Skip to main content

Reading Attitudes, Interests, and Practices

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Literacies and Language Education

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of Language and Education ((ELE))

  • 1725 Accesses

Abstract

The academic literature on reading is largely of a technical nature, most of it having to do with learning.

The degree and type of reading that are done, however, and the motivations and purposes that underpin actual usage, remain less studied.

Yet it could be argued that, once some basic fluency has been established, these factors – which we could put under the general rubric of the social psychology of reading – assume central importance. This chapter summarizes some of the relevant work in the field. Some is narrowly empirical but most involves medium- to large-scale survey approaches.

The chapter concludes by suggesting some fruitful lines for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Both the “professionalization” of literature and arguments against it have quite a long history. The teaching of English literature, for example, was generally resisted by the academy until the mid-nineteenth century (later still in Oxford and Cambridge) – on the grounds that it was of insufficient depth but also because of apprehensions about the baleful influence of “experts.” On the other hand, as early as 1927, Forster heaved a regretful sigh that “the novel tells a story … I wish that it was not so.” The story “runs like a backbone – or may I say a tapeworm” supporting other “finer growths” (p. 45). Here we have the disdain for the obvious – and the obviously appealing – that has so distressed the “common reader” ever since; see also the Leavis influence, later.

  2. 2.

    We might consider following the lead of Hall and Coles (1999) a little more closely. They asked children how they accounted for gender differences in reading. Girls, it was reported, are more mature and sensitive than boys, they are not as physically active, and they have more patience; boys see reading as “sissy” or “square,” they can’t sit still long enough to read, reading is neither “cool” nor “tough,” and so on. In effect, these children were constructing a theory that related socialization in general to reading in particular.

References

  • Anderson, R., Wilson, P., & Fielding, L. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arms, W. (2000). Digital libraries. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, N. (2001). Double fold: Libraries and the assault on paper. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauerlein, M. (Ed.). (2005). Reading at risk: A forum. Boston: Association of Literary Scholars and Critics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age. New York: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, H. (2000). How to read and why. New York: Scribners.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borges, J. L. (1964). Labyrinths. New York: New Directions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Children’s Literature Research Centre (Roehampton Institute). (1994). Contemporary juvenile reading habits. London: British Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Children’s Literature Research Centre (Roehampton Institute). (1996). Young people’s reading at the end of the century. London: Roehampton Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Créatec. (2005). Reading and buying books for pleasure. Montreal: Créatec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creative Research Group. (1987). Literacy in Canada. Toronto: CRG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmundson, M. (2004). Why read? New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Quality Accountability Office (EQAO). (1999). Ontario provincial report on achievement. Toronto: EQAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. (Ed.). (1981). The social psychology of reading. Silver Spring: Institute of Modern Languages.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. (1991). Literacy and education in contexts of cultural and linguistic heterogeneity. Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, 933–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J.: 1999, Reading in Nova Scotia, unpublished paper, St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish (Nova Scotia).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekos Research Associates. (1991). Reading in Canada. Ottawa: Ekos Research Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, E. M. (1927). Aspects of the novel. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S. (2005). End of discussion. American Scholar, 74(1), 138–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greaney, V. (1980). Factors related to amount and type of leisure time reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greaney, V., & Hegarty, M. (1987). Correlates of leisure‐time reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 10, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greaney, V., & Neuman, S. (1990). The functions of reading: A cross‐cultural perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 172–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, C., & Coles, M. (1999). Children’s reading choices. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2001). Reading groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strategies, H. (2005). Who buys books in Canada? Hamilton: Hill Strategies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoggart, R. (1957). The uses of literacy. London: Chatto & Windus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoggart, R. (1995). The way we live now. London: Chatto & Windus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingham, J. (1981). Books and reading development. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozol, J. (1985). Illiterate America. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavis, Q. D. (1965 [1932]) Fiction and the reading public. London: Chatto & Windus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, H., & Hopf, H. (1946). People and books: A study of reading and book‐buying habits. New York: Book Manufacturers’ Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maeroff, G. (1982). Dismay over those who shun reading. New York Times, 28 September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Max, D. T. (1994). The end of the book? Atlantic Monthly, September, 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Max, D. T. (2000). The electronic book. American Scholar, 69(3), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, M., Kear, D., & Ellsworth, R. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). (2004). Reading at risk. Washington, DC: NEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nell, V. (1988). Lost in a book: The psychology of reading for pleasure. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, S. (1986). The home environment and fifth‐grade students’ leisure reading. Elementary School Journal, 3, 335–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, S. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 286–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2000). Literacy in the information age: Final report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxenham, J. (1980). Literacy: Writing, reading and social organisation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J. (2001). The intellectual life of the British working classes. New Haven: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonfeld, R. (2003). JSTOR: A history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, R. (1942). Exploration in reading patterns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K. (2005). Reading: Even joke books count. Globe & Mail (Toronto), 29 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinker, M. (1965). Bases for effective reading. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valpy, M. (2001). Can read, won’t read. Globe & Mail (Toronto), 9 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venezky, R. (1990). Review of Lost in a Book (Nell). American Journal of Psychology, 103, 136–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S. (1990). A survey of reading habits and attitudes in a university population (unpublished report). Psychology Department, St Francis Xavier University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waples, D., & Tyler, R. (1931). What people want to read about. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waples, D., Berelson, B., & Bradshaw, F. (1940). What reading does to people. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, F., Capey, A., & Maddren, W. (1974). Children’s reading habits. London: Evans/Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, F., Capey, A., Maddren, W., & Wellings, A. (1977). Children and their books. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Edwards .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Edwards, J. (2017). Reading Attitudes, Interests, and Practices. In: Street, B., May, S. (eds) Literacies and Language Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02252-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics