2

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264686084

Measuring Adolescents' Attitudes Toward Reading: A Classroom Survey

Article · April 2013

DOI: 10.1002/JAAL.183

CITATIONS

10

READS

2,375

5 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shaping OurSpace View project

Development and Validation of a Reading Motivation Assessment for English Language Learners View

project

Kristin Conradi

College of William and Mary

19 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Bong Gee Jang

Syracuse University

11 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Camille Lawrence Bryant

Johns Hopkins University

6 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Michael C. Mckenna

University of Virginia

47 PUBLICATIONS 1,290 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael C. Mckenna on 05 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 56 (7) April 2013 doi :10.1002 /JA AL.183 © 2013 International Reading Association (pp. 565–576)

565

Measuring Adolescents’ Attitudes Toward Reading A C L A S S R O O M S U R V E Y

Kristin Conradi, Bong Gee Jang, Camille Bryant, Aggie Craft, & Michael C. McKenna

Motivating adolescents to read is an attainable goal. The first step is assessment. This article offers teachers and researchers a new tool for planning instruction and gauging its impact.

“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.” —Mark Twain

Nora, an eighth grader, relaxes on a sofa while reading The Hunger Games. Deftly, she “turns” page after page on her tablet

and sometimes uses the built-in glossary to explore the meaning of a word. Although she might have selected this book because her Facebook friends had

already posted that it was a great read, Nora is in fact working with her classmates on an inquiry project (e.g., Simmons, 2012).

Using a laptop that rests on the arm of the sofa, she makes notes and explores Internet sources suggested by her teacher. These sources include video clips from the movie and the podcast of an interview with the director. From time to time, she uploads her thoughts—just a few bullets and phrases at this point— to a cloud, where members of her group can access them. The next day in class, Nora will collaborate face to face with group members, distilling common insights as they pursue the goals of the project.

Much is happening here. Technology has become a catalyst influencing not only the medium, but also the variety of texts that adolescents encounter. It blurs the standard distinction between in-school and out- of-school literacies and fosters an interplay of reading for recreational and academic purposes. How students feel about reading remains an important question, to be sure, but the answer must become more nuanced to reflect the realities of the new literacies.

In our work with middle and high school teachers, conversations often turn to the problem of motivating adolescents to read. We all agree that proficiency is

Kristin Conradi is an assistant professor at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA; e-mail [email protected].

Bong Gee Jang is a doctoral student at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA; e-mail [email protected].

Camille Bryant is an assistant professor at Columbus State University, Georgia, USA; e-mail [email protected].

Aggie Craft teaches at Charlottesville City Schools, Virginia, USA; e-mail [email protected].

Michael McKenna is a professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA; e-mail [email protected].

Authors (left to right)

FEATURE ARTICLE

JAAL_183.indd 565JAAL_183.indd 565 3/18/2013 4:22:40 PM3/18/2013 4:22:40 PM

566

JO U

R N

A L

O F

A D

O LE

S C

EN T

& A

D U

LT L

IT ER

A C

Y

5 6(

7)

A P

R IL

2 01

3 FEATURE ARTICLE

important, but often it isn’t enough. Understanding why reading fails to hold an important place in the lives of many readers is important if teachers are to have any hope of altering the views of their students.

Gaining this understanding begins with learning how students truly feel about reading, not just in general but for different purposes and through different media. This knowledge can help teachers choose strategies and activities likely to have an impact. In this article, we present a newly developed survey for assessing adolescents’ reading attitudes. We first examine the background and rationale for the instrument, then we describe its development, and we end with suggestions for how to use it in your classroom.

Beyond Proficiency: Why Measuring Attitudes Matters Several factors influence adolescents’ choices to read and their engagement in reading, including their perceptions of themselves and their identities as readers (Hall, 2012; Henk, Marinak, & Melnick, 2012; Pitcher et al., 2007), their sense of agency in choosing what to read (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001; Worthy, Moorman, & Turner, 1999), the opportunity to bridge what they choose to read at home with what they get to read at school (Dunston & Gambrell, 2009; Moore, Alvermann, & Hinchman, 2007), whether their friends and family are readers (Klauda, 2009; Rowe, 1991), and whether they value reading (Guthrie & Coddington, 2009; Pitcher et al., 2007).

Although understanding these influences is a priority of teachers (O’Flahavan, Gambrell, Guthrie, Stahl, & Alvermann, 1992; Sweet, Guthrie, & Ng, 1998), motivation has not been a priority in research. In fact, in their most recent survey, Cassidy and

Grote-Garcia (2012) found that 75% of literacy leaders felt that motivation and engagement were decidedly “not hot.” (Importantly, 100% of respondents felt that the study of motivation and engagement “should be hot.”) Perhaps one reason complicating research in the area is that few valid measures for addressing noncognitive factors are available (Petscher, 2010; Watkins & Coffey, 2004).

In a study we undertook to produce one such measure (McKenna, Conradi, Lawrence, Jang, & Meyer, 2012), we focused on measuring students’ attitudes toward reading. Attitude, we believe, is best viewed as a predisposition, ranging from positive to negative (McKenna, 2001). But to define attitude as a student’s predisposition, or inclination, to read is too broad to be of practical use. Much depends on context, on the purpose for reading, and on the medium through which one reads.

For this reason, psychologists have long viewed attitudes as hierarchies (Rajecki, 1990). A student has a general attitude toward reading, to be sure, but it is useful to think more narrowly—about an attitude toward reading for recreation versus academic purposes, and toward reading in print versus digital settings (McKenna et al., 2012). These differences can be useful in apprising a teacher of where students stand and how best to plan literacy activities and instruction. Figure 1 presents examples of how the purpose and medium for reading can evoke very different reactions.

We believe it is important to consider students’ attitudes for several reasons. First, if our goal as teachers is to foster a lifelong habit of reading (Cramer & Castle, 1994), it follows that we should be able to assess students’ attitudes and consider how best to cultivate more positive reading attitudes. Doing so might involve

tailoring instruction to include activities that align with areas students report liking; if Kayla, for example, reports a positive attitude toward academic reading in digital settings, but reports negative attitudes toward recreational reading and toward print, her teacher might consider how she can integrate specific activities, such as Internet projects, to capitalize on Kayla’s enthusiasm.

Print Digital

A ca de m ic

•Writing responses to a novel in a notebook

•Reading a print textbook

•Using print reference materials

•Making note cards from print books

•Reviewing class notes taken by hand

•Reading to do web-based research

•Conducting a topical image search

•Supporting argumentative text with video

•Following links related to a topic

•Creating a PowerPoint to summarize a topic

R ec re at io na l

•Reading a self-selected paperback

•Reading a magazine or comic book

•Reading a letter from a friend

•Revisiting entries in a diary

•Reading the morning paper

•Reading Facebook posts

•Reading a novel online

•Reading a text or e-mail from a friend

•Visiting a favorite website

•Reading the morning news online

FIGURE 1 Literacy Activities Related to Purpose and Medium

JAAL_183.indd 566JAAL_183.indd 566 3/18/2013 4:22:41 PM3/18/2013 4:22:41 PM

567

M e

as ur

in g

A d

ol es

ce nt

s’ A

tt it

ud es

T ow

ar d

R e

ad in

g: A

C la

ss ro

om S

ur ve

y

Next, research consistently suggests a relationship between students’ attitudes toward reading and their achievement (e.g., McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995; Petscher, 2010). The direction of the relationship between these factors is no doubt complicated and reciprocal (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007), but it is generally clear that students who enjoy reading will read more, and that reading more will in turn positively affect reading proficiency (Stanovich, 1986).

We suggest that the assessment of attitudes proves particularly important when working with adolescents. Research consistently highlights a worsening of students’ reading attitudes as they move through school (e.g., Ley, Schaer, & Dismukes, 1994; McKenna et al., 1995). In fact, many adolescents self-identify as nonreaders or resistant readers (e.g., Lenters, 2006; Reeves, 2004). The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress results reveal that 32% of eighth-grade students reported “never or hardly ever” reading for fun on their own time. This finding is in line with a National Endowment of the Arts (2007) report suggesting a considerable decline in reading among adolescents, with 15- to 24-year-olds reporting reading 60% less than all others.

In Reeves’s (2004) study, Valisha, a high school senior who described herself as a nonreader, considered school reading tasks meaningful only when they reflected her own interests and needs. Students like Valisha would benefit from teaching practices that include surveying the interests and reading attitudes of students. By assessing Valisha’s reading attitudes, not only would her teacher send a message that how she feels matters, but she would also be in a better position to strengthen the value that Valisha ascribes to reading.

Beyond In-School Literacy: Why Purpose Matters Adolescents participate in multiple literacy practices in both formal and informal ways and settings (Alvermann, 2009; Bean & Readence, 2002). The discrepancy between adolescents’ in-school and out- of-school reading has been well documented (e.g., Hinchman, Payne-Bourcy, Thomas, & Chandler- Olcott, 2002; Hull & Schultz, 2002; Ivey & Broaddus, 2001; Luttrell & Parker, 2001; Moje, 2000; Moore et al., 2007; O’Brien, 1998; Worthy et al., 1999). In most cases, adolescent readers perceive school literacy as an academic activity in which they must

demonstrate their proficiency, but they consider their out-of-school literacy as reflective of their personal interests and preferences, free from oversight and accountability.

Adolescents engage with many types of literacies outside school, such as reading magazines or comic books, both for fun and to gain information (Hughes- Hassell & Rodge, 2007). Likewise, they write e-mails or text messages to their friends to share their personal opinions and feelings (Moje, Overby, Tysvaer, & Morris, 2008). These out-of-school literacies differ in many ways from those that adolescents encounter in school, and yet teachers can successfully incorporate important qualities of the former into their instruction (McCarthey, 2000).

To be clear, categorizing these activities can be problematic. One student might choose to read a novel for recreation, but others read the same book because it was assigned by a teacher. Likewise, one e-mail sent by a friend may be purely social, whereas the same friend’s next e-mail may concern a school project. To clarify assessment, we suggest that it is important to specify both medium and purpose. When these are specified, the question of where an activity occurs (at home or in school) is of minor importance.

Beyond Print-Based Reading: Why New Literacies Matter Planning such instruction requires information that reflects the broadening landscape of literacy. Adolescents are engaging more and more in reading and writing mediated by technology (e.g., Black & Steinkuehler, 2009; Coiro, 2012; Lenhart & Madden, 2005; Vadeboncoeur & Stevens, 2005). This is hardly surprising given that most adolescents have never known a world without computers, cell phones, and other forms of ICT (Bean & Harper, 2009; Moorman & Horton, 2007). Students now regularly read in ways that are different from traditional print-based notions of literacy, and many do not regard it as “reading” at all (Pitcher et al., 2007). When teachers can contrast attitudes on the basis of medium, they can plan in ways that improve attitudes toward both settings.

Being able to contrast attitudes based on medium offers yet another advantage. Some students who have been identified as struggling readers in traditional settings might not struggle in digital environments (O’Brien, Stewart, & Beach, 2009). An instrument that distinguishes between reading

JAAL_183.indd 567JAAL_183.indd 567 3/18/2013 4:22:41 PM3/18/2013 4:22:41 PM

568

JO U

R N

A L

O F

A D

O LE

S C

EN T

& A

D U

LT L

IT ER

A C

Y

5 6(

7)

A P

R IL

2 01

3 FEATURE ARTICLE

attitudes on the basis of medium can help teachers gain a broader and more nuanced view of their students, one that enables them to plan instruction that capitalizes on positive attitudes. For both these reasons, we believe that the differences between print and digital environments offer useful insights for planning, and we designed a survey that reveals these differences.

Developing a Measure of Attitude Based on the long history of attitude surveys, we believe that the right instrument can go a long way toward giving teachers the information they require. To be truly useful, a self-report survey must be both valid and reliable, it must be short enough to encourage engagement and sincerity, and it must be easy to score and interpret.

In a previous study, we set out to create a survey that possessed all these traits (McKenna et al., 2012). We first constructed a set of simple statements about reading that would be presented to students in a rating-scale format. Each item began with the uniform phrase “How do you feel,” and students were asked to rate each statement on a 6-point scale from “very good” to “very bad.” The items varied along two dimensions: purpose for reading (academic versus recreational) and medium (print versus digital). This breakdown led to four subsets of items: attitude toward academic reading of print materials (AP), toward academic reading in digital settings (AD), toward recreational reading of print materials (RP), and toward recreational reading in digital settings (RD). Although reading is now broadly defined to include nontextual elements, we assumed that students would be familiar with the traditional definition, and we extended the concept where appropriate by referring to genres and contexts (magazines, newspapers, Facebook, etc.) in the survey items.

We intentionally began by constructing more items than we ultimately needed, and we administered them in a pilot study of 913 students in grades 7–12. We also interviewed a number of these students to make sure they interpreted each item in the way we intended (Conradi, 2012). Piloting resulted in a smaller set of items, some of which were slightly revised.

The next step was to administer the survey to a national sample that was representative of the U.S. middle school population. We recruited

teachers via national listservs for the International Reading Association (IRA), the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), and the Literacy Research Association. We surveyed 4,491 students enrolled in grades 6–8 in 23 states and the District of Columbia.

Despite the number and geographic distribution of the participants, however, it was not a random probability sample. Therefore, to ensure that it adequately represented the U.S. population, we compared weighted school demographics against national percentages of students receiving federal lunch subsidies, students of various ethnicities, and students living in each of the four geographic regions established by the U.S. Census Bureau. For each demographic, the percentage of our sample was very near that of the nation. (For more information about the sample, see McKenna et al., 2012.)

Confirmatory factor analysis assured that the four subscales were in fact assessing the types of attitude we had targeted. It also led to the elimination of three more items, making the instrument quicker to administer and score. The result was the final 18 items that are listed in Figure 2. Of these, 5 were AP, 5 were AD, 5 were RP, and 3 were RD. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) of the four subscales were 0.78, 0.82, 0.86, and 0.80, respectively, and the coefficient of full scale was 0.96.

Administration and Scoring The Survey of Adolescent Reading Attitudes (SARA) is a group measure that can be administered to an entire classroom in less than 10 minutes. When the object is to gauge the overall status of reading attitudes for a particular class, teachers should consider not requiring students to supply their names. Anonymity may help to ensure sincere responses. If, however, students are asked to identify themselves, then every effort should be made to lower the stakes of the assessment by explaining that its purpose is merely to assist in planning, and that the results will not be used in grading.

Our experience has been that students often write comments on the survey form in addition to providing ratings. Although this is not a formal part of the instrument, we have frequently found that the comments are telling. Inviting students to provide written comments in addition to the ratings is a consideration.

JAAL_183.indd 568JAAL_183.indd 568 3/18/2013 4:22:41 PM3/18/2013 4:22:41 PM

569

M e

as ur

in g

A d

ol es

ce nt

s’ A

tt it

ud es

T ow

ar d

R e

ad in

g: A

C la

ss ro

om S

ur ve

y

FIGURE 2 Survey of Adolescent Reading Attitudes

JAAL_183.indd 569JAAL_183.indd 569 3/18/2013 4:22:41 PM3/18/2013 4:22:41 PM

570

JO U

R N

A L

O F

A D

O LE

S C

EN T

& A

D U

LT L

IT ER

A C

Y

5 6(

7)

A P

R IL

2 01

3 FEATURE ARTICLE

Setting Up a Scoring Spreadsheet The items of the four subscales were deliberately intermingled to prevent a response set, defined as “the tendency of a person to respond to questions in a particular way independently of the content of the questions or, as conventionally termed, items” (Rennie, 1982, p. 114). To facilitate scoring, we recommend setting up a spreadsheet. Figure 3 displays an easy-to-build, reusable spreadsheet for quickly scoring a class set of survey forms. Each row corresponds to one student. You must first decide if you want the results for individual students. If so, the name (or some other identifier) should appear in the first column.

The next 18 columns are for the 18 survey items. The four columns to the right of the 18th item are completed automatically based on formulas that compute the four subscale scores for each student. In a row after the last student, enter the average function to automatically compute the class average for each subscale. Once you have formatted your spreadsheet, entering the ratings for each student is a matter of 18 keystrokes. Scores for an entire classroom can be entered in only a few minutes. Note that an Excel spreadsheet with these features may be downloaded from the IRA website.

Interpreting Results The power of SARA lies in the individual subscales rather than in the total score. (In fact, we do not recommend computing the total.) There are two ways to interpret any of the subscale scores. Because the summed score is divided by the number of items in a particular subscale, the result is always a number between 1 and 6. This average can be interpreted using the phrases that anchor the items. That is, a

score of 6 corresponds to feeling “very good” about the idea expressed in the item, whereas a score of 1 corresponds to feeling “very bad” about the idea. A subscale score can be interpreted in the same way. For example, 3.5 is the midpoint of the scale and suggests neutrality or indifference. The more a score exceeds 3.5, the more positive the attitude.

A second way to interpret the results is to compare the total score of each subscale with the national norms computed

from the nationwide survey (McKenna et al., 2012). These norms can be used to interpret results using a comparative frame of reference. The norms, which appear in Tables 1–4, allow a teacher to compare the attitudes of a given student or class with a demographic cross-section of students at the same grade level.

Each of these approaches to interpreting SARA subscale scores is useful in understanding the predispositions of a class or individual student. They are equivalent to the criterion- and norm-referenced approaches to the interpretation of test scores. What follows is a step-by-step strategy for interpreting the results. We include both approaches and suggest how to compare the subscales.

1. Note the norms. The percentile rank corresponding to each of the four subscale scores can give you a frame of reference. How far above or below average (the 50th percentile rank) is each score? Are there pockets of strength? Areas of real concern?

2. Take other information into account. View the re- sults of SARA as part of a larger profile. Considering a student’s reading achievement, areas of interest,

TABLE 1 Percentile Ranks for the Academic Digital Subscale

Grade Gender Percentile rank

10 25 50 75 90

6 Girls 14 18 21 25 28 Boys 11 15 20 23 27

7 Girls 14 17 20 24 27 Boys 12 15 19 23 27

8 Girls 13 16 20 23 26 Boys 11 15 19 22 26

FIGURE 3 Scoring Spreadsheet for SARA

JAAL_183.indd 570JAAL_183.indd 570 3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM

571

M e

as ur

in g

A d

ol es

ce nt

s’ A

tt it

ud es

T ow

ar d

R e

ad in

g: A

C la

ss ro

om S

ur ve

y and peer relationships can shed light on the pattern of SARA scores.

3. Look for differences in scores. If a student’s scores are all negative to about the same extent, then they sug- gest no clear target for building attitude. This news is not necessarily bad, however, because such a pro- file indicates that a wide variety of approaches may be appropriate. By contrast, if one or two scores are substantially below the others, it will help you nar- row the focus of the approaches you select.

4. Determine whether medium matters. Compare each of the digital scores with the corresponding print

score. If one medium is preferred over the other for both academic and recreational purposes, then medium may be an important key to motivating the student.

5. Determine whether purpose matters. Make a similar comparison to see if the student favors one purpose over the other, regardless of medium. If so, then purpose for reading is another clue. Although it is likely that a struggling student will prefer recre- ational to academic reading, this fact should not be taken for granted.

6. Remember that your role is that of broker. Interpreting a profile of scores is an empty exercise unless you can respond in a way that is likely to improve a student’s attitudes. You must be able to recommend a broad range of print and digital re- sources. A library media specialist can help. You must also be aware of activities and assignments that are likely to target the medium and purpose you have chosen.

7. Remember that the student’s role is that of client. In a customer relationship, a salesperson does whatev- er it takes to make the customer happy. But in a cli- ent relationship, the service provider recommends what the client needs. For teachers, this means ex- ercising caution about recommending a particular source or activity simply because it is likely to make a student happy. Is it acceptable for a student to browse through magazines simply because there is text here and there? (A principal we know calls this “grazing.”) Is playing video games a productive use of time simply because there are occasionally direc- tions and messages to be read? We believe common ground exists between activities and sources that are likely to motivate a particular student and that, at the same time, are rich (and enriching) reading experiences. With a little thought, an activity or source can have both qualities.

8. Mount a two-pronged attack. Two very different strategies are possible. One is to target the most negative of the four attitudes (most likely, academ- ic print) and attempt to make that attitude more positive by means of carefully chosen activities and sources. For example, if a student harbors an es- pecially negative attitude toward reading print for academic purposes, a teacher might suggest a book that is aligned with the curricular goal but that also reflects an interest area of the student. The other

TABLE 2 Percentile Ranks for the Academic Print Subscale

Grade Gender Percentile rank

10 25 50 75 90

6 Girls 10 14 17 21 25 Boys 8 12 16 20 23

7 Girls 10 13 17 21 24 Boys 8 12 15 19 23

8 Girls 10 13 17 21 24 Boys 8 12 16 19 23

TABLE 3 Percentile Ranks for the Recreational Print Subscale

Grade Gender Percentile rank

10 25 50 75 90

6 Girls 14 17 22 26 29 Boys 9 13 18 22 26

7 Girls 13 16 21 25 29 Boys 9 13 17 22 26

8 Girls 13 17 21 25 29 Boys 8 12 17 21 25

TABLE 4 Percentile Ranks for the Recreational Digital Subscale

Grade Gender Percentile rank

10 25 50 75 90

6 Girls 11 15 a 17 18 Boys 9 13 16 17 18

7 Girls 10 14 17 – 18 Boys 8 12 16 17 18

8 Girls 13 15 b c 18 Boys 10 13 16 17 18

Note. a = A score of 16 corresponds to the 38th percentile rank. b = A score of 16 corresponds to the 26th percentile rank. c = A score of 17 corresponds to the 33rd percentile rank.

JAAL_183.indd 571JAAL_183.indd 571 3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM

572

JO U

R N

A L

O F

A D

O LE

S C

EN T

& A

D U

LT L

IT ER

A C

Y

5 6(

7)

A P

R IL

2 01

3 FEATURE ARTICLE

strategy is to exploit a strength among the attitudes. A struggling student whose attitude toward recre- ational digital reading is a relative strength (also likely) might be given opportunities to engage in activities of this nature that are connected with curricular goals.

Using SARA to Plan Instruction The brief vignettes that follow are composites of some of the teachers and students with whom we have worked. We offer them as illustrations of how the insights provided by SARA might be applied in planning.

Erik is a seventh grader who readily admits he’s “not a reader.” But it’s worth unpacking this statement. The fall results of SARA suggest that his blanket dismissal of reading is too broad. His attitude toward reading conventional print sources is indeed poor, whether his purpose is academic or recreational. His AP score of 12 (25th percentile rank) and RP score of 14 (25th percentile rank) confirm this judgment. In the case of digital sources, however, a different pattern emerges. His AD score of 19 (50th percentile rank) and RD score of 19 (90th percentile rank) indicate that digital environments may be key in planning. Achievement data indicate that he is reading slightly below grade level.

Ms. Jacobson, the reading specialist, notes that Erik has expressed an interest in space aliens on an interest inventory that she administered. In a follow- up conversation, Erik revealed that his interest in aliens began when he started watching the Star Wars series at a younger age, and that this enthusiasm triggered a curiosity about science. Led by these insights, Ms. Jacobson suggests to Mr. Brewer, Erik’s earth science teacher, that Erik be encouraged to read a multimedia article located on the NASA website on the subject of traveling between the stars.

After Mr. Brewer mentions that Erik appears to connect with the article, Ms. Jacobson locates similar sources that can be used in science and across content areas, including language arts. The school’s language arts curriculum is typical in that science fiction is underrepresented. Accordingly, Ms. Jacobson works alongside the language arts teacher to ensure that science fiction is among the choices afforded to students. She also suggests that both print and digital sources of science fiction be made available in hopes of capitalizing on Erik’s preexisting interest to foster a more positive attitude toward print sources.

Holly is an eighth grader. Her parents report that she engages actively in reading, but she has a poor record on school reading tests. She received an AD score of 17 (25th percentile rank), an AP score of 14 (25th percentile rank), an RP score of 26 (75th percentile rank), and an RD score of 17 (75th percentile rank) on SARA in the fall. Based on these data and an interview with her parents, Ms. Wilson, her language arts teacher, concludes that Holly is resistant to in-school reading for academic purposes regardless of whether the material appears in print or digital form.

For Holly and other students who exhibit similar patterns, Ms. Wilson decides to include independent reading time for 30 minutes per day in her English class. She is careful to structure this time by narrowing the available choices and including follow- up interaction with classmates. During this time, a group of students reads from the books they have chosen and then discusses that day’s segment in a variety of group settings (genre based, author based, book talks, clock buddies, etc.). At the end of the semester, she observes more positive attitudes toward reading for academic purposes, not only for Holly but for other students as well.

Mr. Bergen, a middle school reading specialist, administers SARA to his Power Reading class, an exploratory made up of class students with above- average achievement. The scoring spreadsheet (see Figure 4) reveals many students have scored below the national average for Academic Digital attitudes. He finds this result unusual in light of the average or above-average scores on the other three subscales. He decides to implement Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT; Castek, 2006; Leu et al., 2008) to provide his students with more opportunities to read digital texts for academic purposes and to improve his students’ attitudes toward academic reading in digital settings.

At the end of the school year, Mr. Bergen readministers SARA and notes that the entire class has shown significant improvements in their academic digital attitudes. By comparing beginning- of-year results with those collected at year’s end, Mr. Bergen is able to reflect on whether efforts to improve attitudes have had the desired effect.

It is important to note that each of these teachers had achievement data to assist them in planning. And though few would deny that achievement measures can be helpful in providing targeted instruction, they are too often the only window into a student’s reading. The teachers in these vignettes were able to

JAAL_183.indd 572JAAL_183.indd 572 3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM

573

M e

as ur

in g

A d

ol es

ce nt

s’ A

tt it

ud es

T ow

ar d

R e

ad in

g: A

C la

ss ro

om S

ur ve

y

shed additional light on the needs of their students by opening another window—a window into affect. Extending the traditional cognitive profile to include affective results, such as those provided by SARA, can lead to richer understandings and more effective planning (Afflerbach & Cho, 2011; IRA/NCTE, 2010).

Limitations Surveys are beneficial because they often include high internal consistency and validity, and they are relatively easy to administer and analyze (Johnson & Turner, 2003). But there are also inherent limitations to studying any motivational constructs using only self-report instruments (Fulmer & Frijters, 2009). We encourage the use of multiple methods (including interviews and observations) to better understand students’ reading attitudes. Another limitation of the present instrument is that it was developed over the course of two years, from 2009 to 2011. With technology constantly changing, there is a risk that some items can become out of date.

Implications for Teachers, Teacher Researchers, and Researchers Practitioners have long recognized the importance of motivation (e.g., O’Flahavan et al., 1992; Quirk et al., 2010), and our chief goal was to provide teachers with an instrument that would give them more information about their students’ reading attitudes. We have suggested that adding this survey to a classroom repertoire leads to a more comprehensive assessment of students and to instructional planning that is more likely to foster positive attitudes.

Although we designed this survey primarily with teachers in mind, reliable and valid measures such as SARA should prove useful for teacher researchers

interested in setting goals of improving students’ reading attitudes over the course of the year. We recommend administering the instrument once in the fall and again in the spring to track whether students’ attitudes have changed across any of the dimensions. In addition to capturing students’ pre- and posttest results on SARA, we recommend teacher researchers also consider collecting

descriptive data across the year. Descriptive data might include how often students had opportunities to participate in digital literacy activities in school, what types of books students choose to read, how often students talk about what they are reading, which Internet sites are most popular, and so on.

We are also hopeful that SARA will offer possibilities for university-based researchers interested in further examining the complicated relationship between attitudes and reading achievement. Some have suggested that areas such as attitudes are so problematic that researchers have avoided their study altogether (Petscher, 2010). Like any instrument, SARA has limitations, but we have addressed the psychometric challenges of reliability and validity and therefore hope this instrument will prove to be valuable.

Accordingly, we believe that SARA proves a useful measure when making international and cross-cultural comparisons of adolescent reading attitudes (e.g., Jang & McKenna, 2012). Because items designed to measure reading attitudes on international comparative assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) fail to take into account digital reading practices, the use of SARA, when translated and validated, provides more nuanced information.

Concluding Thoughts In presenting this instrument, our hope is that SARA will prove to be a useful tool for teachers and researchers. We believe that the measure can provide practical but nuanced information, which in turn might foster differentiated and effective instructional practices. Leading literacy organizations assert the central importance of understanding our readers as

FIGURE 4 Percentile Ranks for the Recreational Digital Subscale

JAAL_183.indd 573JAAL_183.indd 573 3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM

574

JO U

R N

A L

O F

A D

O LE

S C

EN T

& A

D U

LT L

IT ER

A C

Y

5 6(

7)

A P

R IL

2 01

3 FEATURE ARTICLE

we match them to texts and tasks, noting, “Specific information on students’ knowledge, skills, strategies, and attitudes helps teachers, parents, and students set goals and plan instruction more thoughtfully” (IRA/NCTE, 2010, p. 12; emphasis added). It is our hope that tools such as this one might help toward that end.

References Afflerbach, P.P., & Cho, B.Y. (2011). The classroom assessment

of reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 487–514). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Alvermann, D.E. (2009). Sociocultural constructions of adolescence and young people’s literacies. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 14–28). New York: Guilford.

Bean, T., & Readence, J. (2002). Adolescent literacy: Charting a course for successful futures as lifelong learners. Literacy Research and Instruction, 41(3), 203–210.

Bean, T.W., & Harper, H. (2009). The “adolescent” in adolescent literacy. In K. Wood & W. Blanton (Eds.), Literacy instruction for adolescents: Research-based practice (pp. 37–53). New York: Guilford.

Black, R.W., & Steinkuehler, C. (2009). Literacy in virtual worlds. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 271–286). New York: Guilford.

Cassidy, J., & Grote-Garcia, S. (Eds.). (2012). Literacy trends and issues: What’s hot. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Castek, J. (2006, May). What is Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT) and how do we implement it? Paper presented at the 51st annual International Reading Association Conference, Chicago, IL.

Coiro, J. (2012). Understanding dispositions toward reading on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 645–648. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00077

Conradi, K. (2012). Examining item validity using cognitive interviews. Paper presented at the meeting of the Literacy Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Cramer, H., & Castle, M. (Eds.). (1994). Fostering the love of reading: The affective domain. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Dunston, P.J., & Gambrell, L.B. (2009). Motivating adolescent learners to read. In K.D. Wood & W.E. Blanton (Eds.), Literacy instruction for adolescents: Research-based practice (pp. 269–286). New York: Guilford.

Fulmer, S.M., & Frijters, J.C. (2009). A review of self-report and alternative approaches in the measurement of student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 219–246. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9107-x

Guthrie, J.T., & Coddington, C.S. (2009). Reading motivation. In K.R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 503–525). New York: Routledge.

Hall, L.A. (2012). The role of reading identities and reading abilities in students’ discussions about texts and comprehension strategies. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(4), 239–272. doi:10.1177/1086296X12445370

✓ Remember to assess your students throughout the school year to check whether attitudes have changed. Include results in your assessment portfolio of each student and use results to help differentiate your instruction.

✓ When administering SARA, emphasize that it is not a test and there are no correct answers. Encourage your students to respond with sincerity. Invite students to jot brief notes next to questions that resonate with them.

✓ As a follow-up, ask your students questions to tap into the types of texts they enjoy reading, hobbies they enjoy participating in, and movies they enjoy watching. We advise that you ask additional questions related to digital media and activities. For example, ask questions regarding their favorite websites, e-readers, social media, and blogging. The follow-up question and answer can be done in a discussion forum, like Socratic Seminar, or in one-on-one conversations with the teacher.

✓ Share the results from SARA with other content teachers and discuss how to engage them in reading different disciplinary texts. Content teachers may request help in finding resources for students; reading specialists and English teachers may need to step in and share ideas!

✓ Consider grouping students who show similar patterns in the SARA scores. You might provide differentiated reading instruction based on their reading attitudes that vary with purpose and medium.

✓ Establish a classroom library where students can access a variety of digital and print books. Additionally, provide independent reading time regularly to promote wide and frequent reading and implement multiple opportunities for students to discuss what they read. Giving students an authentic audience for sharing, whether it be through blogging, book “speed-dating,” book talks, digital book trailers, etc., invites a purposeful and meaningful community around reading.

✓ Consider implementing literature and idea circles and allow for technology integration in these circles. (Perhaps consider putting them online. Research certainly suggests some students participate more in online forums than they would face to face.)

Take Action S T E P S F O R I M M E D I A T E I M P L E M E N T A T I O N

JAAL_183.indd 574JAAL_183.indd 574 3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM

575

M e

as ur

in g

A d

ol es

ce nt

s’ A

tt it

ud es

T ow

ar d

R e

ad in

g: A

C la

ss ro

om S

ur ve

y

Henk, W.A., Marinak, B.A., & Melnick, S.A. (2012). Measuring the reader self-perceptions of adolescents: Introducing the RSPS2. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 311– 320. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00144.

Hinchman, K.A., Payne-Bourcy, L., Thomas, H., & Chandler- Olcott, K. (2002). Representing adolescents’ literacies: Case studies of three white males. Literacy Research and Instruction, 41(3), 229–246.

Hughes-Hassell, S., & Rodge, P. (2007). The leisure reading habits of urban adolescents. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(1), 22–33. doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.1.3

Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (Eds.). (2002). School’s out!: Bridging out- of-school literacies with classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English. (2010). Standards for the assessment of reading and writing (Rev. ed.). Newark, DE; Urbana, IL: Authors.

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). Just plain reading: A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 350–377. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.4.2.

Jang, B.G., & McKenna, M.C. (2012). Comparing reading attitudes of middle school students in Korea and the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Johnson, R.B., & Turner, L.A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Klauda, S.L. (2009). The role of parents in adolescents’ reading motivation and activity. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 325–363. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9112-0

Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2005). Teen content creators and consumers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 29, 2012, from www .pewinternet.org/PPR/r/166/report_display.asp.pdf

Lenters, K. (2006). Resistance, struggle, and the adolescent reader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(2), 136–146. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.2.6.

Leu, D.J., Jr., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D.K., Henry, L.A., & Reinking, D. (2008). Research on instruction and assessment of the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C.C. Block & S. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 321–346). New York: Guilford.

Ley, T.C., Schaer, B.B., & Dismukes, B.W. (1994). Longitudinal study of the reading attitudes and behaviors of middle students. Reading Psychology Quarterly, 15(1), 11–38. doi:10.1080/0270271940150102

Luttrell, W., & Parker, C. (2001). High school students’ literacy practices and identities, and the figured world of school. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(3), 235–247. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00146

McCarthey, S.J. (2000). Home school connections: A review of the literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 145–153. doi:10.1080/00220670009598703

McKenna, M.C. (2001). Development of reading attitudes. In L. Verhoeven & C. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation:

Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 135–158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McKenna, M.C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B.G., & Meyer, J.P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U.S. survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 283–306. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.021.

McKenna, M.C., Kear, D.J., & Ellsworth, R.A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 934–956. doi:10.2307/748205

Moje, E. (2000). “To be part of the story”: The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 651– 690. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00071

Moje, E.B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1), 107–154.

Moore, D.W., Alvermann, D.E., & Hinchman, K.A. (2007). Literacies in and out of school: A survey of U.S. youth. The Reading Matrix, 7(3), 170–190.

Moorman, G., & Horton, J. (2007). Millennials and how to teach them. In J. Lewis & G. Moorman (Eds.), Adolescent literacy instruction: Policies and promising practices (pp. 263–282). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Morgan, P.L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional Children, 73(2), 165–183.

National Endowment of the Arts. (2007). To read or not to read: A question of national consequence (Research Report No. 47). Retrieved from www.arts.gov/research/ToRead.pdf

O’Brien, D., Stewart, R., & Beach, R. (2009). Proficient reading in school: Traditional paradigms and new textual landscapes. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 80–97). New York: Guilford.

O’Brien, D.G. (1998). Multiple literacies in a high school program for “at-risk” adolescents. In D.E. Alvermann, K.A. Hinchman, D.W. Moore, S.F. Phelps, & D.R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. 27– 49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

O’Flahavan, J., Gambrell, L.B., Guthrie, J., Stahl, S.A., & Alvermann, D.E. (1992). Poll results guide activities of research center. Reading Today, 10(1), 12.

Petscher, Y. (2010). A meta-analysis of the relationship between student attitudes towards reading and achievement in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(4), 335–355. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01418.x

Pitcher, S.M., Albright, L.K., DeLaney, C.J., Walker, N.T., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge, S., et al. (2007). Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(5), 378–396. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.5.5

Quirk, M., Unrau, N., Ragusa, G., Rueda, R., Lim, H., Velasco, A., et al. (2010). Teacher beliefs about reading motivation and their enactment in classrooms: The development of a survey questionnaire. Reading Psychology, 31(2), 93–120. doi:10.1080/02702710902754051

Rajecki, D.W. (1990). Attitudes (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Reeves, A.R. (2004). Adolescents talk about reading: Exploring resistance to and engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

JAAL_183.indd 575JAAL_183.indd 575 3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM

576

JO U

R N

A L

O F

A D

O LE

S C

EN T

& A

D U

LT L

IT ER

A C

Y

5 6(

7)

A P

R IL

2 01

3 FEATURE ARTICLE

Rennie, L. (1982). Research note: Detecting a response set to Likert-style attitude items with the rating model. Education Research and Perspectives, 9(1), 114–118.

Rowe, K.J. (1991). The influence of reading activity at home on students’ attitudes towards reading, classroom attentiveness, and reading achievement: An application of structural equation modeling. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(1), 19–35. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991. tb00958.x

Simmons, A.M. (2012). Class on fire: Using the Hunger Games trilogy to encourage social action. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 22–34. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00099

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. doi:10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1

Sweet, A., Guthrie, J.T., & Ng, M. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and students’ reading motivations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 210–223. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.210

Vadeboncoeur, J.A., & Stevens, L.P. (Eds.). (2005). Re/ constructing “the adolescent”: Sign, symbol and body. New York: Peter Lang.

Watkins, M.W., & Coffey, D.Y. (2004). Reading motivation: Multidimensional and indeterminate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 110–118. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.110

Worthy, J., Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to read is hard to find in school. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), 12–27. doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.1.2

ReadWriteThink.org Lesson Plan • “E-Book Reading and Response: Innovative Ways to

Engage With Texts” by Lotta C. Larson

IRA Books • Essential Readings on Motivation edited by Jacquelynn A.

Malloy, Barbara A. Marinak, and Linda B. Gambrell • Inspiring Reading Success: Interest and Motivation in an

Age of High-Stakes Testing edited by Rosalie Fink and S. Jay Samuels

• Literacy Remix: Bridging Adolescents’ In and Out of School Literacies by Jesse Gainer and Diane Lapp

IRA Journal Articles • “The Leisure Reading Habits of Urban Adolescents” by

Sandra Hughes-Hassell and Pradnya Rodge, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, September 2007

• “Supporting Older Students’ In- And Out-of-School Literacies” by Kathleen A. Hinchman, Donna E. Alvermann, Fenice B. Boyd, William G. Brozo, and Richard T. Vacca, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, December 2004

More to Explore C O N N E C T E D C O N T E N T - B A S E D R E S O U R C E S

JAAL_183.indd 576JAAL_183.indd 576 3/18/2013 4:22:42 PM3/18/2013 4:22:42 PMView publication statsView publication stats

Reading Case Study Work.html

Module 2 Case Study Work

 

1. Case Study Part 1 due Sept. 7

 

1. Case Study- Administer the Affective Factors surveys, inventories & assessments

 

1. Write about the results. Refer to the Reading Case Study folder.