and the library (Heyns, 1978), and betweenthe school andthe library (Holmes, 1932) alsohas been reported to have an impact on the amountof reading.Heyns (1978) found that sixthand seventh grade students who lived less than seven blocksfrom the library read morebooks in the summer than those who lived beyond walkingdistance.Apparently at the time thatHolmes (1932) conducted an investigation on the voluntaryreadingof students from grade fiveto eight, schools were providing reading materials fortheirstudents. Since it was not stated that this voluntaryreading only took place out of school, itmay have been possible thatsome of this reading took place at school. Over the timeperiod of ayear it was reported that the students whopossessed library cards at the school that wasfarthest from the public library had readthe least number of books.In conclusion, only onestudy reported any differences for ethnicity. Landy (1977)foundthat leisure readers tendedto be less likely to have mothers who spoke another languagealthough, 22% of the avid readers commonlyspoke another language at home.Gender differences continueto indicate that girls do the most reading (Andersonet al.,1988; Greaney, 1980; Hansen, 1969;Heyns, 1978; Holmes, 1932; Landy, 1977;Lane,491985; Moffitt, 1992; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b; Whitehead et aL, 1977); discuss theirreadingmaterial more often with other family members (Neuman, 1986a; 1986b); are lessdependenton library use for reading outside of school (Heyns, 1978); andread fewer books of their ownas they get older, resorting instead to borrowing books from friends or other familymembers(Whitehead et al., 1977). Covington (1985) found little difference between boys andgirls inthe number of books read and time spent on readingat the grade-seven level. Whitehead et al.(1977) have noted that of the three significant school related reasonsfor voluntary reading,only two of these reasons indicated gender differences. One ofthese reasons was thearrangement of the curriculum, where schools havinga fully integrated timetable had fewernonbook-readers—this was significant forboys. The other reason had to do with the types ofbook provisions in English lessons. Schools using classsets of either course books,comprehension books, or thematic anthologies had more nonreaders—this was significantforgirls.The findings from these studies needto be interpreted with caution. For example, some ofthe studies reported in this section could be criticised for being based onsmall samples(Fielding et al., 1984; Pluck et al., 1984), the lack of information about the controlgroup(Healy, 1965), or the use of theinstrument itself (Whitehead et al., 1977). By their ownadmission, Whitehead et al. wereso disappointed in their lack of conclusive evidence for theschools, that they suspected that perhaps “the features of school lifewhich are most importantin regard to reading are singularly resistantto probing by means of a written questionnaire”(p.98).Data concerning practices in the home environment around reading werecollected throughthe use of questionnaires or interviews except for onestudy, where the study was conducted inthe researcher’s own home (Pluck et al., 1984). Sometimesthe students themselves providedthe answers (Covington, 1985; Greaney, 1980; Landy,1977; Moffitt, 1992; Whitehead et al.,1977), and sometimes the parents did (American Federationof Teachers & Chrysler Corp.,1992; Clark, 1976; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Heyns, 1978; Neuman,1986a; Wiseman,1967), or only the mothers did (Hansen, 1969). Some studies reporthow these interviews50happen, others do not. One study reported that the students provided this information,butfailed to say what method was usedto 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 doesnot really haveaccess to the information required, such as realistic amounts of time their youngsterspendsreading. Third, there is the social desirability factor which can operate for childrenas well asadults in wanting to please their interviewer. Because of these limitations, readersneed to becautious about the findings of studies relying only on self-report.Referring back to the sweeping statement at the beginning of this sectionby Guthrie andGreaney (1991) that “the amount of independent reading for both boys and girlsis positivelyrelated to” (p.90) . . . there are only a few parts of their statement that seem tohaveunanimous support: the ownership of a library card, recreational interests,and home values(which would include literacy interactions). The remaining parts of their statementare 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 maycontribute tospending time leisure reading? One practice that both environments share is literacyinteractions. In the school, it seems to be that discussions concerning leisurematerials, howthese relate to everyday events, and recommendations arising from thesediscussions seem tohave a significant impact on time spent reading. In the home, it seemsthat these discussionswithin the family about leisure materials, and recommending materials havealso been shownto make a difference in the amount of time spent leisure reading. Reading frequentlytochildren could conceivably be an element of literacy interactions andhas been reported to makea significant difference within the home environment, but not in school. Providing newspapersand magazines, a space for reading, and developinga 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 thisstudy. Datawere collected using self-report methods but were assembled froma variety of sources.51Classroom practices around readingwere 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 interviewswith the parents, aswell as through the personal interviews withthe students. Levels of socioeconomic status andeducation levels for both parents were also documented. By usingthese techniques, thesevariables were taken into account andadd to the growing body of literature regarding leisurereading.SummaryWe do not know why children who areable to read do not choose to read as a possible activityduring their out-of-school time. We havea fairly good idea what they are doing out of school,but notjjthey choose not to read. Since the literature supportsthe notion that there is adecline in leisure reading as the child matures, this is an importantquestion. Some childreneven start this decline during theyears of the “reading craze,” age 10 to 13. Traditionally,prGviding rewards for reading were thoughtto be the answer, but it is apparent that the use ofrewards has some serious side-effects. In essence, itseems to be that the conditions underwhich rewards are given is what increases or decreasesintrinsic motivation. Contingentrewards (depending on the quality of the performance)initially undermine intrinsicmotivation, whereas non-contingent rewards (performance only) tendnot to undermineintrinsic motivation. However, subjects who receive rewardssubsequently tend to chooseeasier tasks.Two pieces of the puzzle that may help explain why childrenwho are capable of readingchoose not to read may be found inlocus of control, and/or recreational reading attitudes.“Many studies that have attemptedto 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 ofcontrol and reading, somehave reported that children with an internal orientation seemto 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 supportedby 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 booksat 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 materialas often as girls(Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). Not having the frequency of this literacy interaction maybe onereason for boys not spending as much time as do girls reading for leisure. Schools that followastructured timetable for usual subject divisions were found to be more likelyto 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 haveinvestigated 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 thata 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 theliteracypuzzle.55CHAPTER IIIMethodThe purpose of this study was to investigate why a child who can readeither elects to read ornot to read during out-of-school leisure time. Frequentreaders are defined as students who arecapable of reading at the level of their peers and choosereading as a possible activity duringtheir out-of-school time. Infrequent readers are studentsthat are capable of reading at theeveI of their peers but rarely choose readingas a possible activity during their out-of-schooltime. This chapter describes the design, the subjects,the instruments, and the proceduresusedto investigate this question.DesignThe research problem being investigated was why a capable readereither elects to read ornot to read during out-of-school leisure time. Thisproblem was investigated through anexploratory study using a survey design. The groupmeasured was a sample of grade-fivestudents selected from four classrooms who hadvolunteered to participate in the study. Themethod of data collection included closed diaries, availablemeasuring instruments, and personalinterviews. A pilot study had been conducteda year earlier using these same methods with agrade-five sample found in one classroom.SubjectsThe subjects were students selected from four grade-five classroomsin three differentschools which served families with similar economicbackgrounds in a suburban area of BritishColumbia, Canada. Parents occupations were codedaccording to guidelines from StatisticsCanada—Census Canada 1986: Occupation: populationand dwelling characteristics (1986a).56Families had fathers who worked predominatelyin the trades (56%); however some fathers(23%) did work in service, sales, and clericaloccupations, 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 occupationfor mothers outside the home wasaclerical position (42%). The remaining mothersworked 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 reflecta composite of the prevailing income and education levels ineachoccupation rather than a measure of occupationalprestige. The average socioeconomic scoreforthis group of fathers, based on a socioeconomic indexfor occupations in Canada (Blishen etal.,1987), was 41.70(Q13.47), and the average score forthis group of mothers was 31.15(fl19.64). Like other investigatorsreporting SES scores, but not necessarily usingthisinstrument, the higher score of the two parents, or insome cases the only score given, wasusedto 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 oftheparents inflates the average SESscore for the group. The average SES score for thisgroup ofgrade-five students was 45.31(12.16). The sensitive issue of whether thefamilies ofstudents were single parent or two-parent was not investigated.If there was only one scoretoreport for the family, that was the score assignedto the subject.The three schools were located ina school district just outside a major metropolitan areainBritish Columbia, Canada. This particular school districtwas chosen because there was nopolicy in place limiting intact classrooms.Another school district had approved thestudy butcould only provide “split” grade-fiveclassrooms that contained either grade-four,or -six,students. The enrollment for the participatingdistrict was 17, 313 students as of June,1993.The three schools had current enrollmentsof 539 students, 388 students, and 444students.These three schools areadjacent to each other—no further apart than eight blocks—having57overlapping catchment areas, andthey enrolled students in kindergarten through grade seven.The three schools were selectedbecause of the number of grade-five students enrolled and thebelief that students would be coming from similar economicbackgrounds.One hundred and five children in the four classrooms were invitedto participate in thisvoluntary study. Five students had not been inviteddue 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 studentselected to participate and weregiven permission to do so by their parents or guardians.Since the study was designed toinvestigate only capable readers, ten students wereeliminated from the sample group becauseboth teacher judgement and the comprehension scores fromthe Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test(1992) found them to be low on their reading ability. Anadditional six students wereeliminated for various reasons: three, because theirparents did not speak English and would notbe able to participate in the telephone interview; one because permissionwas not granted forthe child to be interviewed; one because the parent refusedto be interviewed; and one childcontracted chicken pox. Consequently, the final sample group was reducedto 53 students (21boys and 32 girls).The mean age for this sample was 1 0 years and 6 months. The ethnicorigins were Caucasian(83% or 44 students), Asian (13% or 7 students), Aboriginal (2% or 1student), and onefamily that could not decide from what part of the worldtheir ancestors came from. Theeducational backgrounds of the fathers included individuals with professionaldegree—MD, JD,DDS—to less than high school; for the mothers, educationallevels ranged from a masters degreeto less than high school. The average educational levelwas high school completion (12 years)for both fathers and mothers. Demographics wereestablished for each subject through theparent interview which included questions concerningoccupation for both parents, the ancestryof each parent, as well as the educational background foreach parent. While this group does notrepresent any particular universe, it is a diversifiedsuburban sample of children whose outof-school activities presumably reflect normal grade-fivestudents’ lives.58All 53 students participated in providing informationabout their out-of-school activities,completed a locus of control scale and an attitude toward recreational readingscale, 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. Therewere clock-sheets alloted for an after school day, a weekend day, and a weekend night. Theclock-sheetconsisted of a clockface with each hour sector having fourcircles of approximately 15 minutes.Using this format allows for the advantages of the closed or controlleddiary 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 fromAnderson etal. (1988), are grouped under several categories namely, “Iplayed”, “I did”, “Iwatched/listened’, “I”, “what else did I do”, and “I went to”. The activities withineach categoryare assigned codes and written in the clock diagram for the appropiatetime. Some of theseactivities, as reported in Anderson et al. (1 988), need some additionalinformation from thestudent: title of book, game played, and lesson/practice for, in order to bea more validindicator of actual participation. There is space provided on theform for this information.A supply of sheets remained ina student’s folder at school since students were provided withtime in school to fill them out on a daily basis for three weeks. These foldershad 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 duringthe week; onFridays, all students took the sheets home since they neededto account for Friday, Saturday, andSunday when they returned to school on Monday (Curr, Hallworth,& Wilkinson, 1962).Confidentiality was stressed, with each student being assigneda code number (Curr et al.,1962) to be recorded on their clock-sheets, andassurances were given that teachers or parentswould not have access to, nor be questioned abouta student’s out-of-school activities.59The clock-sheets were piloted on one grade-five class, and were foundto 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 madeto 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 reviewedby 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 forages nine to eighteen.Estimates of internal consistency via the split-half method, correctedby Spearman-Brownarer= .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 bestavailable.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 has40 declarativestatements that require a “yes” or “no” response circled by the subject. Highscores reflect anexternal locus of control orientation and low scores reflect an internallocus 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 emotionalstate, 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 accountedfor 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 isa 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 chosenby the researcher toparticipate because it contained two complete grade-five classes and it was in close proximitytoseveral other schools with large populations of grade-five students. A second school withinblocks of this school was telephoned by the researcher and appointments were madewith thegrade-five teachers to determine if they might be interested in participating. Allteachersagreed to join the study with the condition that the date be postponed from Januaryto February.The researcher agreed to their request. Later, a third school was addedto the study (discussionto follow).At an appointed meeting with the principals, more details were givenabout the study—namely that the study was one which investigates grade-five students’ activitiesout-of-school—what rewards children gain from these activities, and what might possibly influencethesedecisions 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 theschool 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 wasconfirmed at this meeting—commencement, recess, lunch, dismissal—as well as any holidays or early dismissalsscheduledfor this time of the year. Permission was soughtand given to administer a standardized reading64test for the research purpose of establishing ability levels. A space forinterviews was alsoconsidered since it was found in the pilot study that when this spaceshifted, 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 samefashion as it waswith the principal—each teacher receivinga copy of the permission letter, and the variousclock-sheets. After discussing the clock-sheets and what role was expected ofthem as teachers,mainly providing time first thing each morning for three weeks and supplyingextra clock-sheets to students when necessary, the proposed schedule of events wasexamined. This scheduleincluded not only when they could expect the researcher to be in their classroomsinitiating thestudy and answering inquiries from the students or themselves, but alsotimes 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 wellas the scheduling of student interviews following thecompletion of the clock-sheets was also discussed.Arrangements were then made to provide participating teachers withenvelopes for collectionand extra clock-sheets, as well as to establish dates for the researcherto meet with theirclasses in order to disperse permission letters, and to follow up witha demonstration of theclock-sheets after all the permission letters were returned.The week that permission letters were to be sent home the researcher wasintroduced to theclass by the teacher. Students were invited at that time by the researcherto participate in astudy which would investigate their activities out of school, what they do withtheir time, andwhy they choose these activities. Detailswere given as to what was involved, namely, the fillingin of clock-sheets and possibly taking partin an interview, how much time they couldexpectthat this would take, what they might possibly learn from this experience,and to answer any oftheir questions. The students were reminded that their participationwas voluntary and wouldhave no impact on their grades or standing in the class and that theycould 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 thedata. Assurances werealso given that if they were chosen to be interviewed, how they spent their time outof schoolwould not be revealed to their parents, and that the purpose of the parent interviewwas 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 thenext dayindicating whether or not they had been given permissionby their parent or guardian toparticipate in the study. A week was given for these letters to be returned. At theend 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 studysince only afew students had replied favorably to participating in thestudy. A third school, located withinthe same neighborhood area as the other two schools, was contacted, and boththe 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 wasmade to makecontact with the group of students that had not responded. Each principalhad their own idea asto how to go about this. One principal suggested that the researcher telephone theparents andask if there were any questions that they may have in regard to the study, andto relay themessage that it was important that their child participate. The other principaldecided topersonally contact each student and require that they bring back the permissionslip signed thenext day stating, one way or the other, whether or not they wouldbe participating. Bothapproaches produced about the same results for this group (26%) that hadnot responded: 42%responded favorably to telephone callsby the researcher, and 40% responded favorably to theprincipal.Students were given instructions on how to use the clock-sheets on theday that the studywas to begin. Before starting the demonstrationof the clock-sheets, however, students weregiven a brief lesson on using a clock-face when telling time, since the pilotstudy had revealedthat students were more accustomed to using digital clocks. All participatingstudents that hadpermission were then given a pocket-folder, marked with their names andassigned code66numbers, which contained the clock-sheets. The other students were givena 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 thestudentsworking at their desks and the researcher workingat the overhead projector, students wereasked to fill in the clock-sheet for their out-of-schoolactivities from the day before. As eachcategory was considered, clarifications were madeas 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) thinkingof the time of day this activity occurredand approximately how much time was spent doing it and placing thatcode within the clock,remembering that each circle within the hour sector equalled approximately15 minutes; and(3) completing the information line for those categories asking for completion, forexample, asport called—or a practice/lesson for—etc.. It was pointedout that there were special codes forbathing, dressing, eating, sleeping, and transportation; that the differencebetween a game and asport is determined by whether or not you would needthe use of your physical body to play thegame; that a T for transportation had been placed into one of the circlesat three o’clock toaccount for getting home from school; and finally, if two activitieswere going on at the sametime for example, television/homework, listening to music/doing chores,gameplaying/television, that they should put both codes nearthe circle. Students were encouraged toreport whatever they were doing, that it was all acceptable. If you werestaring out the window,or lying on your bed, or just walking around, that wasacceptable. Students were also askedtofill in spaces for additional information required ofsome activities: such as, sports—whatsport?, games—name of the game, books—title or author, readinga newspaper—what was thearticle about? This step was added in orderto have a more valid indicator of actualparticipation (Allen et al., 1992; Andersonet al., 1988).They were reminded that they needed to leave their foldersat school since they would begiven time first thing each morning to fillout these clock-sheets. It was certainly acceptablefor them to take a clock-sheet homewith them if they wanted to, but the folder needed to stayatschool so that they would have a supply ofclock-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 werestapledtogether.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 anyproblemareas that were discovered and to help students with any problems that they maybe havingfilling out their clock-sheet for the first day of thestudy.The students filled out a clock-sheet on a daily basis for three weeks. A fourweek timeframe was chosen initially because out-of-school activities probably followpersistent 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. Fiveto ten minutes was alloted firstthing each morning, except Mondays which tookabout 20 minutes, for filling out and collectingthese forms which were then placed into an envelopeto be sealed. These envelopes werecollected each day, and the clock-sheets were checked that morning by theresearcher 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 madeto hire anassistant to help in one of the schools with this task on Mondays, alternating betweenschools,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 approximately12minutes to administer and was givenby the researcher. Due to absentism, four students wereadministered the scale individually or ina small group.In order to determine reading ability (Rasinski, 1987; Long& Henderson, 1972), theGates-MacGinitie Reading Test (MacGinitie & MacGinitie,1992) and teacherjudgment wereused to determine whether or not a student was reading at the level of their grade-fivepeers.68Each teacher had been given a copy of their class list and askedto 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 whoscoredat 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, wereconsideredcapable readers. Students who were designated by their teachers as reading belowgrade 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 the34thpercentile 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 percentileon the GatesMacGinitie Reading Test (1 992) but were designated by their teacher as readingat grade levelor above were assessed by a third instrument either given by the readingspecialist or by theteacher sometime during the school year. There were 10 students eliminated fromthe samplebecause they were not capable of reading at the level of their grade-five peers. Limitingthestudy to only students who are capable of reading solves the problem raised bySpaulding(1992), namely that if one is not capable or not in control, then intrinsic interestis alsolikely to be missing. The issue of capability was addressedby including only students who couldread at the level of their peers; the issue of control was examinedby using the locus of controlinstrument. “Both constructs are necessary to account fully for the psychologicalstate ofintrinsic motivation” (Spaulding, 1992, p.181).After the clock-sheets had been completed, collected, and analyzed foramounts of time spenton the different activities, all 53 students participated in individualinterviews. The interviewschedule (or protocol)(Appendix 4) not only consisted of questions designedto clarify whatreinforcements each student derived from the activities and what values theyattached to therewards, but also attempted to account for any possibleinfluences the school environment, aswell as the home environment might have had on a student’sout-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’mgoing toask you some questions about some of your out-of-school activities, some questionsaboutyour 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 somethingyou 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 answerratherthan 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 studentsto know thequestions until everyone is interviewed.All 53 interviews were completed within a two week period andwere recorded on audio tape.During the student interviews, students were given a clarification scale which they couldreferto 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 bya group of grade-fivestudents, that had discussed these terms among themselves during a class with theirteacher, 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 schoolabout theirclassroom practices around reading, as well as about their own personal readinghabits. 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 oftheElementary 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, whichincludesbooks, 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 affectedby 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 timespent 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, theuse 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 analyseswere 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, theuse 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 variablefor the amount of time for USSR. This independent variablecontained continuous data; therefore multiple regression analyses were possible withthe73dependent 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 wellas 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 oftimeparticipating in during their time out of school. Expectations were measured ona 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, “howsure areyou that when you (activity #1) during your time out of school that it willlead 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 reflectedrewards/reasons whichpredominated in the pilot study. These included “You will not be bored,”“You will learnsomething,” “You will experience enjoyment,” and “You will receiveencouragement fromothers.” A student was only given the cue cards which they had mentionedas reasons forparticipating in a particular activity. Each student was given the cardsto place on a large chartwhich asked, “how important is this reasonto 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 withinthe samecategory if a student felt the same way about all the reasons. Again, thiswas a unipolar scale.Unipolar response scales were used for scoring these “beliefs” sinceeach student was askedquestions about his/her own salient beliefs rather than givena series of ‘modal behaviouralbeliefs’ (Sparks, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1991,p.262). Both responsescales 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 questionscould be categorized by twoindependent raters. Raters were given 5x8 cards, each card representingone 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 usedto 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 genderorethnicity may have had on locus of control. Multiple regression analyses were usedto examineany effects that socioeconomic status, ability, amount of time for Undisturbed SustainedSilentReading (USSR), and certain home factors may have had on timespent 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,HomeFactorsb)Attitude & (Gender, Ethnicity,ClassroomFactorsa,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)aClassroomfactors 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. bHomefactors included encouraging reading materials,reading together1listening and conversing about reading, parentsreading aloud, providingreading materials, providing a spaceto read, time parents spent reading at home, use of thelibrary, use of rewards for leisure reading, observations ofparents’ and siblings’ reading,distance of the home from the library, education levels, and numberof playmates.CClassroomfactors included reading aloud tostudents, teaching methods for reading, and observations of theteacher during USSR.dHomefactors included observations of parents’ and siblings’ readingmaterials, and parents reading aloud. eClassroom factors included teaching methods forreading,and observations of the teacher during USSR. Home factors includedobservations of parents’and siblings’ reading materials. QHorne factors included age ofstudent when parents started andstopped reading aloud, as well as the number of languagesspoken in the home.78status, ability, USSR, and certain home factors may have had on attitude towardrecreationalreading.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 howagrade-five student spends his/her time out of school. Participation included not only keepingadaily 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 designedto investigateonly capable readers, ten students were eliminated from the sample group based onacombination 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 giventotelevision, 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 thehouse”; or cookingbeing placed within the category of helping around the house.” This was alsotrue 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 anda 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, thiswas countedunder the category of “what else I did” as “couldn’t remember.” Likewise, if a timeslot 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 amountedto thirteentimes, and equalled 750 minutes or 12 1/2 hours for the 17 days; the number ofoccasions thatthe data were missing due to the researcher was six times, and equalled 180 minutes, or3hours 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 was99%.Disagreement entailed two instances of splitting times—between listening to music andbathing,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 summedat the end ofthe week, and these weekly totals for each category were entered for each student. At theend ofthe 17 days, three weekly tabulations had been made, and these were summed givinga 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 requiredby the teacherto read for 20 minutes each school night for homework. If reading was reported on theclocksheet by these students in this class for these days, 20 minutes was deducted—or 15minuteswas 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 perweekend 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 about6hours 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 maybedue 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 practicefor a lesson and doinghomework which decreased in the amount of time.Watching television, participating in sports,and doingNotherremained the top three actMties whether it was a weekday or a weekend day.Activities which became more popular on the weekendsas compared to weekdays were videogames (increased by 23 minutes per day), goingto the store (increased by 28 minutes perday), reading (increased by 16 minutes perday), and watching videos (increased by 26minutes per day).Television was by far the number one activity, clocking in anaverage of 107 minutes perday—about 1 1/2 hours per school day, and twohours and 36 minutes per weekend day. Therewere virtually no gender differencesto report for the percentage of out-of-school time spentwatching television. However, frequentreaders did watch slightly less (2%) than theinfrequent readers. When looking at thenumber of minutes spent watching television, it seemsthat the boys were spending more minuteswatching television than did the girls (3839 vs.3488), and that the male frequent readerswatched television the most minutes, approximatelyone hour and 38 minutes per school dayand three hours per weekend day. It also appears thatboys spent a greater percentage of their time insports than girls, spending twice as manyminutes—with the male frequent readersspending the most time—approximately 55minutesper school day, and about 3 hours perweekend day.As for gender differences, the remainingactivities do in fact reflect some differencesbut notat the level of significance. Boys reporteda 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 alsospent more minutes practicing for lessons ofvarious kinds (185 vs. 134), and watchingmovie videos (236 vs. 187). Girls, on the otherhand, reported spending a greater percentageof their time, as well as number of minutes, doing“other” activities (15% vs.6%), reading for recreation (7% vs. 5%), helping aroundthehouse (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 revealthat the infrequentreader spent a greater percentage of his/herout-of-school time, as well as number ofminuteswatching television (32% vs. 29%), doing“other” activities (13% vs. 11%), playingvideogames (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. Thefrequent reader exceeded percentage of time and theminutes of the infrequent reader when it came to playingsports (16% vs. 14%), reading forrecreation (10% vs. 2%), and playinggames (4% vs. 3%).Table 5 displays means, standard deviations, and medians for minutesper day spent leisurereading for male and female, for frequent and infrequentreaders, 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 ofschool for books, magazines,newspapers, comic books and mail was recordedfor each student (Anderson et al., 1988;Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), if the studenthad written down on the clock-sheet the title of thebook, magazine or comic book; what thenewspaper article was about; or who they had readmailfrom. Allen et al. (1992) and Andersonet al. (1988) found this practice to be a more validindicator of actual reading.Table 6 presents the average percentage of out-of-schooltime spent reading over all 17days for male and female, for frequent and infrequentreaders as well as totals for the entiresample. Figure 1 graphically displays these percentagestranslated into average minutesspentreading various materials for male and female, frequentand infrequent readers. Thesegradefive students(N.= 53) spent a daily average of approximately 21 minutes readingwhen allmaterials were taken into account. Consideringthe materials separately, the students spent anaverage of approximately 15 minutes perday reading books, 4 minutes reading comic books, 1minute reading newspapers and magazines, and secondsreading mail. Frequent readers spent an89Table 5Mean. Standard Deviation, and Median forTime per Day in Minutes Spent Leisure ReadingBoys Girls TotalMaterials Frequent Infrequent FrequentInfrequentReader Reader Reader ReaderBooksM14 3 32 5 1522 3 143 17hid7 4 34 4 7MagazinesM1 0 2 0 12 1 5 13hId 0 0 0 0 0NewspapersM2 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 GirlsTotalMaterials Frequent Infrequent Frequent InfrequentReader ReaderReader ReaderAll Rec. ReadingM30 7 376 2122 4 13 41923 536 7 13Numbers have been rounded which may cause some discrepancies.91Table 6Percentage of Out-of-School TimeSpent on the Average Reading Over All 17 DaysBoys Girls TotalMaterials Frequent InfrequentFrequent InfrequentReader Reader Reader ReaderBooks 4 19 1 4Magazines0 0 00 0Newspapers 11 00 0ComicBooks 30 1 0 1Mail0 0 0 0 0All Rec. Reading8 2 11 26Note. Numbers in the table columns maynot add up correctly due to rounding.92MailMail:ComicsComicsNewsNewsMgzMgzBksBks— —— AI‘‘‘..\I_ _ — F/F FF — F F F F F F — F F F F0 100200 300400 500600Minutes Over 17DaysFiQure 1. Averageminutes spent readingvarious 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 eachday when allmaterials were taken into account: four minutes for books, one minute fornewspapers, a half ofa minute for comic books, and seconds for magazines and mail. The boys in this groupspent onthe average approximately seven minutes per day leisure reading. They spent threeminutesreading books, two minutes reading newspapers, one minute reading comic books,and secondsreading magazines and mail. The girls spent on the average approximately six minutes perdayleisure reading: five minutes reading books, one minute reading newspapers, andsecondsreading 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 amountof time spent leisure readingfor this group of grade-five students almost doubles on a weekendday. During the week,approximately 17 minutes a day was spent on the average, whereas on a weekendday,approximately 33 minutes was reported to be the average amount of timespent reading. Bothfrequent and infrequent readers’ times increase for the weekend; however, in thefrequentreader, 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 theamount of reading for thissample by displaying percentilerankings for total reading time, which is further broken downby category. For each type of reading material, time is given in minutes. The amountof timerepresents total time in minutes spent over the 17 days.The student or students at the highest9480706050Time 403020100School DaysWeekendsMale FR2 Female FRMaleIRFemale FRFigure 2. Averageminutes spent readingon school daysand 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 spent8% 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 spent6%(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 hoursand 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. Theinfrequent97readers devoted approximately 1% (1 hour and5 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 minuteto 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 readingcomic books.In summary both frequent and infrequentreaders have spent the most of their leisure-reading time reading books. Frequent readershave spent more time reading all of the othermaterials except for newspapers for which bothgroups spent the same amount of time.Ninetypercent of this sample(N.= 53) never received any mail to read, 87% neverreported readingfrom any magazines, 74% never reportedreading from any newspapers, 60% neverreportedreading from any comic books, and 15% never reportedreading from any books.Locus of Control.Following the same procedure for scoringas Nowicki and Walker (1973), median splitswere made for each gender. The median for girls was15 and for boys 16. Five girls and threeboys were eliminated since their scores fell withinthe median score. The mean and standarddeviation for girls was 15.59 (3.16); for boys, itwas 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 forthe boys, the mean of external scores was21.1 with a standard deviation of 2.38.With as gross a measure as median splitsto determine the internals and externals,it wasnecessary to compare the sample populationto the norming population. Median splits may havethe effect of the sample setting its ownstandard for locus of control. To avoid thiseffect, thesample group was compared to the population onwhich Nowicki and Strickland (1973)standardized the locus of control scale. Aconfidence level of 95% was constructed,and it was98found that the males were notsignificantly different from the formingpopulation. While thefemale mean (15.59), based on the constructionof 95% confidence intervals, forthis study issignificantly different from the populationmean for grade-five females (17.00) in1973, 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) wasscoredaccording to the directions given by the authors.A scoring sheet was used for each student,andonly recreational reading scores wereused since only that subscale was administered.Therange of possible scores on the recreationalsubscale is 0 to 40. The scores for thegrade-fivestudents in this study ranged from 17 to 40.The mean was 30.68 with a standarddeviation of4.91. The median was 31 with skewnessat -.54.Classroom Factors.The groups of grade-five students found infour classrooms, in three separateschools, fromone suburban school district near Vancouver,British Columbia, Canada, were similarin regardto gender distribution, ability, ethnicity, and economicbackgrounds, however, thestudents allhad different teachers. Two classroomteachers did not require reading for leisureat home—encouraged but not required—and two did requirechildren to read at home. One of theseteachersrequired 20 minutes of reading each schoolnight, with bookmarkers signed by his/herparentthat their child had in fact read that night forthe required time. Each morningat school, therow that had all their bookmarkerssigned were given points, and then rewardedat the end of theyear with a small token gift. The otherteacher requiring students to readat home, felt that thiswas being accomplished by taking thestudents to the library on a weeklybasis and insisting thateach student check out a novel, and read itduring that week.The results of these three approaches—encouraged,signed bookmarkers, weekly tripsto thelibrary—are of interest. The two classroomsthat were encouraged but not required toread outof school for leisure read on the averagefor 24 minutes per day during this 17day period in99February and March. This represented7% of their out-of-school time. Frequent readers fromthese two classrooms read 38 minutesper day, representing 12% of their out-of-schooltime.And infrequent readers read 6 minutesper day, representing 2% of their out-of-school time.The students that were required to read for 20 minuteseach school night with signedbookmarkers, after deducting the first 20 minutes forthose school nights and tabulating thoseminutes as homework, continued to read an additional21 minutes per day, representing 6% oftheir out-of-school time. Frequent readers fromthis classroom read an additional 33 minutesper day, representing 9% of their out-of-schooltime, and infrequent readers read an additional8 minutes per day, representing 2% of theirout-of-school time.The students that were required to readat home for leisure by checking out at least one novelfrom the school library read 14 minutesper day, representing 4% of their out-of-school time.Frequent readers in this classroom read 30 minutesper day, representing 8% of their out-of-school time, and infrequent readers read 4 minutesper day, representing 1% of their out-of-school time.It would appear that students who came from theclassrooms that were encouraged to read forrecreational purposes rather than required, spentmore time reading during their out-of-school time for the 1 7 days during the months of Februaryand March than the other students.This finding continued to hold even whenstudents were categorized as frequent readers.Frequent readers who were encouragedto read for leisure spent the most time reading.However, students referred to as infrequentreaders that were in the classroom that requiredparents to sign a bookmarker spent moretime on the average reading during their out-ofschool time. Infrequent readers from threeclassrooms spent 2% of their out-of-school timereading for leisure, and infrequent readers fromthe class that had weekly trips to the libraryspent 1% of their out-of-school time reading forleisure. When considering actual minutesspent reading, the infrequent readers from the classroom requiring20 minutes of reading onschool nights read an additional eight minutesas compared to the other classrooms where theinfrequent reader read from four to six minutes forleisure.100Main AnalysesLeisure Reading.Two different statistical procedureswere used to explore the questionof how leisurereadingmay be affected by the independent variablesof gender, ethnicity, socioeconomicstatus (SES),and ability. Results of the analyses of varianceindicated a significant gender effectfor minutesspent book reading(.Ei 52= 5.26, p. = .03), percentage of leisuretime spent book reading(Ei52= 9•43 = .00), and percentage of leisuretime spent reading all materials(Ej52= 4.42,p. = .04). There were no significant gendereffects(Ei52= 1.68, p. = .20) to report forthedependent variable of total minutes spentreading all materials—books, magazines,newspapers,comic books, and mail. Whetherminutes spent reading or percentage ofleisure time spentreading were analyzed, no ethnicdifferences could be found at the .05level of significance forbook reading or for reading all materials.A multiple classification analysisindicated a .411correlation of the dependent variable—minutesspent book reading—with a combination oftheseindependent variables. In other words,gender and ethnicity accounted for17% of the variancein the amount of minutesspent book reading. When percentage ofleisure time spent bookreading was analyzed,a multiple classification analysis indicateda .536 correlation of thedependent variable with a combinationof the independent variables—genderand ethnicityaccounted for 29% of the variance. Amultiple classification analysis forminutes spent readingall materials produced a correlation of.363, indicating that gender and ethnicityaccounted for13% of the variance in total minutesspent reading, and a second multipleclassification analysisproduced a correlation of .459, indicating thatgender and ethnicity accounted for21% of thevariance in percentage of leisure timespent reading all materials.Results of the multiple regressionanalyses conducted with the two independentvariables—SES and ability, and the dependentvariables—minutes spent book reading,total minutes spentreading all materials, percentage oftime spent book reading, and percentageof time spentreading all materials indicateda significant negative correlation (-.26)between socioeconomicstatus and minutes spent reading all materials (p.= .03). This finding continued tobe truewhen analyzing for percentageof leisure time spent reading all materials(-.27, p. = .03). This101finding did not hold, however, whenonly book reading was analyzed. Multipleregressionanalyses found no correlations among ability—as measuredby the comprehension scores on theGates-MacGinitie (1992)—and minutes spent bookreading, total minutesspent reading,percentage of leisure time spent book reading, or percentageof leisure time spent reading allmaterials.Locus of Control.The possibility of any relationships among locusof control and socioeconomic status,ability,minutes spent book reading, total minutesspent reading, percentage of leisure timespent bookreading, percentage of leisure time spent readingall materials, attitude toward recreationalreading, gender, and ethnicity was investigated usingt-tests and chi-square analyses. Allprocedures revealed no relationships with locusof control at predetermined levels ofsignificance(= .05).Attitude Toward Recreational Reading.How does attitude affect one’s decision to spend timereading for leisure? How did theindependent variables affect the dependent variable?Multiple regression analyses wereconducted, and within the correlation matrix significantpositive correlations were foundbetween minutes spent book reading (.28, = .02), total minutesspent reading all materials(.46,p= .00), and attitude. Negative correlations were found forSES (-.26, = .03) andattitude for recreational reading.A second set of multiple regression analysesused percentage of leisure timespent bookreading and percentage of leisuretime spent reading all materials as thedependent variables.Within the correlation matrix, significantpositive correlations were foundbetween percentageof leisure time spent reading allmaterials 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 alsoa part of this exploratory study with attitude,and included reading aloud to students, providing materialsin the classroom for leisure reading,use of a school library and a classroom library, teachingmethods for reading, theuse ofrewards in the classroom for leisure reading, timeprovided for leisure reading(USSR), andthe students’ observations of the teacher reading forpleasure. A series of t-tests and analysesof variance indicated no differencesbetween gender, ethnicity, teaching methods forreading,school library use or classroom libraryuse, providing materials in the classroom forleisurereading, reading aloud to students, using rewards forrecreational reading, or the students’observations of the teacher reading for pleasure andattitude toward recreational readingatpredetermined levels of significance(p = .05). No significant correlations were foundbetweenability and attitude toward recreational reading when eitherminutes or percentage of leisuretime were analyzed, nor between time in school for reading(USSR) and attitude towardrecreational reading.Variables representing the home environment included encouragingyour child to read books,magazines, newspapers, and comic books; reading together;listening to your child read;talking with him/her about leisure materials; readingaloud to your child; providingmaterials;providing a space to read; timespent reading by the parent; use of the library; use ofrewardsfor leisure reading; students’ observations ofparents’ and siblings’ reading and readingavariety of materials; distance of the home from the library;education levels of parents;languages used in the home; number of playmates of the child; thesize of the family; and theordinal position of the student. Only two independent variableshad a significant effect on thedependent variable—attitude toward recreational reading. Analysesof variance found asignificant effect between seeing parents readand attitude toward recreational reading(E252= 4.52, p. = .02). T-tests also found a significant difference betweenobserving 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 ontime spent reading for leisure forthisgroup of students were investigatedby analyzing a variety of school variablesexplored throughthe use of interviews. These variables included readingaloud to students, provision ofmaterialsin the classroom for leisurereading, the use of a school library anda classroom library,teaching methods for reading, theuse of rewards in the classroom for leisurereading, timeprovided for leisure reading (USSR), andthe students’ observations oftheir teacher reading forpleasure.A series of t-tests were conducted analyzing the independentvariable of what the teacherwas doing during USSR. Only studentswere asked this question during the interview.Althoughthis was as an open-ended question, possible responseshad been precoded based onthe pilotstudy. These categories consisted of “paperwork,”“errands,” “talk,” “read,”“don’t know,” and“no answer.” A significant difference wasfound between seeing the teacherread during thistime and the dependent variables—minutes spent readingbooks(I= 2.01, p. = .05), totalminutes spent reading all materials(I= 2.33, p. = .02), percentage ofleisure time spentreading all materials(1= 2.27, p. = .03), but not percentage of leisuretime spent book reading(j = 1.61,p. = .11).T-tests and analyses of variance revealed no significantdifferences with the remainingindependent variables—teacher reading aloudto the students, various leisure readingmaterialsin the classroom, use of the school library anda classroom library, teachingmethods forreading, and the use of rewards for leisure reading in theclassroom—and the dependentvariables—minutes spent book reading, total minutesspent reading all materials,percentage ofleisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisuretime spent reading all materials.Exceptfor the variable of teachingmethods for reading, these independentvariables were exploredthrough the student interview, the parent interview,and the teacher interview.The answersfor these questions, except for goingto the school library, had been precodedinto the followingcategories: “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “often.” Onlythe students were givena scale indicatingthese possible choices. The responses given by theparents and the teacher were alsocoded into1 04these categories but not until afterthe 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, andwas 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 timeprovided for USSR, andagain no significant effects were found. This open-ended questionwas asked in all threeinterviews.Home Factors.Some of the influences that the home may have had on time spent readingfor leisure wereanalyzed with 40 variables found in 13 clusters. These included encouragingyour child to readbooks, magazines, newspapers, and comic books; reading together; listeningto your child read;talking with him/her about leisurematerials; reading aloud to your child; providing materials;providing a space to read; time spent reading by the parent; use of thelibrary; use of rewardsfor leisure reading; students’ observations of parents’ and siblings’reading and reading avariety of materials; distance of the home from the library; educationlevels of parents;languages used in the home; number of playmates of the child; the sizeof the family; and thebirth position of the student. Those that turned out to have significanteffects included students’observations of siblings’ use of various reading materials, and theparents’ report of provisionof a space for reading in the home.A series of t-tests were used on the independent variables representinga student’s reportedobservation of a sibling’s various reading behaviors. Each studentwas 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 thedependent variable of minutesspent reading books(t= 4.71, p... = .00). This was not the case for the otherdependentvariables—total minutes spent reading all materials(I= 1 .54,=.13), percentage of leisure1 05time spent book reading (j= 1.52, p. = .13), orpercentage of leisuretime spent readingallmaterials(1= 1 .62, p. = .11).The observation ofsiblings reading comicbooks had a signficanteffect on all the dependentvariables: minutesspent reading books(j= 2.27, p. = .03); totalminutes spent reading allmaterials(1= 2.65, p. = .01); percentageof leisure timespent bookreading(1= 2.12, p. = .04);and percentageof leisure time spent readingall materials(1 =2.96, p. = .01). Afterinspecting thedata closely for comicbook reading, it wasevident thatthese findings werea factor for girls whowere frequent readers.The observation ofsiblingsreading newspapers hada significant negativeeffect with the dependentvariable of percentageofleisure time spent book reading(1= -2.01, p. = .05). Itseems that the morenewspaperreading by the siblingobserved, theless time a student spent readingbooks for leisure.Thisfinding was not truefor the other dependentvariables—minutes spentreading books(I= -1.50,p. = .14); total minutes spentreading all materials(1= -.53, p. = .60); andpercentage ofleisure time spent readingall materials(1= -.82, p. = .42).A series of t-tests wereused with the independentvariables representingthe variousreading materials thata student would observehis/her parent reading.Each student wasspecifically asked ifhis/her parent readbooks, magazines, newspapers,or mail. A significantnegative effect was foundbetween the independentvariable of observingone’s parent readingbooks, and thedependent variable ofpercentage of leisuretime spent book reading(1= -2.14, p.= .04). However, uponcloser inspection,this result appears tobe due to an outlier.Therewere no significanteffects or trends,positively or negatively,for the other dependentvariables—minutesspent book reading,total minutes spentreading all materials,andpercentage of leisure timereading all materials.A series of analyses ofvariance wereused to analyze how theindependent variable—distanceof the hometo the library—mighteffect the dependentvariable—time spentreading. Asignificant effect wasfound betweenthis independent variableand the dependentvariable—percentage of leisuretime spent readingall materials(.E3 52= 2.78, p. = .05).Again, thisappeared to be due to anoutlier. These effectswere not noted for thedependent variablesof106minutes spent reading books, total minutesspent reading all materials, or percentage of leisuretime spent book reading.A series of anaylses of variance founda significant effect between the independent variableofthe parents’ report to providing a place intheir home for reading and the dependent variables—percentage of leisure time spent book reading(E351= 3.30, = .03), and percentage ofleisure time reading all materials(E351= 3.69,,= .02). No significant findings occuredfor the other two dependent variables—minutesspent book reading(E351= 1.92, = .14),and total minutes spent reading allmaterials(E351= 2.05, = .12).Through the use of multiple regression analyses andanalyses of variance, there were no realdifferences to report for the remaining variablesencouraging your child to read books,magazines, newspapers, and comic books;reading together; listening to your child read; talkingwith him/her about leisure materials; reading aloudto your child; providing materials; timespent reading by the parent; use of the library (parents’ membership,students’ membership,or taking the child to the libraryat this age); the use of rewards for leisure reading;distance ofthe home from the library; education levelsof parents; languages used in the home; number ofplaymates of the child; size of family; orbirth order position.Reasons for ActivitiesThe first part of the student interview (Appendix 4)explored reasons, feelings,encouragement, likes and dislikes, otherpossibilities—such as what would make the activitymore fun, and what if anything wouldget one to spend more time—as well as values andexpectations for these reasons. Aseries of questions repeated through three differentactivitesidentified by the clock-sheets as thestudent’s number one activity, that which had the mostamount of time over the last threeweeks; his/her number two activity, the next mostamount oftime; and finally, the activity of leisurereading. Out of 53 students, no one had reading astheirnumber one activity; 10 had readingas their number two activity. The reading data for theseindividuals were treated with all theother reading data. During the interview,Activity107Two questions were skipped for these tenstudents. 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%), listeningto music, shopping, and doing choresat 6% each, andwriting, playing games, doing homework, andwatching videos at 2% each.Reasons, likes, and feelings were collapsed into one categorysince the purpose of thesequestions was to get at what rewards might be gained from the activityby each individual.Asking the question from these three differentapproaches seemed to help the student beinginterviewed to get at “the why” for doingthese things. Reasons given by these grade-fivestudents for participating in their particularleisure activities are shown in Table 8. Theseresponses were given by the students and are listed in the order ofmagnitude found in thefrequencies for each activity provided by SPSSX—a Statistical Packagefor the Social Sciences.Most of these reasons have common connotationswith the exception, perhaps, of availability,encouragement, and avoidance of negative consequences. In thisstudy, availability meansaccessible; encouragement means to receive help, orbe 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 meout of trouble.” As can be seen,the question—”were students getting thesame results from the three activities?,” seemsto 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 thatall of these 53 students receivedfor their activities during these 17days in February and in March are displayed inTable 9.The amounts of encouragement that all of these 53 studentsreceived 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 timereading for leisure. This person wasusually their mother—62% mentionedthis person, 26% of the students mentioned theirfather,followed by. 6% mentioning their teacher, and 2% referredto a sibling. Only 17% of the108Table 8Reasons for Participating inLeisure ActMtiesActivity One ActivityTwo Leisure ReadingEnjoyment EnjoymentEnjoymentRelief from Boredom Relieffrom Boredom Relief from BoredomAvoid Neg.Conseq.Encouragement To LearnAvailability OtherAvailabilityEncouragement AvoidNeg.Conseq. EncouragementTo Learn To LearnOtherOther 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 thatsomeone tried to get them to spend time in theirfirst activity. The person mentioned most for thissmall group was a sibling, followed by theirfather, mother, teacher, and friend. Verbal encouragement for the second activitywas true for49% of the group. This time the mother is mentioned as the person giving thissupport most ofthe time, followed by the father, peers, sibling, and extended family. All of thesefindings had todo with oral support.Parents spending time participating in the activity ona daily basis is another type ofencouragement. In leisure reading, most parents (51%) reported spending 1-2hours 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 wereasked 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 onlyhad 6% spending more than twohours. Less than an hour was reportedby 17% of the parents, and 9% reported notparticipating at all in the first activity. The students’ second activity hada 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 morethan two hours in activity two.Do parents and students spend time together in these activities? Keeping in mindthat“rarely” means “once a week or less,” this was the predominateanswer 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 howoften 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 timesa week,” wastrue for 19% of the parents in leisure reading, 25% of theparents for Activity One, and 15%of the parents for Activity Two. “Often” which means “almost everyday” wastrue for 15% ofthe parents in leisure reading, 25% of the parents forActivity One, and 15% of the parents forActivity Two.111Have students received encouragement for all theiractivities? In leisure reading, theanswer is “yes” for 64% of the students when it comesto oral or verbal support. This supportwas given by the mother in 62% of the cases. As foractually doing it—visual support—51% ofthe parents participated from 1-2 hours everyday inleisure reading. Physical support—doingit together—predominately had very little support. Sixty-six percent ofthe parents werereading with their children once a week or less. Inregard 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 dailybasis 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 hadmore 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 wasdecided to observe the frequencies for thetwo. extreme groups of frequent and infrequent readers. Instead of looking at all53 students,only the extreme quartiles were examined. Frequentreaders were those who had spent 10% ormore of their leisure time reading, and theinfrequent readers had spent 1% or less reading.Each group consisted of 13 students. There were 2 boys and 11 girls in thefrequent readinggroup, and 6 boys and 7 girls in the infrequent reading group. The most popularreason thatthese frequent readers expressed for reading during theirleisure 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 mentionedby three of them, and having books“available” and “being encouraged by others” to read was each mentionedby at least one of thefrequent readers. The reasons that infrequent readers gave for not readingduring their leisuretime were categorized as “other things were availableand allowed” for six of the students; thatreading was “not enjoyable” was mentioned by five ofthem; that “something was missing for theactivity” of reading was mentioned by two of thestudents; and that books or materials were “notavailable” was each mentioned by at least one of theinfrequent readers.112In order to make reading more funfor infrequent readers, “content” and “format”werementioned. “Content”—referring to style, characters,or plot—was mentioned by six oftheinfrequent readers. “Format”—referring to physicalcharacteristics such as length, theinclusion of visuals or auditory effects—was mentionedby five of the students. Having more“time,” and having “a preferred element or feature”was each mentioned by at leastone of thestudents for making reading more fun for them. On theother hand, one of the infrequentreaderswas satisfied with reading, and one could not think ofanything to make it more fun. Four ofthefrequent readers also said that the content couldbe improved to make reading more fun;butthree already found reading to be satisfactory. Two ofthe 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 orfeature”;and comments that fell under the category of “other.”The idea of what if anything would get you to spendmore time reading was explored withthese students and the predominate answer for frequentreaders was that of satisfaction—sixmentioned that really nothing wouldget them to spend more time. However, threestudentsmentioned that having materials more “available” wouldget them to spend more time readingduring their leisure. Two mentionednot having “other things available and allowed,” or havingmore “time” would get themto spend more time reading. The most popular responsefor theinfrequent readers came under the category of “other.” Four ofthe infrequent readers had avariety of answers that could notbe categorized under any of the existing categories.Threementioned “content”; another three mentioned that nothing wouldget them to spend more time.Two verbalized that they would participate in leisure reading ifthere was more “time”; havingreading materials “available,” and not having “other things availableand allowed” for them to dowas each mentioned by at least one of theinfrequent readers.The use of rewards for leisure readingwas investigated through interviews with theteachers, parents, and students. Whether or not these rewardswere given presently or in thepast, in school or at home, was asked in all three interviewsexcept for that of the teacher.Teachers were only asked about the grade they were presentlyteaching. Only students were113asked who sponsored these rewards inthe school. Table 10 shows responses forthese 26students—frequent readers and infrequentreaders. Observing the frequencies forthe twoextremes, apparently five of the frequentreaders were presently being given somekind ofreward for leisure reading by the teacheron a daily basis. Also, three of thesefrequent readerswere being given rewards by their parentson a daily basis at home for leisure reading.Therewas a discrepancy between students and parents onthis matter since none of thelatter reportedanything but “rarely.” This discrepancy might resultfrom differing perceptionsof rewards.In order to explore the components of social learningtheory—rewards or reasons,expectations, and values—students wereasked questions about these aspects duringtheinterview. The results for the questionsthat explored the reasons, expectations,and valuesaround reading are shown for the 13 frequent readersin Table 11, and the 13infrequentreaders in Table 12. The responses listed under the headingof Reason represent thecategorywhich the independent raters had chosen foreach answer given by the students for reasons,likes, and feelings for leisure reading.The Expectation could range from “extremelysure,”“quite sure,” “slightly sure,” to “notat all sure.” The Value could range from “reallyimportant,” “important,” “somewhat important,”to “not at all important.”Expectations and values around reading were exploredwith these two extreme groups offrequent and infrequent readers. Both groups seemto be predominately interested in readingfor enjoyment. However, expectations forenjoyment were stronger for thefrequent readersthan the infrequent readers. Seven ofthese frequent readers were “quite sure”that readingwould be enjoyable, and the value they placed onenjoyment was much higher—”veryimportant.” In contrast, infrequent readerswere “slightly sure” that reading wouldbeenjoyable, and they felt that enjoyment was “not at allimportant.” It was also notedthatfrequent readers had more reasons to read thaninfrequent readers. Frequentreaders mentioned“enjoyment,” “learning,” “relief fromboredom,” “encouragement,” “other,”and “availability”;whereas infrequent readers mentioned “enjoyment,”“other,” “learning,” and “relief fromboredom.” Values placed on these outcomeswere also much higher for more of thefrequentreaders.114Table 10Use of Rewards in theSchool and in the Home for LeisureReadingSchoolHomePresent PastPresent 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 FrequentReadersReason ExpectationValue1 3 ENJOYMENT Notat 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) Notat 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 B1DOIJDNot at all sure (1)aQuite sure (1)2 OTHER Notat all sure(j)a a1 AVAILABILITY Slightlysure (1) Not at all important (1)aMissingdata.116Table 12Reasons. Exoectations. and Values forReading of Infrecuent Readers.Reason ExpectationValue1 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)aBOREDOMaMissingdata.117SummaryIn summary, the major findings for thisstudy are listed below.1. This sample of grade-fivestudents(N.53) spent 6% (5 hours and 49 minutes) of theirleisure time reading over 17 days in Februaryand March. Reading books topped the list at 4%(4 hours and 11 minutes), followedby 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). Percentageof students’ times ranged fromspending 19% of their out-of-school timereading for leisure to zero time. These grade-fivestudents spent a daily average of approximately 21minutes reading, when all materials weretaken into account. Students spent an average of approximately15 minutes per day readingbooks, 4 minutes reading comic books, 1 minute readingnewspapers and magazines, and secondsreading mail. Eighty-five percent ofthis sample used books, 40% used comic books, 26%usednewspapers, 17% used mail, and 13% used magazines. Frequentreaders 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 readersspent 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 minutesspent book reading, percentage of leisure time spentbook reading, and percentage of leisure time spentreading all materials—books, magazines,newspapers, comic books, and mail—werefound. Girls spent more time reading.3. A significant negative correlation was found between socioeconomicstatus—within oneeconomic group—and total minutes spent reading, andpercentage of leisure time spent readingall materials. The higher the SES score,the less time was spent reading.4. Positive correlations were foundbetween minutes spent book reading, total minutesspentreading all materials, percentage ofleisure time spent book reading, percentage of leisure timespent reading all materials and recreational readingattitude. Negative correlations werefoundbetween socioeconomic status—within one economic group—andattitude for recreational readingand for both minutes spent reading and percentageof time spent reading, whether for books only118or for all reading materials. A significanteffect was found between seeing parents read, as wellas observing one’s parents reading newspapers, and attitude towardrecreational reading.5. Significant relationships were found between seeing the teacherread during UndisturbedSustained Silent Reading and minutes spent reading books, totalminutes spent reading allmaterials, and percentage of leisure time spent reading allmaterials.6. Observation by the student of siblings’ reading books had asignificant effect on the numberof minutes the student spent reading books.The observation of siblings reading comic books alsohad a signficant effect on minutes spentreading books, total minutes spent reading all materials,percentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentageof leisure time spent reading allmaterials. The observation by the student of siblings readingnewspapers had a significantnegative effect with the percentage of leisure timespent book reading. Significant effects werefound between the parents’ report of providinga place in their home for reading and thepercentage of leisure time spent book reading, and percentage ofleisure time spent reading allmaterials.7. The number one reason for participating in a leisureactivity was enjoyment, while thenumber two reason was relief from boredom.8. The amount of encouragement that all of these53 students received for their activitiesduring the 17 days was predominately inleisure 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 timereading.While 6% of the parents spent more than twohours each day reading, most parents (51%)reported spending 1-2 hours eachday reading for leisure; 42% reported spending lessthan anhour, and 2% reported not readingat all. Reading together had very little support.Sixty-sixpercent of the parents were reading withtheir children once a week or less. When observingthe frequencies for the two extremes—i3 frequent readers and 13 infrequent readers—apparently five of the frequent readers were presently being givensome kind of reward forleisure reading by the teacher ona daily basis. Also, three of these frequent readers werebeinggiven rewards by their parents ona daily basis at home for leisure reading.1199. The most popular reason that these frequent readersexpressed for reading during theirleisure time was “enjoyment.” Bothgroups—frequent and infrequent readers—seem to bepredominately interested in reading forenjoyment; however, expectations for enjoymentwerestronger, and the value students placed on enjoymentwas much higher for the frequent readersthan for the infrequent readers. It was alsonoted that frequent readers expressed morereasonsto read than did infrequent readers, and the values placedon these outcomes were much higherfor the frequent readers.10. The reasons that infrequent readersgave 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 formatwere the most frequently mentioned in orderto make reading more funfor infrequent readers.“Content”—referring to style, characters, orplot; “format”—referringto physical characteristics suchas length, the inclusion of visuals or auditory effects.Frequentreaders also said that the contentcould be improved to make reading more fun;but some alreadyfound reading to be satisfactoryor better.12. Satisfaction was foundto be the predominate answer for frequentreaders for the questionof “what if anything wouldget you to spend more time reading?”Other frequent readersmentioned, however, that having materialsmore “available” would get themto spend more timereading during their leisure, not having“other things available andallowed,” or having more“time” would also get themto spend more time reading. The mostfrequent response for theinfrequent readers came under thecategory of “other”—answers that could notbe categorizedunder any of the existingcategories. Other infrequentreaders mentioned “content,” that nothingwould get them to spendmore time, if there was more“time,” having reading materials“available,” and not having“other things available and allowed” forthem to do.Interpretations of these findings in relationto the questions raised in thisstudy will bediscussed in the followingchapter.120CHAPTERVDiscussionThe problem to be investigated in this study is whychildren who can read either elect to reador not to read during out-of-school leisure time. Theability to read is defined as readingat thelevel of one’s peers in grade five. This was arrivedat by scoring at the 34th percentile oraboveon the comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitieReading Test (1992), as well as beingrated by the teacheras reading at grade level or above. Leisure reading is definedas out-of-school reading of books, magazines, newspapers,comic books or mail. Students weredividedinto two groups: frequent readers, definedas students who are capable of reading at the leveloftheir peers and who choose reading asa possible activity during their out-of-schooltime, andinfrequent readers—students who are capable ofreading at the level of their peers but rarelychoose reading as a possible activity duringtheir out-of-school time. These groups wereformed by listing the sample in rank order using percentsfor the reported amounts of timespent reading out of school. This included all reading ofbooks, magazines, newspapers, comicbooks, and mail not meant for school. Students’ timesranged from spending 0 to 19% of theirout-of-school time reading for leisure. A median splitwas made at 5% creating two groups—frequent readers and infrequent readers. Considering onlybook reading, frequent readers readon the average 23 minutes per day; infrequent readersread on the average less than 5 minutesper day.Clock-sheetsStudents reported their out-of-school activities dailyusing a clock-sheet (Appendices 1, 2,3). These sheets were not only relatively easyto 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, theyseemed complicated. However, once the student experienceda trial run of filling out a clock-sheet, he/she usually found themto be intriguing. Somestudents, observing others using the instrument, changed theirminds about not participating inthe study. If this happened on the firstday, they were allowed to join the study if they cameback with signed permission slips the nextday when the clock-sheets were first collected.Other students who had asked to join the study throughoutthe 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 18hours 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 ableto successfully use this instrument.Daily clarifications were necessary not only for missingcodes or illegible codes, but also toverify activities that seemed out of the ordinary, suchas 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 suchas “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 usuallyshort, about a minute or less.How reliable are these reportings? Rather than usingquestionnaires (Covington, 1985;Cunningham, 1973; Maxwell, 1977; McEady-Gillead, 1989;Moffitt, 1992; Picha, 1988; A.Taylor, 1982; Whiteheadet al., 1975) or interviews (Heyns, 1978; Rasinski, 1987) toverify reading activities out of school, thisstudy 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-schooltime over a period of three weeks,rather than depending on children’s ability to recallthese activities. Although keeping a dailydiary is considered a self-report method, it wouldseem to be much more reliable thana selfreport interview or questionnaire if one expectschildren to give accurate information (Carp&1 22Carp, 1981). This view isbased on the fact that the time frame has been lessened between whenthe individual participated in theactivity, and when the individual documents this participation.When a student does notsuspect what might be the interests of the researcher, there are reallyno incentives to misrepresent theiractivities except perhaps due to laziness. One of the finalquestions of the student’s interview directly asks “whatdo you think this study is about?” Allstudents answered “what we do outside of school,” or reasonablyclose to that statement. No onementioned reading for leisure.Students had numerous types of categories to use forreporting all their activities includingthe category “what else I did.” When one observes suchentries 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 itwas 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; anotherstudent 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 elseI did” section (El to E4) of the instrument. There werehumorous times too: El “I got anegg 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 startedat 8 p.m. and ended at 11 p.m.; the Sunday WeekendDay clock-sheetindicated “not feeling well” from 9 noon. Playing with Barbies seemed to be an activitythat some of these grade-fivestudents found difficult to admit in writing. Throughconsultation,it was decided that the code that they could use forthis activity would be “Bb”. However,throughout the data collection, some students wouldwrite “Bb (Barbies)” for that activityspace. There were also reported incidents that weresomewhat novel, all of which wereexplained to the researcher duringa consultation time: “sitting in line-ups”—--children sit inlines according to their ageat Daycare; “rocked”—wasn’t rocked as a baby so student presentlyrocks themself on the floor; “quality time”—familydiscussion time.1 23Leisure Reading Comparisons.The question that needs to be addressed is how did thisgroup of grade-five studentscompareto other samples reported in the literaturein regard to how much time was spentreading out ofschool? This group spent on the average21 minutes per day reading out of school for leisurefor 17 days during the months ofFebruary and March. This figure was qualified evenmorewhen it was reported for a schoolday, an average of 17 minutes, and a weekend day, an averageof 33 minutes. This timeframe—21 minutes—represents on the average6% of a student’s timeout of school. From this sample ofgrade-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 theirout-of-school time reading, as comparedto 2% for theinfrequent readers. Boys found in the group of frequentreaders spent, an average of 8% oftheir out-of-school time reading,as compared to the girls who spent an average of 11% oftheirtime reading. In the group of infrequentreaders, boys and girls both spent anaverage of 2% oftheir out-of-school time reading.Are these students spending more time,or less time, reading out of schoolas compared to theother grade-five sample groupsfrom around the world? It is very difficultto make thisjudgment due to the various procedures found inthe literature. For example, wheninvestigating leisure reading notonly were different times of the year under consideration,butalso numerous lengths of time forthe activity of reading. Time frames varied froma 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 (Whiteheadet aI.,1975), two to six months(Anderson et al., 1988; B. M. Tayloret aI., 1990), or for threeyears (Lamme, 1 976). Findingsthroughout the literature were reported indifferent forms,such as number of books(Lamme, 1976; Maxwell, 1977; Whiteheadet al., 1975), hours(Long & Henderson, 1972),minutes (Allen et al., 1992; Andersonet al., 1988; Rasinski,1987; B. M. Taylor et al., 1990), and percentageof leisure time (Greaney, 1980; Greaney&Hegarty, 1987). Since thisstudy’s findings are based on percentageof out-of-school time, aswell as in minutes, comparisons willonly be made with the studiesthat did likewise.1 24The most recent studies thatcomparisons 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 about5minutes per night reading books for pleasure, and 16minutes if all reading was considered(assigned book reading, book reading not assigned, magagzines,newspapers, comic books)between mid April and early May. Reading abilities anddata 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 Januaryto mid May, but this figure included assigned readingand leisure.reading. Other types of reading were notinvestigated, and data for infrequentreaders were not reported. In the 1980’s, it was reported that fifth graderswere spending amedian of 4.6 minutes per day reading books (Andersonet 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 nationalaverage on a standardized readingcomprehension test, did little or no book reading duringthis extensive time frame.In 1987, in Ireland, over four days—when during the year was notreported—it was foundthat grade-five students were spending 7.2% (125.5 minutes over fourschool days) of theirleisure time reading; of these capable readers, 24% werenot reading books, 66% were notreading comics, and 18% were not doingany reading at all during these four days (Greaney&Hegarty, 1987). In an earlier study, for threedays in June, Greaney (1980) found thatgrade-five students were only spending an average of 5.4% oftheir leisure time reading; 44%were not reading books during this time, and 22% were notdevoting any time to leisure reading(Greaney, 1980). Some of thesereaders, however, may not have been capable since the samplewas similar to national norms.Considering the time element only, it appears that thesegrade-five students in BritishColumbia, Canada, during the early 1990’s were spendingmore time leisure reading out ofschool than the fifth-grade childrenwho participated in the two studies in the United Statesinthe 1990’s, as well as the fifth-grade children whoparticipated in the one study in the 1980’s.1 25Incidentally, one of the studies that tookplace in the 1990’s, as well as the one study in the1980’s, happened during the same time of the year as the presentstudy.Considering the percentage of time spent out-of-school readingfor leisure, the students inBritish Columbia, Canada, are spending less of their time readingthan the students in Irelandduring the late 1980’s, but more thanthe Irish students in the early 1980’s. The figure of7.2% of one’s leisure time for Irish studentsin the late 1980’s equalled 125.5 minutes overfour days, which would equal 31 minutesper day, as compared to students in Canada reading21minutes per day or spending 6% of their leisure time. It was notreported 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 thelatter study. The readers thatparticipated in the June study were not necessarily all capablereaders either, since it wasreported that participants represented the national norms. Thesedifferences—time of year andability—could have had an affect on theoutcome 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-fivestudents are “crazy” about reading. Grade-fivestudents were chosen for the target populationto 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 morelikely 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), comparedto other grade levels, and would thereforeguarantee a sizeable population of readers forthe comparison.Information on the infrequent reader, however, is notalways 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 (Andersonet al.,1988); one reported that one-third of the capablereaders were not reading during their two weeks ofdata collection (Long & Henderson, 1972);and one reported that some children didvirtually no book reading during an entireschool year(Lamme, 1976).1 26Greaney & Hegarty (1987) reportedthat 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 theP6 (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 thisage—among the capable readers—during themonths 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) duringa four week period.In British Columbia, Canada, only 4%of the sample(N.= 53)—all capable readers—did notreport any leisure reading during the 17days 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, ormail.There is some controversy within the literature over genderdifferences. A number ofstudies have shown that there are morenon-book readers among the boys at grade 5 (Greaney,1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Whiteheadet al., 1975). Girls. not only read more books(Maxwell, 1977), but they also read moreperiodicals (Whitehead et al., 1975). When comicsare distinguished from magazines, grade-fiveboys 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 grade5 (Long & Henderson,1972).The results for this present study support theargument that there are gender differences. Asignificant gender effect was found forminutes spent book reading, and percentage of leisuretime for both book reading and for readingall of the various materials—books, magazines,newspapers, comic books, and mail. Therewere no differences to report, however, for totalminutes spent reading all materials. When allreading materials were analyzed, the boys—beingheavy comic book readers, as wellas 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 minutesper 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 fora school day, 17 minutes(boys = 20 minutes; girls = 17 minutes), anda weekend day, 33 minutes (boys = 25 minutes;girls = 40 minutes). These findings can be further described as representingon 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 theirout-of-school timereading as compared to the girls who spent 11%—or 37 minutes on theaverage—of their timereading. Boys in the frequent reading group devoted 4% of their leisuretime to reading books,3% to reading comic books, 1% to reading newspapers, and minusculeamounts of time toreading magazines and mail. Girls devoted 9% of their leisure timeto 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 theboys in this group seem to have more out-of-school time, they spent about seven minutes on the average as comparedto the girls whowere spending six minutes on the average perday reading for leisure. Boys found in theinfrequent readers devoted 1% to reading books and newspapers, minuscule amountsof time toreading magazines and comic books, and no timeto mail. Girls devoted 1% to reading books,minuscule amounts of time to reading magazines and newspapers, and notime to reading comicbooks or mail.Whether one inspects the data for the entire group, or thetwo sub-groups, there are genderdifferences to be reported. There are differences in the amounts of timespent reading—whetherreading time is expressed in actual minutesor percentage of one’s leisure time—differences intypes of materials, and differences in days ofthe week spent reading—school days versus aweekenddays.The literature on leisure reading has reported positive correlationsbetween 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 controversyto be found was that Greaney (1980) had reported thata student was a frequent book reader when the father’soccupation 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 tendedto be of high and lowSES levels for grades 9-12 rather thanat the middle level. Hansen (1969) found nosignificantrelationship with father’s occupation and independent reading.Unlike other findings in theliterature, the present study found a significant negativecorrelation between socioeconomicstatus and total minutes spent reading for leisure which included all reading—books,magazines,newspapers, comic books, and mail. The reader needsto be cautioned though that this samplewas from a similar economic background and wouldhave restricted the variance for SES.The explanation for this relationship would be purelyspeculative at this point and warrantsfurther study at a later time. However, data from theclock-sheets was not speculative anddocumented evidence was provided as to what these students were doing duringthe 17 days oftheir leisure time in February and March. Thetop 25% of the SES scores were selected, and outof 14 students in this group, three were frequentreaders. The data for the 11 remainingstudents were inspected for all activities, and thepercentage of time for each individual wastabulated. The student with the highest SES scorewas very different from the rest of the group.The percentage of time spent in the various categoriesseemed fairly balanced for thisindividual: under “other”—spending time with thefamily, doing art, going to church, beingaspectator, waiting, talking, spending time witha pet was 19%; playing sports—18%; helpingaround the house, watching television, and watchingmovie 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 ofthe students, except for one, had televisionas their number one activity. Time spent watching television ranged from30-45% of one’sleisure time. The number two activity for thisgroup of students was either playing sportswhich ranged from 16-20% of their leisuretime, or doing “other” which ranged from 18-25% of their leisure time. One student’s secondactivity was going to the store, which tookup20% of their leisure time. “Other” included suchthings as attending meetings, spending time129with pets, being a spectator at an event,spending time with the family, going to a party, goingtochurch, talking, visiting, being in a school play, lyingin 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 thegroup spent between 1-3% of their leisuretime reading.It would seem that television has takena big bite out of the leisure time of these children whocome from families with higher incomes and highereducation 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 beingacademically better (Moffitt, 1992), has beenreported to correlate with amounts of timespent leisure reading by some researchers, althoughLamme (1976) and B. M. Taylor (1990) didnot find a relationship. The presentstudysupports these latter researchers since there wasno correlation found between ability—asmeasured by the raw scores on the comprehensionsection of the Gates-MacGinitie (1992)—andamounts of time spent book reading or total amountsof time spent reading all materials. Thismay have been due to the fact that onlycapable readers were included in the sample.Locus of ControlReports from the literature on locus of control have found significantcorrelations betweenSES and locus of control (Bartel, 1971; Willey, 1978),but the present study found nocorrelation. This was probably dueto the fact that the sample was froma similar economicbackground. Locus of control has been reportedas 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 andlocus of control. Again this result mayhavebeen due to the fact that only capable readers wereunder consideration. Several researchers(Crandall et al., 1965; Flynn, 1991; Newhouse, 1974;Prawat et al., 1979) reported findinggender differences for locus of control; whereasothers have not found gender tobe a significant130intervening variable (Barnett & Kaiser, 1977;D. Brown et al., 1984; Sherman, 1984). Thisstudy supports the latter group, in that no relationshipwas found between locus of control andgender with these subjects. Ethnic differences werereported 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 locusof control.Findings from the literature based on reading and locusof control have reported that locus ofcontrol correlated positively with reading readinessscores (Bartel, 1971), readingachievement (Matheny and Edwards, 1974; Nielsenand Long, 1981; Pani, 1991; Wooster,1974), and with reading comprehension (Boraks etaL, 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 correlationbetween locus of control and readingattitude, but Blaha and Chomin (1982) did so whenreplicating the study three years later. Thepresent study found no correlation between attitudetoward recreational reading, as measuredbythe Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (1990), andlocus of control, as measured by theChildren’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale (1973).Willey (1978) found thatlocus of control reached levels of significance with thenumber of books read in the summer, butthe present study did not find any relationship betweenlocus of control and minutes spentreading books, total minutes spent reading all materials,percentage of leisure time spent bookreading, or percentage of leisure time spent readingall materials during the 17 days of datacollection in February and in March.Attitude Toward Recreational ReadinyFindings in the literature on reading attitudes haveindicated that having a positive readingattitude is linked with higher levels of readingability (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—norelationship was foundbetween recreational reading attitudes and ability,whether the analysis was conducted usingminutes or percentage of leisure time. The reader needsto be cautioned, though, that all131students in the presentstudy were capable readers. It has also been reported that studentswithhigher reading abilities spend significantly moretime reading for recreation (Connor, 1954;Greaney, 1980; Long & Henderson, 1972; Maxwell,1977; Whitehead et al., 1975), butthiswas not found to be true in the presentstudy. Multiple regression analyses did not findcorrelations between raw score on the Gates-MacGinitiecomprehension section (1992) andminutes spent reading books over 17 days, or withtotal minutes spent reading—books,magazines, newspapers, comic books, and mail. Thiswas also true when analyzing percentageoftime spent book reading, and percentage of leisuretime spent reading all materials. Otherstudies have reported that positive reading attitudescorrelate more highly with recreationalreading than with achievement (Allenet al., 1992; Greany & Hegarty, 1987; Long &Henderson, 1972). The present study also found significantcorrelations between a positiverecreational reading attitude and minutesspent book reading, total minutes spent readingallmaterials, percentage of leisure timespent book reading, and percentage of leisure timespentreading all materials.Girls having better reading attitudes than boys hasbeen 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 nosignificant gender differences forrecreational reading attitudes at the grade-five level.Duggins (1989), Greaney and Hegarty (1987), andWhitehead et al. (1977) have allreported finding no significant differences between socioeconomicstatus and reading attitudes.The present study did find a negative correlationbetween SES and attitude toward recreationalreading, whether the analyses lookedat minutes or percentage of leisure time. This makessensewhen one considers the significantnegative correlation found between socioeconomicstatus andtime spent reading out of school earlier. However,the reader needs to be cautioned that thiswasprobably due to the fact that the sample was froma similar economic background. LikeDuggins(1989), no relationship was found between ethnicityand recreational reading attitudes.132Factors that improve students’ readingattitudes have been reported by some researchersas:time in school for reading—USSR—(Schonet aL, 1981); teaching methods (Healy, 1965;Shapiro & White, 1991), although otherresearchers have found teaching methodsdo not makeany difference (McKenna,Stratton, Grindler, Rakestraw, & Jenkins, 1992; Morrow&Weinstein, 1986); and homeliterary environments (Hansen, 1969). The presentstudy did notfind significant relationshipsbetween recreational reading attitudes and readingaloud tostudents, providing various leisure readingmaterials in the classroom, use of schoolandclassroom library, teaching methods forreading, use of rewards in school for leisure reading,time in school for reading(USSR), or students’ observations of the teacher readingforpleasure.Throughout the literature, there is agreementover the influence of membership ina publiclibrary, and how it correlateswith one’s attitude toward recreational reading (Heyns,1978;Holmes, 1932; McKenna & Kear, 1992).However, some have limited this findingto thenumber of books borrowed (Long& Henderson, 1972), and others to the regularityof thevisits—every ten days—(Whitehead et at., 1977).The present study found no effect forstudents’ membership in a public library andattitude toward recreational reading. Therewasalso no effect between attitude towardrecreational reading and parents’ librarymembership,taking students to the libraryat this age, or distance from the hometo the library.Hansen (1973) reported that readingguidance and encouragement, which includedreadingwith the child, contributedsignificantly to the differences found ina study conducted in 1969where factors in the home environmentexplained a significant portion ofthe variance in achild’s reading attitude when itcame to independent reading. The present study,however, didnot find any significant differencesto report for these home variables of encouragingstudents toread various reading materials,or reading aloud to children. There were no effectsfoundbetween family size, or birth order,and recreational reading attitude. Homefactors that didsignificantly effect recreational readingattitudes were observing parents reading,andobserving parents reading newspapers.133Does attitude influence one’s decision tospend time reading for recreation? The presentstudy has found this to be true.InterviewsThe purpose of the interview wasto explore numerous factors that might have had aninfluence on a child’s decision to spend timereading 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 mightbe theapproach to use when investigating leisurereading behavior.HMakingthe interviewee feelaccepted, understood, and secure in theinterview is perhaps even more important ininterviewing children than in interviewingadults” (Hughes, 1988,p.93). In the presentstudy, a certain amount of rapport had alreadybeen established between the researcherand eachsubject since the researcher hadbeen in the school everyday for three weeks collectingclock-sheets and conferencing with students whennecessary. When the time came for interviews,students were familiar withthe researcher. During the interview, further effortswere madeto increase the comfort zone. The interviewwas not conducted as an interrogation for30minutes, but was broken up with scales, chatter,cards, snacks, and laughter. Time was givenfor reflection, and assistance wasprovided on some questions; but all responses wereaccepted,including “no” or “not really”. Providing assistanceon some questions refers to instances whena child, for example, could not decide what it washe/she liked about an activity. The researcherwould then re-ask the question bysaying “there are so many things you could chooseto do—watch television, ride yourbike, eat, play with friends—there mustbe some things you likeabout it?” Question five,“how do you feel . . .?,“ was difficult to answer for somechildren.Asking them if they sit ona chair, or lay on the floor watching television—or whatevertheactivity happened to be—andthen having them imagine themselvesin that position with theirfavorite program on, and thenposing the question—”how do you feel whenyou watchtelevision?”—seemed to help getat some of those feelings. Although the interviewsweredefinitely exploratory, the comfortable environment duringthe interview helped studentsnot to134feel intimidated in sharing their likes,dislikes, desires, feelings, reasons, and thoughts for thevarious activities which they had spenta 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 frequentreaders about theirexpectations and values concerning the reasons andrewards they gained from reading, but whenmany of the answers given by the infrequentreaders sounded like the answers given by thefrequent readers, it was decided toask these two question of all students except those that didnotspend any time reading—two students.Classroom Factors.“The teacher has a significant influence on the amountof 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, recommendingbooks to them, talking tostudents about the books that the students had read, andrequiring pupils to read a certainamount of books (Fielding et al., 1984). Morrow andWeinstein (1986) and Whitehead et al.(1977) did not find that having books available in theclassroom effected home reading. Thepresent study supports these findings since therewas no effect found between the student’sresponse that books were available in the classroom forleisure reading and time spent readingfor leisure.Reading aloud to the class has been foundto make a difference for home reading by someresearchers (Fielding et al., 1984; Sirota,1971), but not others (Landy, 1977; Whiteheadetal., 1977). The present study supports thelatter. No differences were found for reading aloudto the class and time spent reading. Providing time inthe classroom for reading (USSR) wasreported by Lane (1985) and Wilsonet al. (1986) to make a difference in the amount of timechildren spend outside of school reading. Morrow andWeinstein (1986) did not find this tobeso. The present study supports the latter researchers.There was, however, a significantfinding for what the teacher wasdoing 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 reportedby 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 formergroup of researchers, inthat no difference was found between method of instruction in readingand 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 variablesmentionedthat appeared to be major determinants forleisure reading. As far as this author is aware,however, observing siblings’ reading behavior has not been reportedin the literature. Thepresent study found this variable to have a significant effect on time spentreading for leisure.It appeared that observing your brothers orsisters 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 numberof siblings, however, did not seemto have an effect.Providing a space in the home for reading has been documentedby several studies as havingan impact on the amount of time spent reading for leisure (Fieldinget al., 1984; Greaney,1980; Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Landy, 1977). Reading inbed or the bedroom seems to be themost popular place in all of these studiesbut one. The present study also found a significanteffect between the parents’ report of providing a space for reading inthe 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 wasthe bedroom.Providing various materials in the home for leisure reading, suchas newspapers andmagazines has been reportedby Neuman (1986a; 1986b) as significantly associated with136reading. Other studies (Landy, 1977; Whiteheadet 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 thatfrequent readers wereprovided books by their parents (Clark, 1976; Covington, 1985; Fieldinget al., 1984;Greaney & Hegarty, 1987), while others have found this notto be significant for independentreading (Hansen, 1973; Pluck et al., 1984). The presentstudy 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 thisgroup of grade-fivestudents.Another influencing factor, according to the literature on leisure reading,was “parents asreading models.” This variable was foundto be the best predictor of time spent reading forleisure (Clark, 1976; Pluck et at., 1984; Whiteheadet 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 readingbooks. 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 interviewsor parent interviews onparents’ reading of various materials and time spent readingfor leisure. However, asmentioned previously, observing parents reading did havea significant postive effect on attitudetowards recreational reading.Other variables that were noted in the literature tobe 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 readingto a child while the child wasyoung (American Federation of Teachers and Chrysler Corp., 1992;Covington, 1985; Hansen,1973; Neuman, 1986a; 1986b); anddiscussing the child’s leisure reading (Hansen, 1973;Neuman, 1986a; 1986b). The present study found nosignifcant differences for any of these137variables. There were also no differencesto report for reading together, or listening to yourchild read.Throughout the literature, there is agreement over the influence ofmembership 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 supportfor these findings sincethere were no differences found between students’ library membership,parents’ librarymembership, or taking the student to the library at this age, and timespent reading.Distance between the home and the library (Heyns, 1978) has beenreported to have animpact on the amount of reading studentsdo outside of school. Heyns (1978) found that sixthand seventh grade students who lived less than seven blocks from thelibrary 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—hasbeen reported asbeing positively associated with the amountof book reading (Greaney, 1980; Landy, 1977;Whitehead et al., 1977); one study, however, reported nosignificant relationship (Hansen,1969). The present study also found no effects between family sizeand amount of reading.Birth order was found to correlate negatively with amountsof time spent reading in one study(Greaney, 1980), but not in another (Hansen, 1969). The presentstudy again agrees with thelatter since no effect was found for this variable.Levels of education for the parents and its effect on leisure readingwere reported as beingstatistically significant for the mothers’ level of educationbut not for the fathers’ (Moffitt,1992). Hansen (1969) also reported no significantrelationship between fathers’ educationand leisure reading. The presentstudy found no affect for mothers’ or fathers’ levels ofeducation.Two other variables investigated in the presentstudy, 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 wereno differences to report for either ofthese two variables and their effect on time spentreading for leisure.138Reasons for Reading or Not Reading.In order to examine more closely the differences between frequent andinfrequent readers,two groups were formed that included the two extremes:a group of frequent readers who spent10% or more of their leisure time reading, anda group of infrequent readers who spent 1% orless of their leisure time reading. The responses from the student interviewswereindependently categorized by two, and sometimes three raters.The reasons frequent readers gave for reading during their leisure timewere categorized as“enjoyment,” “learning,” “relief from boredom,” “availability,” and “encouragement.”Theresponses categorized as “enjoyment” were givenby 85% of the frequent readers.The reasons that infrequent readers gave for not reading during theirleisure time werecategorized as “not enjoyable”, “other things were available and allowed,”“a preferred elementwas missing” for this activity, and “availability.” The responses that werecategorized as “notenjoyable” included “if it’s not interesting, then I don’t readat all,” “it’ll just not interest mewhen I’m like reading if it gets good in one part of the chapter, and thenit just slumps down, andit doesn’t really interest me any more,” “I’d rather be doing somethingelse,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, andreading.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 backon 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 andallowed” included suchstatements as “cause I spend lots of time watching TV; I find that more fun,” “TV andcomputer orpiano lessans,” “possibly like to do more skipping orpractice things that we do in our skippingteam and like that,” “playing with my friends,” “I’m allowedto do something else like watch TV,or playing a game instead of reading,” “just too much other stuff that Ihave to do,” andStudent: I’m just doing something else, and I don’t feel like reading right now orsomething.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 sisterbecauseshe is in grade three, and I’ll just help her kind of readmore.Reseacher: So your main reason for not reading during your leisure time is thatyou justdon’t have time for it?Student: Yeah.Researcher: Is that because you find it boring, or because you are doing lots ofstuff?Student: It’s kind of both. I’m busy right now, and I don’t really want to read. It willjustkind of bore me. I usually read before I go to bed, though, it kinda makes mesleepier orsomething.The responses that were categorized as “a preferred element was missing” forthis activityincluded such statements as “most of the time because they don’t give enoughdetail,” 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 henever lets meread them. Like once in a blue moon he lets me.”What would make leisure reading more fun for both groups? Both groups mentionedthingsthat were categorized as “content.” Thirty-one percent of the frequent readersmade 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 suchaslength, 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 statementsthat werecategorized under “availability,” “time,” and “other things are available andallowed.” 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’tso noisey,” “ifsomebody who is kind of strict tells you, ‘you better do it or you won’tget 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 usedto not even look at a book. But nowI’m getting slowly more into it.140Student: Yes, I think there is somebodyout there who could probably get me to read more.I’ve tried to read down but I geta 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 somethingto do with not reading out of school?Student: Yeah, cause if you don’t readout of school, and you don’t practice enough, thenyou’re not going to be able to read someof the things that you read in school.Reseacher: Do you think that is a reasonfor reading out of school for leisure—is topractice?Student: No. I think it’s more for enjoymentand something to do.Twenty-three percent brought up “content”type answers, 15% talked about needingmore“time,” and the remaining infrequent readerstalked 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 ofthe infrequent readers said that really nothingwouldget them to spend more time.The use of rewards in the school and inthe home for leisure reading were exploredwith eachstudent, parent, and teacher. Questionsnot only referred to the present, but also thepast.There was no effect found betweenrewards and time spent reading, nor was there anyeffectfound between rewards and attitude towardrecreational reading for all 53 students. Whenobserving the frequencies, however, forthe two extremes, apparently 39% of thefrequentreaders were presently being given some kindof reward for leisure reading by the teacher onadaily basis. Also, 23% of these frequent readers weregiven rewards by their parents ona dailybasis at home for leisure reading. All ofthese seem to be non-contingent rewards—rewardsgiven for just participating.Expectations and values around reading wereexplored in this study, and the two extremegroups of frequent and infrequent readersseem to be predominately interested in reading forenjoyment (85% for both groups). However, expectationsfor enjoyment were stronger forthefrequent readers than the infrequent readers.More frequent readers were “quitesure” thatreading would be enjoyable, and the valuethey placed on enjoyment was muchhigher—”reallyimportant.” In contrast, infrequent readerswere “slightly sure” that reading would beenjoyable, and they felt that enjoyment was“not at all important.” It was also notedthatfrequent readers had more reasons to read thaninfrequent readers. Frequent readers mentioned141reasons that were categorizedas “enjoyment,” ‘learning,” “relief from boredom,”“encouragement,” “other,” and “availability” whereasinfrequent readers mentioned reasonsthat were categorized as “enjoyment,” “other,” ‘learning,”and “relief from boredom.” Valuesplaced on these outcomes were also much higher fora greater number of the frequent readers.Research QuestionsDo children who have the ability to readdo so out of school only when intrinsic reasonsarepresent? These reasons are defined asfeelings of competence, satisfaction, and self-determination; feelings of delight or other such similarreinforcements for its own sake. Thereasons for leisure reading given by this group of grade-fivestudents designated as frequentreaders included statements which were categorizedas “enjoyment,” “learning,” “relief fromboredom,” “encouragement,” “other,” and “availability.”Two of these categories would notbeconsidered intrinsic reasons for doing things, “relief from boredom,”and “availability”; theother two, “encouragement,” and “other” might possiblybe considered intrinsic depending onthe nature of the response. Fifty-nine percentof the frequent readers mentioned statementsthat were categorized as “enjoyment”; 26% mentionedstatements having to do with “learning.”The category for “encouragement” receivedresponses from 11% of the students; “other”received statements from 7% of the students. Thirtypercent of the frequent readers madestatements concerning “relief from boredom,” and 11%made statements having to do with“availability.” Therefore the question, are thesestudents reading for leisure only whenintrinsic reasons are present?, appears tobe no. Intrinsic reasons are present for 85% of thereaders, but there are other reasons presentfor 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-fivestudents, but they are not the only reasons forspending time leisure reading.How does locus of control affect leisurereading? With this group of students,locus ofcontrol had no effect on time spent reading forleisure. One possible explanation is thatstudentsby this age do not have to rely on generalizedexpectancy—beliefs about their behaviorsand142rewards (locus of control)—when it comesto leisure reading. Students have already had a fairamount of experience with leisure readingby this time and will make their decisions basedonthat experience.How does attitude affect one’s decisionto spend time reading for leisure? For this group ofgrade-five students, the score received on the attitudemeasure correlated significantly withtime spent reading. This was true for boththe number of minutes and percentage of leisuretime. It was also true when consideringbook reading only, or when considering all readingmaterials—books, magazines, newspapers, comic books,and mail. Does a positive recreationalreading attitude cause a person to spendtime reading for leisure, or does time spentreading forleisure effect one’s recreational reading attitude?Attitude and spending time reading seemto gotogether. “But which comes first?” is nota question that can be answered within the realm ofthis study. If it is possible to tease this relationshipapart, further research wouldbenecessary. This study did find that parents readingat home had a significant positive effect onone’s attitude toward recreational reading.Are there similarities and differences in classroomand home practices around leisurereading for these frequent and infrequent readers?Within the classroom, the only variablethatseemed to make a significant difference as to whetheror not these grade-five students spenttime reading was having a teacher that readduring USSR. Within the home, having siblingsthatread books and comic books, as well as parents providinga space for reading were the onlyvariables that seem to make a significant difference inthe amount of time spent reading. Andaspreviously mentioned, observation of parents’reading did have a significant effect on attitude.ConclusionsGrade-five students were chosen as the targetpopulation for this study to insure thatfrequent readers would be found for comparisonswhen investigating the infrequent reader.With the large literature base already established forthis age group, findings from the presentstudy were compared with the others, confirmingcertain variables that possibly contributetoleisure reading behavior. As well, this study investigatedthe rewards and values associated143with the leisure activity of reading. It alsoidentified what the grade-five students inthissample do with their leisure time. Inaddition, each student’s recreational-readingattitude wasinvestigated, along with practices aroundreading in both the classroom, and thehome.Classroom practices aimed at readingwere confirmed through personal interviewswith theteachers and students, as well as by telephoneinterviews with the parents. Home practicesaround reading were verified through thesesame telephone interviews with the parents,as wellas through the personal interviews conductedwith the students. Levels of socioeconomicstatusand education levels for both parents wereelicited through the telephone interviews.By usingthese techniques, variables were taken intoaccount and added to the growing body ofliteratureregarding leisure reading. Throughoutthe study, gender, socioeconomic status(SES),ethnicity, and ability differences were reported. Thesevariables were discussed in relationtoleisure reading, locus of control, readingattitudes, and school and home variables.How didthese differences relate to the infrequent,reader who was capable of reading ingrade five? Inthis study, it would seem that when itcame to book or magazine reading, theinfrequent readerwould tend to be a boy. If comic books andnewspapers were being analyzed, the infrequentreader would tend to be a girl. The infrequentreader would tend to be from a higherlevel ofsocioeconomic status and to score lowon an attitude measure for recreational reading.Therewere no difference for ethnic background orlocus of control.Why were children who were capable ofreading not reading during their timeout of school?The reasons these students gave were categorizedunder “not enjoyable,” “other thingswereavailable and allowed,” “a preferred element wasmissing” for this activity, and “availability.”Besides the reasons given in the interview fornot reading, what else seemed to have animpacton this decision?The expectations and values attachedto the reasons may provide anotherexplanation for not reading. What were theexpectations and values attached to some of thereasons given for leisure reading? Consideringthe extreme groups, “enjoyment”wasmentioned first. All of the frequent readersmentioned reasons that were categorizedas“enjoyment” by the independent raters; 10 of theinfrequent 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 readersthought 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 readingfor 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 theirexpectancy that reading would beenjoyable, and more than half of them placed the highestvalue on enjoyment—it was “reallyimportant.” Half of the infrequent readers, on the otherhand, were only “slightly sure” thatreading would be enjoyable, and the value that theyhad placed on enjoyment was the lowest—“not at all important.”Is half of the students of the extreme groups a large enough groupto draw some conclusions?This would depend on how conservative or how liberalone wanted to be with the findings.Considering all 53 students for a moment, all of thefrequent readers(n= 27) mentionedreasons that were categorizedas “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 “notat allsure.” Only five of the infrequent readers were “quitesure” that reading would be enjoyable;10 were “slightly sure,” and six were “notat all sure.” How important was “enjoyment” to eachgroup? Thirteen of the frequent readers felt that enjoymentwas “really important”; 11thought it was “somewhat important,” and three thought“enjoyment” was “not at all important.”Nine of the infrequent readers felt that enjoymentwas “really important”; three thought it was“somewhat important,” and nine thought that itwas “not at all important.” It still seems likefrequent readers were stronger in their expectationsaround reading, and more of these studentshad placed a higher value on the reward orreason of enjoyment for reading.This one example from the data illustrates fairly wellthe underpinings of social learningtheory for reading. The potential for readingto occur in leisure time is a function of theexpectancy that reading will lead to enjoyment in leisuretime 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 thisto happen, and had placed a fairly highvalue on it. According to Julian Rotter (1982), individuals make decisionsby consideringrewards (reasons) based on experience by attaching valuesto them. If one’s experience is nonexistent or limited, then the individual resorts to generalized expectancy. By gradefive,students have had experience with leisure reading, and do not need to rely ongeneralizedexpectancy. They do not need to rely on their “beliefs” that their behavior has somethingto dowith receiving the reward (locus of control). This may bethe possible explanation as to whylocus of control had no effect on time spent reading for thisgroup of students.The purpose of the study was to generate questions andexamine 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 thesereasons mentioned by the infrequentreaders for not reading, the question was also asked “what it was they dislikedabout reading?”Forty-two percent mentioned that reading was “not enjoyable,” such as “it’s boring.”(Researcher: “Why is it boring to you?) “Because youjust 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 thingof 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 Iread 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’sjust books that you’ve gotten andyou’ve put them in order, and you make yourself read them even thoughyou 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, becauseyou’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? Likedo 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 thesebefore you read the next one?Student: Yes.Student: Sometimes it will get boring, and then I’ll just kind of put it downfor later.Researcher: What makes it boring for you?1 46Student: It doesn’t really get interesting for me. Afterawhile it just kind of keeps sayingthe same thing about something and will just keep ontalking about one thing.Forty-two percent made statements that were categorizedas “a preferred element was missing,”and included “sometimes I don’t like it when like somebody or when thebook just says ‘to becontinued’ then you have to buy another,” “sometimes people die in them,” and “sometimesthefine print. Or on comics, it’s close together. Sometimes blurry, youcan’t read it.” Eightpercent talked about “availability,” and 4% about “time.”For some time now the literature on leisure reading has reported what students weredoingwith their leisure time. It was a purpose of this study to shedsome light on why some childrenwho can read choose not to read. What seems to influencea grade-five student’s decision tospend time reading during leisure time? There is considerable evidence from this studythatchildren need role models. It appears to have helped significantlyto 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 towardrecreationalreading, 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 ata 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 factorthat had a significanteffect on time spent reading for leisure was having a space provided forthe child to read.This study has also added to the world-wide literaturebase of how grade-five students spendtheir time out of school by usinga sample from British Columbia, Canada. Because the focuswas recreational reading, other leisure activities reported in theresults section were notdiscussed. However, it is interesting to note that frequent readers alsowatched a significantamount of television. Television wasby far the number one activity for this group of studentsduring the 17 days of February and March. Studentsspent, on the average, approximately 30%of their leisure time watching television. This amountedto approximately one hour and 47147minutes per day (one hour and 32 minutesper 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 watchingtelevision. Despite thisactivity, the frequent readers were able to spend on the average 34minutes per day reading (31minutes per school day, and 58 minutes per weekendday). Television does take time away fromother leisure pursuits, but it does not seemto displace the activity of reading for this group ofgrade-five students. There were, however, some students inthe sample who spent much moretime watching television—up to 45% oftheir leisure time—and it would seem that for thoseindividuals, television might be displacing time whichpotentially could have been spent reading.Another leisure activity of note for this study was the activity ofgoing to the library.Despite the reported amounts of reading each day, goingto the library was minimal. This wouldhave been he public library, not the library located at the school. Thereported time spentgoing to the library by this group of grade-five students in BritishColumbia, Canada, duringthe 17 days in February and March was on the average approximatelyone minute per day—under one minute on a school day, and under two minuteson a weekend day. This representedless than 1% of the out-of-school time for the entire sample. The groupthat used this facilitythe most was the male infrequent reader. Informationprovided from the interviews indicatedthat both frequent readers and infrequent readers livedpredominately a mile or less from thelibrary, although some were closer and some were further away. Beingthat there were nosignificant differences for this variable, something elseseems to be causing the male infrequentreader to use the library.Limitations.There are several limitations to this study which might haveaffected the reported findings.It is essential to keep these in mind when making generalizations.First, the subjects were not randomly selected nor werethe schools from which the samplewas drawn. The resulting restriction of range forsocioeconomic status may have had animpacton the findings of this study.148Second, the diary-technique and the interview-technique were bothused in thisinvestigation, and both procedures havereceived a fair amount of criticism. These procedurescan certainly cause some limitations to a study, but it wasfelt that the daily diary-technique,along with consultations when necessary, would keep these limitationsto a minimum. It isgenerally believed that using diaries is much more reliable thaninterview or questionnaireinstruments for establishing time spent in activities (Carp & Carp, 1981).Interviews wereused to explore the reasons and values attached to the activities documentedin the diaries. Thefact that the researcher’s interest was only knownas “students’ activities outside of school,”rather than reading, hopefully kept the social desirability factorto a minimum.Third, perhaps the time of the year—February and March—wasa particularly good time or aparticularly bad time for accounting for leisure-reading behavior. Thetime of the year couldcertainly have an impact on activities elected during a student’s timeout of school. Weather,sport seasons, number of daylight hours, holidays, and school demandscould understandablyhave an effect on how one decides to spend their leisure time.Fourth, the findings in the present study may have alsobeen 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 bepossible that other studieswithin the literature on leisure reading gave greater lattitude forthese responses wheninvestigating these same variables. Consequently, comparative datafrom the present studymight be, to a certain extent, invaliddue 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 aredependent upon how well theinstruments measure what they purport to measure. In addition,the less than desirablepsychometric characteristics of some of the instruments, particularlythe standard errors,coupled with a relatively small sample size, may have reduced the powerof the analyses, andtherefore effected the interpretation of the findings.149Implications.Leisure-reading behavior can be a fairly sensitivetopic for teachers, librarians, parents,and grandparents. All of these groupswould like to do “what’s right” to encourage reading, andall their intentions are certainly good. Thisstudy has examined some of these intentions andhasdescribed their impact on leisure-readingbehavior. Some of these practices hada significanteffect, some showed a trend for makinga difference, many had no effect on leisure reading.Practices that had no effect may comeas surprises to teachers, librarians, parents, andgrandparents.This study has provided documented evidence forlibrarians, authors, and publishers as towhat grade-five students want from theirreading materials. Students were asked, “whatwouldmake reading more fun?” Often students had more thanone response to this question. Allresponses were categorized by two and sometimes three independentraters. Responses fell intoall of the available categories but the category withthe most answers was “content.” Thirty-sixpercent of the students mentioned ideasthat were categorized under “content.” This refers tostyle, characters, or plot. Some of the students madegeneralized statements, such as havingmaterials that were more exciting, funny, or interesting. Otherswere more specific about thematerials themselves, such as “if in the comic books,they had more jokes and riddles, and stufflike that. Like funner activities.” “Likemagazines when they talk about a person, ifthey likegive more information on that personrather than only a little bit.” Some students hadspecificadvise for authors: “If the authors wouldcut out the boring parts.” “If they had lots ofdetail.Like more about the person or place. I like reading stuffbecause it’s really interesting, and ifit’s not interesting than I don’tread at all.” “More action. Like every bit is action!” “Ilike itwhen a boat is going to fall over, and thenyou jump into the land and stuff. Or saving yourself,or like your friend is goingto fall off the cliff, and you save them.” One infrequentreaderexplained what it was that madea book boring. “Well, they just talk. Like there’s usually threechapters, and they just talking andtalking; no where in particular that just talkingabout whathappen straight in the day. Nothing interesting. Thebook I’m reading now, the boring story:buy the girl a Xmas present,a puppy. She buys him a pizza.” Others mention whatthey 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 influencesthat may be fruitful for further investigationsregarding students’ attitude toward recreationalreading were: (1) effect of teacher behaviorduring USSR, (2) effect of a silent reading program thathas 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 ordersince 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 ofEducationalPsychology, (4), 489-503.Aliport, G. W. (1967). Attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readingsin 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 schoolreading: 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 ofGeorgiaand College Park: University of Maryland, National ReadingResearch 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 inreading 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.), Adultreading (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 Centerfor 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 betweenintellectualachievement responsibility attributions and performance. Paper presentedat the meetingof the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC DocumentReproductionService No. ED 143 977)Baron, R. M., Cowan, G., Ganz, R. L., & McDonald, M. (1974). interactionof locus of controland type of performance feedback: Considerations of external validity. JournalofPersonality and Social Psycholoay, (2), 285-292.Baron, R. M., & Ganz, R. L. (1972). Effects of locus of control andtype of feedback on the taskperformance of lower class, black children. Journal of Personalityand 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 readingattitudes to academic aptitude,locus of control, and field independence. Psychology inthe Schools,J..(1), 28-32.Blishen, B. R., Carroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981socioeconomic index foroccupations in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology& Anthropology,2(4), 465-488.Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and chanoe in humancharacteristics. New York: John Wiley.Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1979). Competence and the overjustificationeffect: Adevelopmental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholoay,(9), 1462-1468.Boraks, N., Brittain, M., Under, F., & Bauer, D. (1993). An explorationof 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 managementand 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), 717-721.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 relationshipto intelligence and achievement.Psycholoolcal Reoorts,4,..(3), 1249-1250Burroughs, S. G. (1991). The implications for effectiveeducation of understanding pupilmotivation in schools as a multi-dimensional model. International Journalof Adolescenceand Youth,2.(4), 251 -274.California Media and Library Educators Association, (1984, November).Literature/readingsurveys for libraria/media specialists and teachers: A packetof student questions. Paperpresented at the Annual Conference of the California Media and UbraryEducatorsAssociation, Oakland, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 250 702)Carp, F. M., & Carp, A. (1981). The validity, reliabilityand generalizability of diary data.Experimental Aging Research,Z(3), 281-296.Cervantes, R. A. (1976a). Locus of control and achievement ofMexican-American pupils. SanAntonio, TX: DevelopmentAssociates.Cervantes, R. A. (1976b, February). Self-concept. locus of control andachievement inMexican-American pupils. Paper presented at the ThirdAnnual Conference on BilingualBicultural Education, San Francisco.154Charlton, T., & Terrell, C. (1987).Enhancing internal locus of control beliefs throughgroupcounselling: Effects upon children’sreading performance. Psychological Reports,Q(3),928-930.Chisom, Y. L. (1989). Increasing literatureappreciation and recreational reading behaviorofintermediate grade students. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Nova University,FortLauderdale, Florida. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. 308 494)Clark, M. M. (1976). Youna fluentreaders: What can they teach us? London:Heinemann.Cloer, T., & Pearman, B. (1993).The relationship of gender to attitudesabout 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 relationshipbetween reading achievement and voluntary readingofchildren. Educational Review,. (3), 221-227.Coombs, W. N., & Schroeder, H. E. (1988). Generalizedlocus of control: An analysis of factoranalytic data. Personality & Individual Differences,(1), 79-85.Covington, V. (1985). Leisuretime readino versus teevsion viewing time for seventh aradereading students. (Research Study for ASC 579).Huntsville, Texas: Sam HoustonStateUniversity. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. 275 989)Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V.J. (1965). Children’s beliefs in their owncontrol of reinforcements in intellectual-academicachievement situations. ChildDevelopment,.(1), 91-109.Crandall, V. J., Katkovsky, W., &Preston, A. (1962). Motivational and ability determinants ofyoung children’s intellectual academic achievementsituations. Child Development,3(3),643-661.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988).The flow experience and its significance for humanpsychology.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 readingexperience. 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 inGreater Vancouver. aninterpretation. Unpublished master’s thesis, SimonFraser University, Burnaby, BritishColumbia, Canada.Curr, W., Hallworth, H. J., &Wilkinson, A. M. (1962). How secondary modern schoolchildrenspend their time. Educational Review,i. (1), 3-11.Cutright, P., & Brueckner, L. J. (1928). A measurementof the effects of teaching ofrecreational reading. The Elementary School Journal,(2), 132-137.Danner, F. W., & Lonky, E. (1981). A cognitive-developmentalapproach to the effects ofrewards on intrinsic motivation. Child Development,(2), 1043-1052.Dave, R. H. (1963). The identification and measurementof environmental variables that arerelated to educational achievement. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University ofChicago.Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York:Plenum Press.Decker, B. C. (1985, November). Aliteracy: What teacherscan do to keep Johnny reading.Paper presented at the meetings of Louisiana State University’sEducation Forum,Shreveport, LA. and at the Southeastern Regional Conferenceof the International ReadingAssociation, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. 265 528)Duggins, J. (1989, May). Middleschool students’ interest in reading and reading ability.Paper presented the the 34th convention of the InternationalReading Association, NewOrleans, LA.Durkin, D. (1960/61). Children who read before gradeone. The Readino Teacher,JA163-166.Durkin, D. (1963). Children who read before grade 1: Asecond study. The Elementary SchoolJournal,.4. (3), 143-148.Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read?: lEAstudy of reading literacy. TheHague: The International Association for the Evaluationof Educational Achievement.Farmer, H. S. (1985). Model of career and achievementmotivation 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-valuemodels in psychology(395-420). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Feifel, H., & Lorge, I. (1950). Journalof Educational Psvcholooy,4Q. (1), 1-17.Fielding, L., Wilson, P., & Anderson, R. (1984). A new focuson free reading: The role of tradebooks in reading instruction. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.), Thecontexts 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 readinghabits of senior high schoolstudents with low sociometric status. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, University of Toronto.Flynn, T. M. (1991). Achievement, self-concept and locusof control in Black prekindergarten children. Early Child Development andCare,4.,135-139.Foertsch, M. A. (1992). Reading in and out of school: Factors influencingthe literacyachievement of American students in grades 4. 8. and12. 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 andbasal reader approaches to readinginstruction. The Irish Journal of Education, 4.(1), 19-29.Greaney, V. (1980). Factors related to amount andtype of leisure time reading. ReadingResearch Quarterly,j..(3), 337-357.Greaney, V., & Clarke, M. (1975). A longitudinalstudy 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-timereading. 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 ofsocioeconomic status and gender to theoccupational choices of grade 12 students. Journal of VocationalBehavior,3.4.(2), 161-178.Hansen, H. S. (1969). The impact of the home literaryenvironment on reading attitude.Elementary Enolish,4...(1), 17-24.Hansen, H. S. (1973). The home literary environment--afollow-up report. ElementaryEnglish..Q.(1), 97-98, 122.Healy, A. R. (1965). Effects of changing children’sattitudes toward reading. ElementaryEnglish,4.2. (3),269-272.Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. NewYork: Academic Press.Holmes, A. (1932). Voluntary readino of Toronto publicschool pupils: A quantitative andqualitative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Toronto.Houston, J. E. (Ed.). (1990). Thesaurus of ERIC descriptors (12thed.). 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’sinterests. In J. E. Shapiro (Ed.), Using literatureand poetry affectively (37-45). Newark,DE: International Reading Association.Johnston, W. A. (1992). Comparison and predictionof the level of career aspirationsofadolescent males and females. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, University of BritishColumbia,Vancouver.Kohn, A. (1987). Art for art’s sake.Psychology Today,21(9), 52-57.Lamme, L. (1976). Are reading habits and abilitiesrelated? The Reading Teacher,.(1),21-27.Landy, S. (1977). An investigation of the relationshipbetween voluntary reading and certainpsychological, environmental, and socioeconomicfactors in early adolescence. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, University of Regina,Saskatchewan. (ERIC Document ReproductionServiceNo. 145 409)Lane, B. A. (1985). A survey of the leisurereading of junior high school studentsin theprovince of Newfoundland. Unpublishedmaster’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 psychologicalattitudes: Vol. 1. Measures ofsocial psychological attitudes (413-499).San Diego: Academic Press.Lewis, J. (1979). A reading attitude inventoryfor elementary school pupils. Educational andPsychological Measurement, (2),511-513.Little, V. L., & Kendall, P. C. (1978).Note on locus of control and academicachievement ininstitutionalized juvenile delinquents. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psycholoay,, (2), 281-283.Long, B. H., & Henderson, E. H. (1972).Children’s use of time: Some personal and socialcorrelates. The Elementary SchoolJournai,Z (3), 193-199.Lonky, E. I. (1975, December). Disequilibrationas intrinsic motivation: Testing thecognitiveevaluation 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. Paperpresented at the meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Oswego, NY. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 195 324)MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1992). Gates-MacGinitieReading Tests (2nd Canadianed.). Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada.Manning, G. L., & Manning, M. (1984). What models ofrecreational reading make adifference? Reading World, (4), 375-380.158Martin, J. A. (1977). Effects of positive and negativeadult-child interactions on children’stask performance and task preferences. Journal of ExperimentalChild Psychology,23(3),493-502.Matheny, K. B., & Edwards, C. R. (1974). Academicimprovement through an experimentalclassroom management system. Journal of School Psychology,1Z(3), 222-232.Maxwell, J. (1977). Reading progress from8 to 15. Windsor, Berks.: NFER Publishing Co.McEady-Gillead, B. (1989, April). The leisure timeof 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 attitudetoward 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 froma 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 atthe 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 traditionalinstruction on readingattitudes. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, SanAntonio.Mervar, K., & Hiebert, E. H. (1989). Literature-selectionstrategies 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 ReadingConference.Milgram, N. A. (1971). Locus of control in negro and white childrenat four age levels.Psychological Reports,2.(2), 459-465.Milner, E. A. (1951). A study of the relationship between reading readinessin grade onechildren and patterns of parent-child interaction. Child Development,(2), 95-112.Moffitt, M. S. (1992). Youth and reading: A survey of leisure readingpursuits of female andmale adolescents. Readino Research and Instruction,31(2), 1-17.Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein, C. S., (1986). Encouraging voluntaryreading: The impact of aliterature program on children’s use of library centers. ReadingResearch Quarterly.2J.(3), 330-347.Murphy, D. (1986). Intrinsic motivation. Dlanning and problem solvingin aood and Doorreaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.Murray, H. B., & Staebler, B. K. (1974). Teacher’s locus of control andstudent 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 kindsof motivation: Reflections on the psychologyof thereading habit. Mousaion,2. (5), 63-71.Nell, V. (1988a). Lost in a book: The psychology ofreading 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 functionalapproach. Journal of ReadingBehavior,12.(4), 333-336.Neuman, S. B. (1986a). The home environment andfifth-grade students’ leisure reading.)1Elementary School Journal, (3), 335-343.Neuman, S. B. (1 986b). Television, reading, and thehome environment. Reading Research andInstruction,25(3), 173-183.Newhouse, R. C. (1974). Reinforcement-responsibilitydifferences 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’tread: Locus of control, gender, andreading abilities. Reading Improvement,i.(4), 339-345.Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1983). TheNowicki-Strickland life-span locus of control scales:Construct validation. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research withthe locus of control construct:Vol. 2. Developments and social problems (9-51).New York: Academic Press.Nowicki, S., & Rountree, J. (1971). Correlatesof locus of control in a secondary schoolpopulation. Developmental Psycholooy,4.(3), 477-478.Nowicki, S., & Segal, W. (1973). Perceived parentalcharacteristics, locus of controlorientation, and behavior correlates of locusof control. Developmental Psychology,12.(1),33-37.Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. (1973). A locusof control scale for children. Journal ofConsulting & Clinical Psycholooy,4(1), 148-154.Nowicki, S., & Walker, C. (1974). The role of generalizedand specific expectancies indetermining academic achievement. Journalof Social Psychology,.4.(2), 275-280.Ollendick, D. G. (1979). Parental locus ofcontrol and the assessment of children’s personalitycharacteristics. Journal of PersonalityAssessment,4..(4), 401-405.Pani, M. K. (1991). Differences in locus ofcontrol and reading abilities among grade threechildren. Psycho Lingua, (1), 9-12.Picha, K. A. (1988). Leisure reading habitsand 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 earlyreaders.IJiReading Teacher,1i241-245.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 inresonse 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-gradestudents.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 scaleselection andevaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman, (Eds.), Measuresofpersonality and social psychological attitudes: Vol. 1. Measures of social psychologicalattitudes (1-16). San Diego: Academic Press.Roettger, D., Szymezuk, M., & Millard, J. (1979). Validation ofa reading attitude scale forelementary students and an investigation of the relationship between attitudeandachievement. 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,Z14.Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall.Rotter, J. B. (1955). The role of the psychological situation in determiningthe 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 expectanciesfor internal versus external control ofreinforcement. Psychological Monographs, (1), 1-28.Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to theconstruct 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.), Expectationsand actions:Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 241-260). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.Rowell, C. G. (1972). An investigation of factorsrelated to change in attitude toward reading.Journal of Reading Behavior,. (4), 266-272.Russell, D. H. (1961). Children learn to read. Boston: GinnCo.161Schon, I., Hopkins, K. D., & Davis, W. A. (1981, April).The effects of books in Spanish andfree reading time on hispanic students’ readingabilities 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. InT. V. Rasinski & N. D. Padak (Eds.),Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (107-114). The 15th Yearbook ofthe CollegeReading Association.Shapiro, J., & White, W. (1991). Reading attitudesand perceptions in traditional andnontraditional reading programs. Reading. Research.& Instruction, (4), 52-66.Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. (1967). Scales formeasurement of attitudes. New York:McGraw-Hill.Sheldon, W. D., & Carrillo, L. (1952). Relation of parents, home, and certaindevelopmentalcharacteristics to children’s reading ability. The Elementary School Journal,(5),262-270.Sherman, L. W. (1984, August). Developing perceptions of control: Cross-sectionalandlongitudinal 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). Achievementas 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 programof daily oral reading by theteacher on the voluntary reading of fifth-grade children. Unpublished doctoraldissertation,New York University. Dissertation Abstracts International,,2320A.Smalley, L. M. (1958). A practicable diary technique for time sampling theeveryday life ofchildren. Educational Review,1Q.(3), 233-247.Sparks, P., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1991). Expectancy-value modelsof 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. InJ. 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 highschoolswhich consistently educate outstanding students in English. Urbana, IL:University ofIllinois.162Squire, J. R., & Applebee, R. (1968). A study of the teaching of Englishin selected Britishsecondary schools. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposureto print and orthographic processing.Reading Research Quarterly,2.4.(4), 402-433.Statistics Canada. (1986a). Census Canada 1986: Occupation: population anddwellingcharacteristics. (Cat. 93-112). Ottawa: Canadian Government PublicationCentre.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. PublishersWeekly,22.Z(21), 44-48.Stipek, D. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personalcontrol and academic achievement.Review of Educational Research,.1(1), 101-137.Strickland, B. R. (1989). Internal-external controlexpectancies: 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 salienceas 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). Timespent 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), 506-510.University of British Columbia, Computing Centre (1986). UBC SPSSX:Statistical package fgjthe social sciences, extended version. Vancouver, BritishColumbia, Canada.Van Alstyne, D. (1929). The environment of threeyear old children. New York: Teachers’College, Columbia University.Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. (1984). Reading achievement and diminishingreturns to time.Journal of Educational Psychology,Z.(4), 442-451.Wallbrown, F., Brown, D., & Engin, A. (1975). A Survey ofReading 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/MethuenEducational.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 intrinsicallymotivated reading.Unpublished master’s thesis, San Francisco StateUniversity.Whitney, P. (1992, December). Children’s out-of-school activities.Paper presented at themeeting ofthe National Reading Conference, San Antonio, Texas. (ERICDocumentReproduction Service No. 358 408)Willey, D. L. (1978, March). The relationshipof student locus of control to self-esteem andsix measures of reading performance. Paper presentedat the meeting of the SoutheasternPsychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia. (ERICDocument 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 ServiceNo. ED 277 999)Wiseman, S. (1967). Children and their primaryschools. 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: Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development.Wooster, A. D. (1974). Acceptance of responsibilityfor 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___________ISMINUTESA3 0 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(itOamovievideocEli 0televisionC3[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[1readabookNOTforschoolcalledDOLireadabookNOTforschoolcalledDOl]wrotesomethingNOTforschool(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[]asportcalled9—A4C]agamecalled_________________________A4EJagamecalled_________________________*40agamecalled__________________________ASC]avideogame(Nintendoorother’IDIDiiiOmyhomework0a(praclice/Iesson)for________________113[1workonahobbycalled_______________112UhelparoundthehouseDINI4ER1130workonahobbycalled______________114Cia(practice/lesson)br_________________IWATCHED/U$TVDCl(10amovievideocEltotelevisionesci10(radio,records,tapes.C13’slDLDreadmallFrom________________0wrotealetterNOTForschoolto________1)13[1readanewspaperNOTForschoolabout__noDreadanewspaperNOT(orschoolabout_.I]readamagazineNOTForschoolcalledriI]readabookNOT(orschoolcalled1)5DreadabookNOTforschoolcattedoElwrotesomethingNOTforschool(dlasy.ournal.story.poetry)U?Elreadcomicbookscalled____________WHATELSEDIDIDO?EID______rtLJ______E40______IwrTOFRCubelibraryrlOubcstoreaWEEKENDNIGHTINSTRUCTIONSThisIswhatIdidout-of-schoolon_____________I.Checkofftheboxesindicatingwhatyoudidyesterdayout-of-school.Code#_______________2.ThinkaboutthetimeyoudidthemandplacethecodewhichtanexttothatactivityIntothecirclesoftheclockattheappropriatelime.Eachcircleequalsabout15minutes.3.SomeactivitiesneedtobecompletedwithinFormatIon.4.Herearesomespecialcodes:Sbathing)D(dressing)E(eating)S(sleepinglT(transportation)._____2________10EQUALSNIABOUT_________[15MINUTES-171Appendix 4: Student Interview172TIME INTERVIEWAM ConfidentialSTARTED PMSTUDENT INTERVIEWCode________The purpose of this interview isto explore with you why you spend timeout-of-school doing the things thatyou do. The interview will take about25 minutes and containsquestions about some of your out-of-schoolactivities as well as some questionsabout your classroom and your home.The interview is being taped sothat it will be easier for me to haveacomplete and accurate account ofyour response. Your answers arecompletely confidential and can onlybe identified by a code number.Your clock-sheets tell methat you spend your time out-of-school doing:#1 activity—#2 activityThe questions I will ask you in this interview are thinkingquestions.There are no right/wrong answers. This is not like a testbut rather atalking-survey of why you choose the things that youdo. So it may takeyou some time to think of these reasons. Please take yourtime so you canthink of them. We are not in a rush. Yourteacher knows you will be gonefor about 25 minutes so it’s okayto 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 youdislike about (activity #1)?3. Is there someone who triesto get you to spend time on(activity #1)?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8noanswer... 9A. Who?father . . 1mother . . 2step-parent . . 3sibling4extended family . .5sitter 6teacher 7peers 8..4. What would make (activity#1) more fun?5. What does it make you feel like whenyou 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 wouldget you to do more of (activity#1)during your leisure time?8. GIVE STUDENT EXPECTATIONSCALEUSE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWERHow sure are you that (activity#1) during your timeout-of-school will lead to (the reinforcementsmentioned 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 importantto youwhen it comes to (activity #1), and arrange themin order ofimportance on the chart. You can have some reasonsbeing ofequal importance, so place them right next to eachother 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); takea 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 youdislike about (activity #2)?12. Is there someone who triesto get you to spend time on(activity #2)?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer... 9A. Who?father 1mother2step-parent . . 3sibling . . 4extended family . .5sitter 6teacher 7peers813. What would make (activity#2) more fun?14. What does it make you feel likewhen you are (activity #2)?WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FORPARTICIPATING” SHEET15. What are your reasons forparticipating in (activity #2)when you are out-of-school?WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FORPARTICIPATING” SHEET1 7616. What if anythingwould get you to do moreof (activity #2)during your leisure time?17. GIVE STUDENT EXPECTATIONSCALEUSE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWERHow sure are you that (activity#2) during your timeout-of-school will leadto (the reinforcements mentionedon the sheet for activity #2)?WRITE OTHER REASONS ON CARDS18. CUE CARDS--ONLY USE CARDSMENTIONED“These are the reasons you mentioned for(activity #2). Lookat the cards, decide which reasons aremost important to youwhen it comes to (activity#2), and arrange them in order ofimportance on the chart. Youcan have some reasons being ofequal importance, so place themright next to each other ifthat is true”.USE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWERREPEAT QUESTIONS FOR LEISURE READING.F I19. What does leisurereading mean to you?IF ANSWER IS INCOMPLETE: leisurereading 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 likeabout leisure reading; takea few minutes tothink about it.20. EVERYONE BUT “ZERO” READERSTell me what you likeabout leisure reading.WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FORPARTICIPATING” SHEET (FORFREQUENT READERS ONLY)21. What do you dislikeabout leisure reading?22. Is there someone who triesto 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 wouldmake leisure reading more funforyou?24. (dropped)1 7825. EVERYONE BUT “ZERO” READERSWhat does it make you feel likewhen you read for leisure?WRITE THESE ON ‘REASONS FORPARTICIPATING” SHEET (FORFREQUENT READERS ONLY)26. What are your reasons for PARTICIPATING/NOTPARTICIPATING in leisure readingout-of-school?WRITE THESE ON “REASONS FORPARTICIPATING” SHEET27. What if anythingwould get you to do more reading duringyour leisure time?SKIP TO QUESTION 30 FOR INFREQUENT READER28. FREQUENT READER: GIVE STUDENTEXPECTATION SCALEUSE “REASONS SHEET” TO RECORD ANSWERHow sure are you that reading duringyour timeout-of-school will leadto (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 mentionedfor readingout-of-school. Look at the cards, decidewhich reasons aremost important to you when it comesto readingout-of-school, and arrange them inorder of importance onthe chart. You canhave some reasons being of equalimportance, so place them right nextto 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 yourclassroom for leisurereading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 932. Are there magazines provided inyour 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 youget to go to your school library?never 1monthly 2every 3 weeks 3bi-monthly . . .4weekly5bi-weekly . 6daily 7whenever . . . . 8don’t know . . . 9A. About how often does the classget 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 teacherreading 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 rewardsfor readingout-of-schooI?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . 91 8240. Does your teacherread 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 forleisure 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 homeenvironment:43. Does someone takeyou to the public library?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3•don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 918344. Are there magazinesat 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 booksor subscriptions for gifts?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 947. Do your parents readaloud to you? rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 948. Do you remember themreading to you when you wereyounger?started stopped49. Are you given rewardsby your parents it you read leisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. Like what?18450. Do you remember themgiving you rewards forreading for leisure in thepast?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . .. 3don’t know . .. 8no answer... 951. Do you have a favorite spot in whichyou can read at home?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer. . 9A. Where is that place at home whereyou like to read?52. Do you ever see your father/motherreading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 953. Do you ever see your brothers or sistersreading?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 friendsto 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 mystudy.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 others0 +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 whenyou ..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 youread 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 fromothers. 0 +1 +2 +320.0 +1 +2 +3“How sure are you that whenyou . .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 howyour students spend their timeout-of-school, but since they spend thirty hours each weekat the school, I needto account for any possible influences on theirleisure activities. Theinterview will take about 10 minutes andcontains questions about someofthe practices in your classroom, as wellas questions about some ofyourown leisure activities. The interview is beingtaped so that it will beeasier for me to have a complete and accurateaccount of your response.Your answers are completely confidential andcan only be identified byacode number.1. What does your reading program consist ofthis year?reading series . .. 1novels . . . 2library books . .. 32. IF APPROPRIATE, Do you supplementthe reading series withtradebooks?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3A. How do you define tradebooks?191B. Would these be abridged or shortenedversions?rarely . . .1sometimes . .. 2often . . .3What percent of your tradebooks wouldbe abridged?C. About how often would you use tradebooks?What percent of your reading program wouldbe used fortradebooks?________3. Are there books accessible in your classroomfor leisurereading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3A. How many?______4. Are there magazines accessible in your classroomfor theStudents?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3A. How many?5. Are there newspapers accessible in yourclassroom for theStudents?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3A. How many?_______1926. Are there comic books accessible in yourclassroom for thestudents?rarely . . .1sometimes . . . 2often... 3A. How many?_______7. What is the procedure in your room forusing the schoollibrary?A. How often can an individualstudent 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 doyou use these rewards?%10. How often do you take time to readaloud a tradebook to theentire class?whenever . . .1alternate days . . . 2daily . . . 3once a week . . . 4once a month . . . 511. Not counting free time, about howmuch time do you providefor leisure reading in school?___________________________(/week)____________________________(Iday)A. Is that a structured time, i.e., USSRor SSR?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 312. Forgetting the curriculum guide for the moment,what isyour personal goal this year for yourclass?A. In reading?THESE NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITHYOUR PERSONALREADING RATHER THAN THE CLASSROOM PROGRAM.13. Including magazines, newspapers andbooks, how much timeduring the week do you estimate youspend reading forleisure?1 9414. Have you been ableto find time to read books?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often . . . 3don’t know . . . 815. Are you a member of the publiclibrary?non-member . . 1member... 216. How many subscriptions to magazinesdo 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 booksorsubscriptions 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 COULDFILL IN THECLOCK-SHEETS?time ot school ... Idid themthome... 2bothelternetlves... 32. HOW DO YOU DOCUMENT A STUDENT’S PROGRESS IN READING?3. WHAT EXPECTATION OR DEMANDSDO YOU HAVE IN PLACE TO INSURETHAT CHILDREN ARE READING AT HOME?WHAT AbOUT JOURNAL WRITING?4. YOU MENTIONED THATYOU HAVE DIFFERENTLY-ABLED STUDENTS. HOWARE THEY DIFFERRENT?5. HOW WOULD YOUDESCRIBE THE STUDENT POPULATIONIN THiS SCHOOL?IN YOUR CLASS?1 96Appendix 6: Parent Interview197_______AMPMConfidentialPARENT INTERVIEWStudent Code #BEFORE INTERVIEW, LIST SUBJECT’S#1 AND #2 ACTIVITES.RECORDOFCALLSjl Date TimeOutcome12- 4 —: - --5Hello! I’m Patricia Whitney from the Universityof British Columbia. If yourecall from the permission letter youreceived, my study centers on howchildren spend their time out-of-school. I have interviewedyour(son/daughter) and I would like to interview you now if it isconvenient.The interview should take 15 minutes and contains somequestions aboutyour leisure activities, some questionsabout home/school practices, andfinally a few questions on family background information.Your answersare completely confidential andcan 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 isa 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 youto know that myquestions are only to find out “what is” the situation in your homeand donot imply that you should be doing these things.TIME INTERVIEWSTARTED198What is your relationshipto the child?father 1mother 2step-parent . .. 3sibling . . . 4extended family . .. 52. Approximately how muchtime during the day doyou spend93. Do you try to get thisparticular child in grade five torarely . . . 1sometimes . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 94. About how often doyou and he/she_____________together?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR #2ACTIVITY.5. Approximately how much time during theday do you spend96. Do you try to get this particular child in gradefive torarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 91 997. About how often do youand he/she____________together?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR LEISURE READING.8. What does leisure reading meanto you?A. IF RESPONSE DOES NOT INCLUDE TYPES OFREADINGMATERIALS, ADD THAT NEWSPAPERS,MAGAZINES/BOOKSARE ALL INCLUDED IN THIS CATEGORY.9. Approximately how much timeduring the day do you spendreading for leisure?10. Have you been able to findtime to read books for leisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 920011. Have you been able to find timeto read magazines forleisure?rarely . . -1sometimes . . . 2often3don’t know . .. 8no answer . .. 912. Have you been able to find time to readnewspapers forleisure?rarely - . . 1sometimes . . 2often3don’t know .. 8no answer . .. 913. How often do you try to get this childto read a book forleisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know 8no answer . .. 914. How often do you try to get him/herto read a magazine forleisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer. . 915. How often do you try to get him/herto read a newspaper forleisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . 8no answer 920116. How often do you tryto get him/her to read a comic bookfor leisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . 8no answer. . 917. About how often do you and thischild read together forleisure?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . .. 8no answer . . . 918. How often do you take this childto the public library?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know. 8no answer. 919. Have you tried to get him/herto 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 subscriptionsto magazines do you receive in yourhome?none0one 1two 2three 3more 4don’t know. . . 8no answer . . . 922. Subscriptions to newspapers?none0one 1two 2three 3more 4don’t know. . 8no answer . . 923. During the previous year how oftenhave you given books, orsubscriptions as gifts to this child?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often.. 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 924. About how often do you read aloudto him/her fromtradebooks or library books?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know. . . 8no answer . . . 925. When did you first start readingto this child?Started___________Stopped“until he/she could read” How old was that?20326. About how often do you listento this child read each week?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know. . . 8no answer . . . 927. How frequently does he/she conversewith you aboutbooks--not school books--which he/shehas read?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 928. How often do you use rewardsto 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 thischild for reading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 929. Do you have a space in your homefor this child to read?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 920430. Would you describe yourson/daughter as being a sociableperson or more ofa loner?five or more friends . .. 3three to four friends . .2one to two friends . . .1no friends . . 0I know that it is difficultto know everything that happens at schoolsothese next few questions will bebased on what you think happens in thischild’s classroom.31. At school do you know if thischild has access tobooks for leisure reading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . 2often... 3don’t know...8no answer . . . 9A. What makes you think that?32. Does this child haveaccess 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 accessto 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 howoften are there rewards given forreadingout-of-school?rarely . . .1sometimes . . . 2often ... 3don’t know . .. 8no answer . .. 9A. What makes you think that?38. In the past have rewards been givento this child forreading out-of-school?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 939. How often does the teacher read aloud librarybooks to theclass?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . 2often ... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer . . . 9A. What makes you think that?40. How often is there time givenin school for leisurereading?rarely . . . 1sometimes . . . 2often... 3don’t know . . . 8no answer. . . 9A. What makes you think that?207THESE LAST FEW QUESTIONSARE STRICTLY FOR STATISTICALPURPOSES.41. How many peoplelive at home?___________________42. What is this child’sordinal position?__________________43. What languages arespoken at home?___________________44. How far do you livefrom the public library?3 blks. or less . . . 14-5 blocks . . . 26-10 blocks . . . 3more . . . 445. From what countriesor part of the world didyour ancestorscome?CODE #___A. IF MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY NAMED: Whichone of thesecountries are you more likelyto identifywith?Can you decide on one?CODE #_____MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY...88B. Method of ResponseNames one country 1Names two or more countries, chooses one . .. 2Names two or more countries, can’tchoose . . . 3Can’t name any country . . . . 4No information . . . . 546. What about the father/motherof this child? Where didhis/her ancestors come from?________________________CODE #____208A. IF MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY NAMED:Which one of thesecountries is helshe morelikely to identify with?Can you decideon one?CODE #_____MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY...88B. Method of ResponseNames one country1Names two or more countries,chooses one . . .2Names two or more countries,can’t choose . . .3Can’t name any country . .. . 4No information . . .. 547. What countrywere you born in?______________________CODE #48. What country was“the other parent” born in?____________CODE #49. Are you now attendingor 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 yearof regular school youhave ever attended?____________________B. Did you finish that grade (year) andget 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, Didyou receive a highschool diploma or passa high school equivalency test?Yes 1no 2209D. IF MORE THAN 12 YEARS,What degree or degrees didyoureceive?_____________________CODE #_____Was this a 4 year program ora 2 year program?50. Besides what you’ve toldme about your regular schooling,did you ever attend any otherkind of school, such asvocational school?Yes ...... 1no 2A. What was your main field of vocationaltraining?_________________________Code #51. How about “the otherparent”, is he/she now attending orenrolled in school? IF YES: Isthat full time or part time?Yes, full-time student . .. . 1Yes, part-time student . .2No 3A. What is the highest gradeor 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, Didhe/she receive a highschool diploma or passa high school equivalency test?Yes 1no 2D. IF MORE THAN 12 YEARS, Whatdegree or degrees didhe/she receive?____________________CODE #Was this a 4 year program or a2 year program?52. Besides what you’vetold me about his/her regularschooling, did he/she everattend any other kind of school,such as vocational school?Yes 1no 2don’t know . . . 8210A. What washis/her main field of vocational training?__________________________Code #_____53. What kind of work doyou do? What is your main occupationcalled? Occupation:________________________________Code #MajorA. Tell me a littlemore about what you actuallydo in thatjob. What are some ofyour main duties?B. Are you an hourlywage worker, salaried, on commission,self-employed, orwhat?___________________________Code #C. Are you a memberof a labor union? Yes1no 254. What kind of workdoes the other parent do?What ishis/her main occupationcalled? Occupation:__________Code #_____MajorA. Tell me a littlemore about what he/sheactually does inthat job. What are someof his/her main duties?Thank you very muchfor taking the time toanswer thesequestions on the telephone.Again, please rememberthat myquestions were onlyto find out “what is” thesituation in yourhome and at school,and do not imply thatyou 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 ofLanguage Education2125 Main Mall______Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4jJDear Parent/Guardian:Fax:(604) 8223154Yourchild is invited to participate in a research project.This projectwhich has been approvedbythe principal is designed to explorestudents’ activities out-of-school. The purpose ofthisstudy is to find outwhat grade-five studentsdo with theirtime out-of-school and why theychoosethese activities.Participating in the project will entail completinga daily activitysheetforten minutes eachmorning atschool for a period ofthreeweeks, answeringquestions from aselection of readingpassages, filling outtwo attitude scales,andpossibly taking partin atwenty-five minuteinterview atschool. If yourchild is randomlyselected for an interview, you will also be askedto participate in afifteen minute interviewoverthe telephone. Only the researcherwill haveaccess to these completeddocuments whichwill be coded for data entry to insure confidentiality.Afterdata entry is completed, thesedocuments will be destroyed.Participation in the project is voluntary and will haveno influence on grades or standing in theclass. Your child may withdraw at any point.I am adoctoral student at the University ofBritish Columbia in the Faculty of Education andwould be happy to discuss any questionsyou may have at682-8257 oryou may contact myadivsor, Dr. Jon Shapiro, at 822-6345.Sincerely,Patricia Whitney(keep this portion)I consent! I do notconsent to my child__________________________(name of student)participating in this study and I acknowledgethat I have a copy of the consentform.Parent/Guardian’s SignatureDateIf selected for an interview, I consent!I do notconsent to my child___________________(name of student)participating in an interview.Parent/Guardian’s SignatureDateAs indicated above, if you are selectedfor a telephone interview, what would bethe best time tocall?. ;the telephone rumber whereyou can be reached atthattime:________________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:APR8 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 subjects.Dr. R.D.ratleyV Director, Research Servicesand Acting Chairman


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 22 11
China 13 50
Russia 13 0
United Kingdom 7 0
Brazil 2 2
Nigeria 1 0
Philippines 1 0
City Views Downloads
Saint Petersburg 12 0
Ashburn 9 0
Shenzhen 9 48
London 6 0
Unknown 5 16
Beijing 4 2
Sunnyvale 3 0
Mountain View 3 0
Campo Largo 2 0
Mesquite 2 0
Fernandez 1 0
Laguna Niguel 1 0
Henderson 1 0

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



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items