reading attitude thesis

Effectiveness of Interventions that Foster Reading Motivation: a Meta-analysis

• Meta-Analysis
• Open access
• Published: 11 February 2023
• Volume 35 , article number  21 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Lisa van der Sande   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0048-1169 1 ,
• Roel van Steensel 1 , 2 ,
• Suzanne Fikrat-Wevers 3 &
• Lidia Arends 2 , 4  

9551 Accesses

2 Citations

25 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Many students have low reading motivation. Based on (reading) motivation theories, several mechanisms are distinguished that can foster reading motivation. Our goal in this meta-analysis was to examine the effects of theory-driven reading motivation interventions in school on students’ reading motivation and reading comprehension as well as to test which mechanisms are particularly effective in fostering motivation and comprehension. We conducted a literature search in ten online databases and identified 39 relevant effect studies. Positive effects on affirming motivations ( d = 0.38), extrinsic motivations ( d = 0.42), combined motivations ( d = 0.17), and reading comprehension ( d = 0.27) were found. The effect on undermining motivations ( d = −0.01) was not significant. In particular, interventions that aimed to trigger interest had positive effects on affirming motivations and reading comprehension. Furthermore, effects on affirming motivations were larger if the total duration of the intervention was longer and if the share of boys in the sample was higher. Interventions delivered by researchers had larger effects on reading comprehension than interventions delivered by teachers. Finally, effects on reading comprehension were larger for primary schoolers than for secondary schoolers and larger for typical readers than for struggling readers. Implications for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers are discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Impact of Motivational Reading Instruction on the Reading Achievement and Motivation of Students: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Miriam McBreen & Robert Savage

Relations among intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and comprehension: a conceptual replication

Margaret Troyer, James S. Kim, … Catherine Armstrong

The relationship between motivation to read and reading comprehension in chilean elementary students

Pelusa Orellana, Carolina Melo, … José Pezoa

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Substantial numbers of students have problems comprehending texts. They are not able to perform reading tasks at the level considered the minimum required to participate fully in society (OECD, 2019a ) and experience difficulties in school, as understanding texts is needed to acquire knowledge in different content domains (Reschly, 2010 ; Snow, 2002 ). These problems are partly related to students’ reading motivation, which can be defined as “the drive to read resulting from a comprehensive set of an individual’s beliefs about, attitudes towards, and goals for reading” (Conradi et al., 2014 , p. 154). Research shows that students who are motivated to read, read more often and have better reading comprehension ability (Mol & Bus, 2011 ; Schiefele et al., 2012 ; Toste et al., 2020 ). However, substantial numbers of students have low reading motivation levels and only read infrequently (Nippold et al., 2005 ; OECD, 2019b ; Strommen & Mates, 2004 ). Therefore, it is argued that reading instruction should not only focus on skills instruction but also on the promotion of reading motivation (e.g., De Naeghel & Van Keer, 2013 ; Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018 ). The first aim of the current meta-analysis was to investigate to what extent theory-driven reading motivation interventions in school can contribute to higher reading motivation and whether this is accompanied by an increase in reading comprehension. Our second aim was to get more insight into what are effective ways to foster reading motivation.

Effects of Reading Motivation Interventions: Previous Meta-analyses

So far, a few meta-analyses have been conducted in which the effects of reading motivation interventions have been synthesized and compared systematically. Guthrie et al. ( 2007 ) investigated the effects of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) on reading comprehension and different motivational variables, such as intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. In CORI, motivational support and strategy instruction are combined in a content domain (e.g., science). Mean effect sizes for motivation ranged from Cohen’s d = 0.12 to 1.20, with a median of 0.30. Mean effect sizes for reading comprehension were larger, ranging from Cohen’s d = 0.65 to 0.93. More recently, Unrau et al. ( 2018 ) and McBreen and Savage ( 2020 ) examined the outcomes of a broader array of motivational interventions. Unrau et al. ( 2018 ) tested effects on reading self-efficacy and found a weighted mean effect size of Hedge’s g = 0.33. McBreen and Savage ( 2020 ) established mean effect sizes of Hedge’s g = 0.30 on reading motivation and Hedge’s g = 0.20 on reading achievement.

These meta-analyses have a number of shortcomings. The reviews by Guthrie et al. ( 2007 ) and Unrau et al. ( 2018 ) have a limited scope, targeting either one specific intervention or one specific outcome measure, thereby possibly overlooking relevant results of other kinds of interventions or on other types of variables. The meta-analysis by McBreen and Savage ( 2020 ) is more comprehensive but has three other drawbacks. First, the authors have included interventions both with and without a theoretical basis, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions on the mechanisms that steer intervention effects. Second, their meta-analysis includes both targeted and broad interventions, the latter including programs that combine motivational and other types of support (i.e., skills instruction). Since they do not use this variable as a moderator, definite conclusions on the effects of motivational support cannot be drawn: positive outcomes might very well be the result of other elements of the intervention. Third, McBreen and Savage ( 2020 ) based their moderator analyses on one, undifferentiated reading motivation variable, covering such concepts as intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, value, and extrinsic motivation. However, not all forms of motivation are equally beneficial for reading outcomes.

The present meta-analysis aims to meet these shortcomings in four ways. First, we take a broad scope; that is, we analyze the effects of a range of motivational programs on a variety of motivational outcomes. Second, we limit ourselves to theory-based interventions. This allows us to test which theoretical mechanisms contribute to the promotion of reading motivation and comprehension, thereby providing better insights into the effective ingredients of motivational interventions (see “ Motivational mechanisms ” for further explanation). Third, we aim to draw conclusions on the added value of motivational interventions by testing whether effects differ between programs that combine motivational support with skills instruction and those that do not. Fourth and finally, we apply a more differentiated approach to the moderator analyses. We based our approach on an analysis of the extent to which different types of motivation are beneficial for reading development. Based on previous conceptualizations of reading motivation (Schiefele et al., 2012 ; Guthrie & Coddington, 2009 ), we categorized motivational outcomes as affirming (e.g., intrinsic motivation and reading self-efficacy), extrinsic (e.g., reading for competition and recognition), or undermining (e.g., avoidance goals and perceived difficulty of reading). Affirming motivations are found to be most favorable for students’ reading achievement, whereas undermining motivations are unfavorable (Guthrie & Coddington, 2009 ; Guthrie et al., 2013 ; Ho & Guthrie, 2013 ; Van Steensel et al., 2019 ). Extrinsic motivations have been found to have small, no, or even negative effects on reading achievement (Becker et al., 2010 ; Schaffner et al., 2013 ; Schiefele et al., 2012 ; Stutz et al., 2016 ).

Reading Motivation Theories

Motivation is a complex construct with multiple dimensions (Conradi et al., 2014 ; Murphy & Alexander, 2000 ; Schiefele et al., 2012 ; Wigfield, 1997 ). These dimensions are elaborated in various motivation theories, which are also applied in the field of reading motivation (Conradi et al., 2014 ; Cook & Artino, 2016 ; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999 ; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016 ; Wigfield, 1997 ). Influential motivation theories are self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000 ), expectancy-value theory (EVT; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000 ), social cognitive theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986 ), interest theory (IT; Hidi & Renninger, 2006 ; Krapp, 2002 ), achievement goal theory (AGT; Ames, 1992 ; Pintrich, 2000 ), and attribution theory (AT; Weiner, 1985 ). An adjacent model that is relevant to the field of reading motivation research is the reading engagement model (REM; Guthrie et al., 2007 ). Table 1 provides an overview and description of these theories.

Motivational Mechanisms

Together, the theories described in Table 1 propose several mechanisms through which affirming motivations, in particular, can be fostered. Feelings of autonomy, relatedness, and competence are central to SDT, which posits that motivation becomes more internalized to the extent that these psychological needs are met (Niemic & Ryan, 2009 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). Applied to reading, autonomy can for example be supported by offering students a choice of texts (Stefanou et al., 2004 ). Positive interactions about books and collaboration in the classroom can contribute to feelings of relatedness (Guthrie et al., 2004 ; Nolen, 2007 ). Feelings of competence can be fostered by matching texts to students’ reading levels, by teaching strategies that support text comprehension, or by providing supportive feedback (Bandura, 1997 ; Margolis & McCabe, 2003 ; Walker, 2003 ). The need for competence is also central to EVT and SCT, which assume that expectancies of success and self-efficacy, respectively, promote students’ motivation to engage in activities such as reading (Bandura, 1986 ; Cook & Artino, 2016 ; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016 ; Wigfield, 1997 ; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000 ).

In IT, interest is considered a driving force in student motivation and learning (Hidi & Renninger, 2006 ; Krapp, 2002 ). Students’ interest could, for example, be triggered by the use of interesting texts (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ; Schiefele, 1999 ) or by making real-world connections (Guthrie et al., 2007 ). The concept of interest also resounds in the concept of intrinsic value in EVT (Cook & Artino, 2016 ; Schiefele et al., 2012 ; Wigfield, 1997 ).

Based on AGT, stimulating (mastery) goals for reading may have beneficial effects on students’ reading motivation (Ames, 1992 ; Elliot, 1999 ; Pintrich, 2000 ). Mastery goals can be stimulated by stressing individual development instead of making social comparisons (Ames, 1992 ) and by integrating reading activities in “thematic units” to build expertise (Guthrie et al., 2004 ).

According to AT, motivation could be fostered by changing students’ attributions for learning. For example, if teachers emphasize that effort leads to success in reading and that failure is not caused by a lack of ability, this is expected to lead to more favorable attributions (Toland & Boyle, 2008 ; Weiner, 1985 ).

In REM, motivational support and strategic instruction are combined. As REM is based on SDT, SCT, and AGT, the motivational mechanisms of these theories are central to REM (Guthrie et al., 2007 ). According to REM, motivation is fostered if students’ interest is triggered; feelings of autonomy, relatedness, and competence are supported; and mastery goals are pursued (Guthrie et al., 2004 ).

Interventions may also focus on stimulating extrinsic forms of reading motivation. EVT encompasses values that are more external to students: attainment value and utility value, which could be fostered by emphasizing why reading is relevant and how developing one’s reading skills may help to reach future goals (Guthrie & Klauda, 2014 ; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000 ). According to SDT, extrinsic motivators, such as rewards, may be expected to contribute to extrinsic motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). However, given the outcomes of previous research (Becker et al., 2010 ; Schaffner et al., 2013 ; Schiefele et al., 2012 ; Stutz et al., 2016 ), we do not expect interventions that mainly target extrinsic forms of motivation to positively contribute to students’ reading development.

Other Possible Moderators of Intervention Effects

In addition to the effects of motivational mechanisms, we were interested in other variables that might moderate intervention effects. These variables can be categorized as intervention, sample, study, and measurement characteristics.

Regarding intervention characteristics, we were first of all interested in whether effects differed between programs that focused on motivation only and programs that combined motivational support with other types of support. As explained earlier, inherent to many programs is that they combine motivational support with skills instruction, which makes it difficult to infer whether effects are caused by investing in student motivation (McBreen & Savage, 2020 ). Comparing programs that also include skills instruction with those that do not can provide an indication of the unique contribution of motivational support: such a comparison enables to analyze whether effects are still present when skills instruction is left out of the equation.

In addition, we were interested in moderators such as text genre, program duration, and the provider of the intervention. Students’ reading motivation may vary across different text genres: several studies indicate that students are more motivated to read narrative texts than informational texts (Guthrie et al., 2007 ; Lepper et al., 2021 ; McGeown et al., 2020 ; Parsons et al., 2018 ). It is thus interesting to examine whether focusing on a specific genre has consequences for intervention effects. Concerning the duration of the intervention, we focused both on the number of sessions and the total amount of time students were exposed to the intervention. Although it may be expected that interventions are more effective if the duration of the intervention is longer, no effect of length of treatment was found in the meta-analysis by Unrau et al. ( 2018 ), indicating that longer interventions were not necessarily more effective than shorter interventions. Regarding the provider of the intervention, programs delivered by researchers may be more effective than those by teachers, as the former might be better able to deliver the interventions as intended (Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Okkinga et al., 2018 ).

Particular subgroups—secondary schoolers, struggling readers, and boys—are at greater risk of having low reading motivation (Baker & Wigfield, 1999 ; Gottfried et al., 2001 ; Jacobs et al., 2002 ; Logan & Johnston, 2009 ; McKenna et al., 1995 ; McKenna et al., 2012 ; Parson et al., 2018 ; Toste et al., 2020 ; Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018 ). Therefore, we were interested in whether interventions were more effective for these groups of students: we tested whether intervention effects were moderated by sample characteristics such as educational stage (primary versus secondary education), reading level, and gender.

Furthermore, we were interested in study characteristics such as how students were assigned to experimental and control groups, whether control groups received any treatment, and implementation quality. These variables might have consequences for the validity of conclusions on intervention effects. For instance, if students are not randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, differences between the groups might be explained by factors other than the intervention (Lispey, 2003 ). If part of the intervention is also offered to the control group, differences between the experimental and control group may be less pronounced (Wilson & Lipsey, 2001 ).

We also tested the effects of two measurement characteristics: measurement type and whether instruments were developed within the context of the study. For measurement type, a distinction was made between self-reports, teacher-reports, observations, and tests. Instruments that were developed within the context of the study may be expected to be more closely related to the content of an intervention, and therefore yield larger effects than study-independent measures (McBreen & Savage, 2020 ; Wilson & Lipsey, 2001 ). Operationalizations of all moderators are described in the “Method” section.

Research Questions

The objectives of the current meta-analysis resulted in the following research questions:

What are the effects of reading motivation interventions on reading motivation and reading comprehension?

Which intervention, sample, study, and measurement characteristics moderate intervention effects?

Literature Search and Selection Criteria

Eight electronic databases were searched: Embase (via embase.com ), MEDLINE, and PsycINFO (via Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, and CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), and Cochrane Central (via Wiley). Additional references were retrieved from PubMed (the subset as supplied by the publisher, containing the most recent, nonindexed articles) and Google Scholar. The search strategies were designed by the researchers together with an experienced librarian. Three sets of terms were combined: terms for reading , for motivation , and for educational interventions or programs. All terms were thesaurus terms and words in the title and/or abstract. A broad filter for studies related to children (aged 6 to 18 years) was used. The search was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed journals, to increase the probability of including studies with high methodological quality. A full overview of the search strategies for all databases can be found in the “ Supplementary Information .” In the initial search, which was carried out on 8 April 2019, 9326 titles were identified, of which 5723 remained after removing duplicates. An update of the search on 6 May 2022 resulted in 3803 additional titles, of which 2166 remained after removing duplicates. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (a) the effects of an intervention aimed at fostering reading motivation were analyzed, (b) the intervention was based on a (reading) motivation theory, (c) the intervention was conducted at school, (d) the study focused on children in the range from Grade 1 until the end of secondary school, (e) the study contained an experimental and control group, (f) the dependent variables included measures of reading motivation, and (g) the study provided effect sizes or information allowing the calculation of effect sizes (sample size, means, and SD’s, or results of statistical testing). Studies were excluded (a) if the paper was in another language than English, (b) if the focus of the intervention was on reading in a foreign language, and (c) if the study focused on specific target groups (e.g., children with learning, emotional, or behavioral disorders).

All results of the initial literature search were screened on title and abstract according to these criteria by the first and third authors. The results of the search update were screened by the first author and a graduate student. They screened and coded all titles independently. Full texts of possibly relevant studies were assessed on the same criteria to compile the final selection. If articles were not directly accessible, we tried to retrieve them by contacting the authors. For five possibly relevant articles, we were not able to retrieve the full text. If studies were eligible, but the statistical data reported were insufficient to be included in the meta-analysis, we e-mailed the authors to request the necessary information. In this way, we received additional data for four studies. This final stage of screening led to the inclusion of 33 studies in the initial search and six studies in the search update. Thus, 39 studies were included in the meta-analysis. We additionally consulted the reference lists of the meta-analyses by Guthrie et al. ( 2007 ) and McBreen and Savage ( 2020 ). However, this did not lead to the inclusion of any additional studies. All studies in these meta-analyses that met our inclusion criteria were already identified by our literature search. Interrater agreement for the selection of studies was 99.6%. Disagreements were discussed until an agreement was reached. For a schematic overview of the selection procedure, see the flow chart in Fig. 1 .

Flow chart of study selection in the meta-analysis

Coding Procedure

All included studies were coded according to a scheme, which was developed and pilot-tested by the first and second authors. The scheme allowed the coding of bibliographic information, intervention characteristics, sample characteristics, study characteristics, and measurement characteristics. All studies of the initial search were double-coded by the first and third authors. Studies of the search update were double-coded by the first author and a graduate student. Interrater agreement was 90.3% (range: 80.4% to 100%). Interrater agreement was lowest for the number of sessions and the total duration of the intervention, often because the information provided by the primary studies was unclear. All disagreements were discussed until a consensus was reached.

The following bibliographic information was recorded: title of the article, author name(s), and publication year. In the “Intervention Characteristics” section, the name of the intervention was registered and codes were given for its theoretical basis, the motivational mechanism(s) it tried to elicit, whether skills instruction was provided, the type of texts used in the intervention, the provider of the intervention, the number of sessions, and the total duration of the intervention. Interventions were only coded as based on a specific theory if the theory itself, key theorists, and/or key concepts of the theory were explicitly mentioned and linked to the content of the intervention. Regarding motivational mechanisms, we coded whether the intervention aimed to support autonomy, relatedness, or feelings of competence, trigger interest, stimulate mastery goals, change attributions, emphasize the value of reading, or whether it offered extrinsic motivators. Interventions were coded as providing skills instruction if motivational support was, for example, complemented by reading strategy instruction or fluency practice. Concerning text genre, we specified whether narrative texts, informational texts, or both were used. In some interventions, no texts but only sentences or words were used for reading. The assumption underlying such studies is that increased feelings of competence in word reading may also increase students’ motivation for reading texts (Toste, 2017 , 2019 ). We also specified whether the intervention was delivered by researchers or not. Finally, the number of sessions and total duration of the intervention (the number of sessions multiplied by the duration of one session) were registered.

Samples were described according to the following variables: gender, educational stage, and reading level. We specified the percentage of boys in the sample, made a distinction between primary and secondary schoolers (as indicated in the original study), and we specified whether the sample consisted mainly of struggling readers. A sample was considered to consist mainly of struggling readers if the authors reported that at least 50% of the participants lagged in reading achievement (e.g., based on standardized test scores).

Concerning study characteristics, information was recorded on the design of the study, control group type, and implementation quality. We distinguished experiments and quasi-experiments. Studies were only coded as an experiment if randomization was applied at the individual level. If classes or schools were randomly assigned to the experimental and control condition, this was considered a quasi-experimental design. For all control groups, we specified whether they also received (part of) an intervention, which may have contributed to their reading motivation and/or reading comprehension. Furthermore, we registered information about implementation quality. However, many studies did not report on implementation quality (38.5%) or, if they did, the available information varied considerably. Therefore, we had to exclude this variable from the analyses.

Concerning measurement characteristics, we first coded whether the effect measures pertained to reading motivation or reading comprehension. We focused on reading comprehension as indicator of reading achievement, as gaining meaning and knowledge from a text can be considered the main purpose of reading (Snow, 2002 ). All motivation variables were further categorized as affirming, extrinsic, or undermining. Intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, mastery goals, perceived autonomy, social motivation, and intrinsic value of reading are considered (aspects of) affirming motivations (Guthrie & Coddington, 2009 ). Performance goals, reading for competition, and recognition were coded as extrinsic reading motivations (e.g., Guthrie & Coddington, 2009 ; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997 ). Undermining motivations include constructs such as avoidance goals or reading anxiety (Guthrie & Coddington, 2009 ; Van Steensel et al., 2019 ). Some measures comprised indicators of more than one category (e.g., both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation), so a fourth category was added (combined motivations). Furthermore, we coded whether the post-test was immediately after the intervention or delayed, which type of measurement was used, and whether instruments were developed within the context of the study or study-independent measures (e.g., standardized tests) were used. Finally, we entered the statistical information necessary to compute effect sizes (mean, SD , and n , or, if unavailable, test statistics such as t or F ) or the effect sizes (Cohen’s d , Hedges’ g , or η 2 ) provided by the authors.

Data Analysis

Because some studies included more than one experiment, experimental condition, or subsample, “experimental comparison” was used as the basis for the analyses. We first computed a weighted effect size for affirming motivations, extrinsic motivations, undermining motivations, combined motivations, and/or reading comprehension per experimental comparison (using the standardized mean difference: Cohen’s d ), for which we used the available statistical information. Some studies included one instrument with several subscales; in such cases, we selected the overall scale. If a study included several indicators of reading motivation or reading comprehension, we aggregated the effect sizes per experimental comparison to prevent that the same experimental condition was included multiple times in the analyses and thus had a disproportionate contribution to the average effect.

If present, we used both pre-test and post-test data for computing effect sizes. In some studies, no means and SD s were provided. In these cases, we used the effect sizes provided by the authors or computed the effect sizes based on statistical data such as t values, F values, and p values, together with information on sample size.

We computed mean effect sizes for all outcome measures based on random-effects models, in which heterogeneity across studies is taken into account. To account for differences in sampling error related to sample size, random effects models weigh the mean effect size by the variance of the sample as well as by the variance between studies. To examine whether the variance in effect sizes between studies was related to intervention, sample, study, and measurement characteristics, we conducted moderator analyses based on categorical models analogous to ANOVA and with meta-regression in the case of continuous moderator variables. To test the between-group differences in the categorical random-effects analysis, we calculated the Q -statistic for between-group means. In the random-effects meta-regression models, we tested the significance of the individual regression coefficients with a Z -test.

Finally, we looked for indications of publication bias (Lipsey & Wilson, 1993 ). Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method (Duval & Tweedie, 2000 ) indicated that the effect size for affirming motivations of 0.38 [0.25;0.50] would change into 0.47 [0.34;0.60] after correction for publication bias with eight trimmed studies. The presence of publication bias was not confirmed by Egger’s linear regression test for asymmetry (intercept = 0.83; SE = 0.71; t (53) = 1.17, p = .25; Egger et al., 1997 ). For reading comprehension, Egger’s linear regression test for asymmetry indicated significant publication bias (intercept = 2.17, SE = 0.74, t (37) = 2.93, p = .01). Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method only revealed two trimmed studies. After correction for publication bias, the effect size would slightly change from 0.27 [0.17;0.37] to 0.30 [0.19;0.40]. Thus, weak indications for publication bias were found, but after correction for publication bias, effects would be larger instead of smaller. All analyses were performed by Author 4, using a registered copy of the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis statistical software (version 3.0; Biostat, Englewood, NJ).

Description of the Interventions

The 39 studies included in this meta-analysis encompass 40 interventions. An overview of all studies is provided in Appendix 1 . Four programs were examined in more than one study. CORI was evaluated in four studies (studies 10, 11, 36, and 37). Learning Strategies Curriculum (Study 5 and 6), United States History for Engaged Reading (Study 29 and 30), and Multisyllabic Word Reading + Motivational Beliefs (Study 32 and 33) were evaluated twice. The remaining interventions were included once.

Most interventions were based on the reading engagement model ( n = 11; 28%). The other interventions were based on self-determination theory ( n = 6; 15%), interest theory ( n = 4; 10%), expectancy-value theory ( n = 3; 8%), attribution theory ( n = 3; 8%), social cognitive theory ( n = 3; 8%), and achievement goal theory ( n = 2; 5%). Eight interventions (20%) were based on a combination of motivation theories, namely, AGT and SCT ( n = 3; 8%), AGT and SDT ( n = 2; 5%), IT and SDT ( n = 1; 3%), IT and REM ( n = 1; 3%), and REM and EVT ( n = 1; 3%).

Regarding motivational mechanisms, most interventions aimed to trigger interest ( n = 21; 53%), foster feelings of competence ( n = 20; 50%), support relatedness ( n = 14; 35%), stimulate mastery goals ( n = 13; 33%), or support autonomy ( n = 12; 30%). In a smaller number of interventions, motivation was fostered by changing attributions ( n = 5; 13%), offering extrinsic motivators ( n = 3; 8%), or emphasizing the value of reading ( n = 1; 3%). Appendix 2  provides several examples of how these motivational mechanisms were applied in the interventions.

In approximately half of the interventions ( n = 23; 58%), motivational support was complemented with skills instruction, such as teaching reading strategies or practicing fluent reading. In most interventions, narrative texts ( n = 8; 20%), informational texts ( n = 12; 30%), or both ( n = 16; 40%) were used. In some interventions, only words or sentences were used for reading ( n = 4; 10%). The interventions were delivered by either a researcher ( n = 13; 33%) or someone else ( n = 26; 65%), mostly teachers ( n = 23) and in some cases preservice teachers ( n = 1), volunteers ( n = 1) or tutors with an undergraduate degree ( n = 1). For one intervention, no information was provided about its provider. The total duration of the interventions varied strongly, ranging from less than half an hour to 195 h. Although some interventions consisted of only one session, other interventions were implemented two lessons a day for several months (maximum of 260 sessions).

Most interventions targeted primary school students ( n = 32; 80%), whereas a much smaller number of interventions was directed at secondary school students ( n = 8; 20%). Although most interventions focused on typical (i.e., heterogeneous groups of) readers ( n = 25; 63%), a substantial number of the interventions targeted struggling readers ( n = 15; 38%). The percentage of boys in the studies ranged from 35.42% to 75.00%.

Intervention Effects

To answer Research Question 1, we first analyzed the overall intervention effects on affirming reading motivations, extrinsic reading motivations, undermining reading motivations, combined motivations, and reading comprehension. The 39 studies in the meta-analysis included 55 experimental comparisons targeting affirming motivations, 12 targeting extrinsic motivations, eight targeting undermining motivations, five targeting combined motivations, and 39 targeting reading comprehension. The interventions had small, significant positive effects on affirming motivations (Cohen’s d = 0.38; SE = 0.06), extrinsic motivations (Cohen’s d = 0.42; SE = 0.16), and reading comprehension (Cohen’s d = 0.27; SE = 0.05), and a significant, but trivial effect on combined motivation scores (Cohen’s d = 0.17; SE = 0.04). The mean effect on undermining motivations was not significant (Cohen’s d = -0.01; SE = 0.07).

Subsequently, we compared effects on immediate and delayed post-tests. The time between the intervention and delayed post-test ranged from 2 to 28 weeks. Delayed post-test results were only reported for affirming motivations ( k = 5), undermining motivations ( k = 2), and reading comprehension ( k = 7). For affirming motivations, a small effect was found on immediate post-tests (Cohen’s d = 0.40; SE = 0.07) and a trivial effect on delayed post-tests (Cohen’s d = 0.19; SE = 0.13). Effects on undermining motivations were neither significant on immediate post-tests (Cohen’s d = -0.07, SE = 0.08) nor delayed post-tests (Cohen’s d = -0.03, SE = 0.15). For reading comprehension, a small effect was found on immediate post-tests (Cohen’s d = 0.29; SE = 0.06) and a trivial effect on delayed post-tests (Cohen’s d = 0.16; SE = 0.07). Effects on immediate and delayed post-tests did not significantly differ for any of the outcomes (affirming motivations: Q (1) = 2.00, p = .16; undermining motivations: Q (1) = 0.05, p = .83; reading comprehension: Q (1) = 1.99, p = 0.16).

Moderator Analyses

To explain variability in effect sizes, we conducted moderator analyses based on intervention, sample, study, and measurement characteristics (Research Question 2). Moderator analyses were performed for immediate post-tests on affirming reading motivations and reading comprehension only, as few studies investigated effects on delayed post-tests and on extrinsic motivations, undermining motivations, and combined motivations. The outcomes of all moderator analyses are displayed in Table 2 .

Intervention Characteristics

In the first series of moderator analyses, we analyzed the effects of intervention characteristics. Motivational mechanism was shown to influence program effects on reading motivation and reading comprehension. Interest was a significant positive moderator of affirming motivations and reading comprehension: interventions that triggered interest had larger effects on affirming motivations and reading comprehension than those that did not. No significant moderator effects were found for the other motivational mechanisms. We found no effect of the combination of motivation interventions with skills instruction: programs that focused solely on motivation were equally effective in stimulating affirming motivations and reading comprehension as programs that combined this with, for instance, reading strategy instruction. Furthermore, intervention effects were not moderated by the type of texts used in the interventions. Interventions using narrative texts, informational texts, or sentences/words for reading were equally effective in stimulating affirming motivations and reading comprehension. Provider of the intervention proved to be a significant moderator of reading comprehension, but not of affirming reading motivations: interventions delivered by researchers had larger effects on reading comprehension than interventions delivered by others. The effects of the number of sessions and total duration were analyzed using meta-regression analysis. The number of sessions was not related to effects on affirming motivations and reading comprehension. The effect of total duration was significant for affirming motivations but not for reading comprehension. Effects on affirming motivations were larger if the total duration of the intervention was longer.

Sample Characteristics

In the second series of moderator analyses, we examined the effects of sample characteristics. Educational stage was a significant moderator of effects on reading comprehension; interventions involving primary schoolers were more effective than interventions involving secondary schoolers. Interventions involving primary and secondary schoolers were equally effective in promoting affirming reading motivations. Reading level proved to be a significant moderator of reading comprehension, but not of affirming motivations. The interventions had significantly larger effects on reading comprehension if the sample included mainly typical readers than if it included mainly struggling readers. The effect of the percentage of boys was analyzed using meta-regression analysis. The outcome was significant for affirming reading motivations, but not for reading comprehension. Effects on affirming reading motivations were larger if the share of boys in the sample was higher.

Study Characteristics

In the third series of moderator analyses, we analyzed the effects of two study characteristics: study design and type of control group. The moderator analyses did not reveal any significant effects of these variables.

Measurement Characteristics

In the fourth and final series of moderator analyses, we examined the effects of measurement characteristics. A significant effect of measurement type was found on affirming motivations, indicating that effects were largest for teacher reports, as compared to self-reports and observations. However, it should be noted that teacher reports were used in only one study. Reading comprehension was measured by tests in all studies, so no moderator analyses of measurement type on reading comprehension were conducted. Finally, effects on measurements developed within the context of the study and study-independent measures did not significantly differ.

The objectives of this meta-analysis were to investigate the effects of theory-based reading motivation interventions in school on reading motivation and reading comprehension (Research Question 1) and to examine whether effects were moderated by predefined intervention, sample, study, and measurement characteristics (Research Question 2). The results indicate that investing in reading motivation can positively affect students’ reading motivation and reading comprehension. Effects on reading motivation were moderated by the motivational mechanism elicited in the intervention, the duration of the intervention, gender, and type of measurement. Interventions that aimed to trigger interest had the largest effects on affirming motivations. Furthermore, effects were larger if the total duration of the intervention was longer and if the share of boys in the sample was higher. Finally, larger effects on affirming motivations were found on teacher reports, as compared to self-reports and observations. Effects on reading comprehension were moderated by the motivational mechanism elicited in the intervention, the provider of the intervention, educational stage, and reading level. Interventions that aimed to trigger interest had the largest effects on reading comprehension. Furthermore, interventions delivered by researchers had larger effects than interventions delivered by others (mostly teachers). Effects on reading comprehension were significantly larger for primary schoolers than for secondary schoolers. Finally, effects were significantly larger for typical readers than for struggling readers.

The positive effects we found on reading motivation and reading comprehension largely correspond to the results of earlier meta-analyses (Guthrie et al., 2007 ; McBreen & Savage, 2020 ; Unrau et al., 2018 ). Comparable to previous meta-analyses, the effects we found were mostly small but significant, although for some categories of studies average effects could range up to medium; for instance, we found a medium effect on affirming motivations of programs that trigger interest. Our outcomes thus give further support to the assumption that reading motivation can be fostered by educational interventions and that, by promoting reading motivation, students’ reading achievement can be increased. Apparently, increased motivation as an outcome of program participation results in students reading more frequently, which enables them to more effectively practice their reading comprehension skills. Students might then enter a process of reciprocal causation, where increased motivation and proficiency mutually influence each other, eventually leading to long-term benefits (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007 ; Stanovich, 1986 ). Our meta-analysis provides little ground for such long-term benefits, however: follow-up effects were significant, but trivial at best. Moreover, effects on delayed post-tests were included in a limited number of studies and the time between the intervention and delayed post-tests varied strongly. More research is thus needed to draw definite conclusions about long-term effects.

Effects on reading motivation appear to depend on the type of motivation. Significant positive effects were found on affirming and extrinsic motivations. Even though extrinsic motivations were hardly emphasized in the interventions, the effect on extrinsic motivations was as large as that on affirming motivations. This may be explained by previous observations of a positive relation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: studies by Schaffner et al. ( 2013 ) and Troyer et al. ( 2019 ) found that students with higher intrinsic motivation often have higher extrinsic motivation as well. For intervention effects, this implies that an increase in intrinsic motivation may be paralleled by an increase in extrinsic motivation. Particularly in a school context, enhanced enjoyment of reading may, for instance, go hand in hand with an enhanced sense of its importance for students’ futures. The effect on undermining motivations was not significant, suggesting that current interventions are not sufficient to decrease undermining motivations. Undermining motivations are thought to be the consequence of an accumulation of negative reading experiences throughout students’ school careers and are thus likely to be persistent (Nielen et al., 2016 ). Guthrie et al. ( 2009 ) suggest that to decrease undermining motivations a strong structure of motivational support is necessary: a combination of various motivational mechanisms over an extended period of time may be needed to reduce undermining motivations. As only few studies examined effects on undermining motivations, additional research is needed to decide whether this assumption can be confirmed.

As we analyzed the effects of a range of reading motivation interventions, while at the same time limiting ourselves to theory-based interventions, the results provide new insights into which theory-driven motivational mechanisms are particularly effective. Moderator analyses suggest that interventions in which interest is triggered have the largest effect on affirming motivations and reading comprehension. This does not necessarily mean that other mechanisms (e.g., autonomy support or mastery goals) were ineffective. Since often multiple mechanisms were combined in one intervention, the moderator effect of interest signals that it matters whether interest is part of the package offered (for a similar interpretation, see Okkinga et al., 2018 ). Interest could thus be seen as one of the main determinants of a successful intervention. Providing students with reading materials that match their individual interests or devising reading activities that trigger situational interest might be seen as a precondition for motivation to arise.

Interventions with and without skills instruction were equally effective in improving reading motivation and reading comprehension. This outcome can be interpreted as indicative of the added value of motivational support for reading. The observation that motivation-only interventions yield similar effects as broad interventions do, suggests that positive intervention effects are not necessarily attributable to other elements of an intervention but can be pinpointed to motivational support. This makes our estimate of the effects of motivational support more precise than in, for instance, the previous meta-analysis by McBreen and Savage ( 2020 ). At the same time, it would be risky to conclude that motivational support alone is sufficient to raise students’ level of reading comprehension. Although our moderator analysis shows that motivation-only interventions do have a positive effect on reading comprehension, such interventions are often an addition to the existing reading curriculum. Naturally, growth in reading comprehension is a consequence of regular reading education as well, although motivational support appears to strengthen this effect.

The moderator effect of gender is promising, as especially boys are often characterized by low reading motivation (Baker & Wigfield, 1999 ; Logan & Johnston, 2009 ; McKenna et al., 1995 ; Parson et al., 2018 ). Struggling readers also often have low reading motivation levels (McKenna et al., 1995 ; Toste et al., 2020 ; Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018 ). The results of our meta-analysis indicate that reading motivation interventions are equally effective in fostering the reading motivation of struggling and typical readers. However, the effects of reading comprehension were smaller for struggling readers, suggesting that these students may need more instruction to improve their reading proficiency to the same extent as typical readers. Effects on reading comprehension were significantly larger for primary schoolers than for secondary schoolers; for the latter students, the effect was only marginal. This may be explained by the fact that students in primary education usually make larger gains in reading skills than students in secondary education (Bloom et al., 2008 ). Therefore, smaller effects may be expected in secondary education. However, conclusions for secondary schoolers remain somewhat tentative, as only a small share of the interventions (20%) focused on these students. More research is needed to get more insight into effective reading promotion in secondary education.

Three other moderators had significant effects: provider of the intervention, total intervention duration, and type of measurement. Interventions delivered by researchers had larger effects on reading comprehension than interventions delivered by others (in most cases teachers), possibly because researchers paid more attention to implementing the intervention with levels of high fidelity than teachers (c.f., Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Okkinga et al., 2018 ). This result underlines the importance of thoroughly communicating program principles to those who are conducting interventions in the field (Durlak & DuPre, 2008 ). Effects on motivation were larger if the total duration of the intervention was longer, which indicates the importance of investing in students’ reading motivation during a longer period of time. The largest effects on reading motivation were found on teacher reports. However, it should be noted that teacher reports were only used in one study, so no strong conclusion can be drawn from this outcome.

Other moderators (text genre, study design, type of control group, and whether instruments were developed within the context of the study or not) showed no significant effects. The fact that positive effects were observed in studies with a strong design and on study-independent measures as well further substantiates our conclusions that reading motivation interventions can positively influence students’ reading motivation and reading comprehension.

Limitations and Future Research

When interpreting the results of this meta-analysis, some limitations should be considered. We examined the effects of theory-based motivational mechanisms on reading motivation and reading comprehension. In many interventions, a combination of these mechanisms was applied. The sample of studies in the meta-analysis was not large enough to test the effects of all combinations. Therefore, we tested whether interventions in which certain mechanisms were triggered had larger effects on reading motivation or reading comprehension than interventions in which these mechanisms were not triggered. Future studies may reveal whether certain combinations of motivational mechanisms are more effective than other combinations.

We aimed to identify which theoretical mechanisms contribute to the promotion of reading motivation and comprehension, thereby providing better insights into the effective ingredients of motivational interventions. Therefore, we only included theory-based interventions. Notwithstanding this strict inclusion criterion, we observed that, in several studies, the theoretical framework, the motivational mechanisms elicited, and the outcome variables did not always fully correspond. In future studies, researchers should thus be more precise in aligning the design of their interventions and the selection of measures with the theoretical model they choose to start from.

In conducting the moderator-analyses, we followed the analog-to-the-ANOVA procedure (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ), which is common practice in meta-analyses. However, some moderators likely overlap. For instance, interventions focusing on both motivation and skills instruction were often longer than interventions only focusing on motivation. Such confounding could be reduced by combining moderators in one analysis. However, such an analysis would require a larger set of studies than available in the present meta-analysis.

A limitation in many studies is that they did not examine treatment fidelity. Despite its importance in interpreting intervention effects (Durlak & DuPre, 2008 ), we found that slightly more than half of the studies reported on implementation. The moderator effect of provider of the intervention suggests that implementation quality was a factor in the interventions we examined. This outcome stresses the need for attention to monitoring program implementation in practice and research.

Conclusion and Implications

We conclude that there is an effect of motivational interventions on both reading motivation and reading comprehension. Our meta-analysis thereby contributes to the debate about the direction of the association between motivation and achievement (Aunola et al., 2002 ; Becker et al., 2010 ; Schiefele et al., 2016 ): our outcomes provide ground for the hypothesis that reading motivation affects reading proficiency, either independently or as part of a process of reciprocal causation. This, in turn, suggests that motivational support should be part of a model of reading instruction (Duke et al., 2011 ; Duke & Cartwright, 2021 ).

The results of our meta-analysis also provide information on what are the most effective ingredients of reading motivation interventions. Interventions that aimed to trigger students’ interest had the largest effects on reading motivation and reading comprehension. This outcome can inform teachers who are committed to furthering their students’ reading development, developers of educational methods, and those who make decisions about curricula for reading education. It seems particularly important to trigger students’ interest, for example, by matching texts to students’ reading levels or by making real-world connections.

At the same time, our meta-analysis provides an impetus for further research. We are in need of studies that examine whether positive effects are sustained over time. Furthermore, studies should take into account implementation quality and provide information on how to best support teachers in implementing motivational mechanisms. Finally, future studies should not only examine how to promote affirming motivations but also to decrease undermining motivations.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

*Aarnoutse, C., & Schellings, G. (2003). Learning reading strategies by triggering reading motivation. Educational Studies , 29 (4), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569032000159688

Article   Google Scholar  

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261

*Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2011). Implementation and effects of explicit reading comprehension instruction in fifth-grade classrooms. Learning and Instruction , 21 (4), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.003

Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Onatsu-Arvilommi, T., & Nurmi, J. E. (2002). Three methods for studying developmental change: A case of reading skills and self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (3), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902320634447

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (4), 452–477. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . W. H. Freeman.

*Bates, C. C., D’Agostino, J. V., Gambrell, L., & Xu, M. (2016). Reading recovery: Exploring the effects on first-graders’ reading motivation and achievement. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk , 21 (1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2015.1110027

Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (4), 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020084

Bloom, H. W., Hill, C. J., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Methodological Studies, 1 (4), 289–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802400072

*Bråten, I., Johansen, R., & Strømsø, I. (2017). Effects of different ways of introducing a reading task on intrinsic motivation and comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading , 40 (1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12053

*Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Rintamaa, M., & Carter, J. C. (2016). Supplemental reading strategy instruction for adolescents: A randomized trial and follow-up study. The Journal of Educational Research , 109 (1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.917258

*Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Rintamaa, M., Carter, J. C., Pennington, J., & Buckman, M. (2014). The impact of supplemental instruction on low-achieving adolescents’ reading engagement. The Journal of Educational Research , 107 (1), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.753859

Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., & McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26 (1), 127–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9245-z

Cook, D. A., & Artino, A. R. (2016). Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Medical Education, 50 (10), 997–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13074

*Cuevas, J. A., Russell, R. L., & Irving, M. A. (2012). An examination of the effect of customized reading modules on diverse secondary students’ reading comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development , 60 (3), 445–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9244-7

De Naeghel, J., & Van Keer, H. (2013). The relation of student and class-level characteristics to primary school students’ autonomous reading motivation: A multi-level approach. Journal of Research in Reading, 36 (4), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.12000

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progress: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411

Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 51–93). International Reading Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41 (3), 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95 , 89–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669529

Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tacket, K. K., & Schankenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79 (1), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315 (7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34 (3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3

*Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2014). Learning progress assessment and goal setting: Effects on reading achievement, reading motivation, and reading self-concept. Learning and Instruction , 32 , 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.002

*Fowler, J. W., & Peterson, P. L. (1981). Increasing reading persistence and altering attributional style of learned helpless children. Journal of Educational Psychology , 73 (2), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.2.251

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfired, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.3

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

Guthrie, J. T., Coddington, C. S., & Wigfield, A. (2009). Profiles of reading motivation among African American and Caucasian students. Journal of Literacy Research, 41 (3), 317–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960903129196

Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32 (3), 282–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004

Guthrie, J. T., & Klauda, S. L. (2014). Effects of classroom practices on reading comprehension, engagement, and motivations for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49 (4), 387–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.81

Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 48 (1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.035

Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivation in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42 (4), 237–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621087

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3 (3), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_1

*Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology , 96,  403–423.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403

*Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology , 92 (2), 331-341. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.331

*Hautula, J., Ronimus, M., & Junttila, E. (2022). Readers’ theater projects for special education: A randomized controlled study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2042846

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

Ho, A. N., & Guthrie, J. T. (2013). Patterns of association among multiple motivations and aspects of achievement in reading. Reading Psychology, 34 (2), 101–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2011.596255

Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S. L., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73 (2), 59–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00421

*Kao, G. Y., Tsai, C., Liu, C., & Yang, C. (2016). The effects of high/low interactive electronic storybooks on elementary school students’ reading motivation, story comprehension and chromatic concepts. Computers & Education , 100 , 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.013

*Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Mesite, L. M., Asher, C. A., Relya, J. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Elmore, J. (2020). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology , 113 (1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000465

Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12 (4), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00011-1

*Kurnaz, A., Arslantas, S., & Pursun, T. (2020). Investigation of the effectiveness of personalized book advice smart application on secondary school students’ reading motivation. International Journal of Educational Methodology , 6 (3), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.3.587

*Law, Y. (2011). The effects of cooperative learning on enhancing Hong Kong fifth graders’ achievement goals, autonomous motivation, and reading proficiency. Journal of Research in Reading , 34 (4), 402–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01445.x

*Lee, Y. (2014). Promise for enhancing children’s reading attitudes through peer reading: A mixed method approach. The Journal of Educational Research , 107 (6), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.836469

Lepper, C., Stang, J., & McElvany, N. (2021). Gender differences in text-based interest: Text characteristics as underlying variables. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (2), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.420

*Levinson, E. M., Vogt, M., Barker, W. F., Jalongo, M. R., & Van Zandt, P. (2017). Effects of reading with adult tutor/therapy dog teams on elementary students’ reading achievement and attitudes. Society & Animals , 25 (1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341427

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Adaptive motivation and emotion in education: Research and principles for instructional design. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (2), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216644450

Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587 (1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716202250791

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48 (12), 1181–1209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.12.1181

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis . Sage.

Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitude: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32 (2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x

Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2003). Self-efficacy: A key to improving the motivation of struggling readers. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 47 (4), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880309603362

*Marinak, B. A., (2013). Courageous reading instruction: The effects of an elementary motivation intervention. The Journal of Educational Research , 106 (1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.658455

*Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2008). Intrinsic motivation and rewards: What sustains young children’s engagement with text? Literacy Research and Instruction , 47 (1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070701749546

McBreen, M., & Savage, R. (2020). The impact of motivational reading instruction on the reading achievement and motivation of students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 1-39 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09584-4

McGeown, S., Bonsall, J., Andries, V., Howarth, D., & Wilkinson, K. (2020). Understanding reading motivation across different text types: Qualitative insights from children. Journal of Research in Reading, 43 (4), 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12320

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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.2307/748205

Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 37 (2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890

*Monteiro, V. (2013). Promoting reading motivation by reading together. Reading Psychology , 34 (4), 301–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2011.635333

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300203

Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1019

*Nevo, E., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2020). Enhancing motivation to read and reading abilities in first grade. Educational Psychology , 40 (1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1635680

*Ng, C. C., Bartlett, B., Chester, I., & Kersland, S. (2013). Improving reading performance for economically disadvantaged students: Combining strategy instruction and motivational support. Reading Psychology , 34 (3), 257–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2011.632071

Nielen, T. M. J., Mol, S. E., Sikkema-De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2016). Attentional bias toward reading in reluctant readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46 , 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.004

Niemic, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7 (2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318

Nippold, M. A., Duthie, J. K., & Larsen, J. (2005). Literacy as a leisure activity: Free-time preferences of older children and young adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36 (2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2005/009)

Nolen, S. B. (2007). Young children’s motivation to read and write: Development in social contexts. Cognition and Instruction, 25 (2), 219–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701301174

OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do . PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en

Book   Google Scholar  

OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed, PISA . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777

Okkinga, M., Van Steensel, R., Van Gelderen, A. J. S., Van Schooten, E., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Arends, L. R. (2018). Effectiveness of reading-strategy interventions in whole classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (4), 1215–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9445-7

Parsons, A. W., Parsons, S. A., Malloy, J. A., Marinak, B. A., Reutzel, D. R., Applegate, M. D., Applegate, A. J., Fawson, P. C., & Gambrell, L. B. (2018). Upper elementary students’ motivation to read fiction and nonfiction. The Elementary School Journal, 118 (3), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/696022

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1017

Reschly, A. L. (2010). Reading and school completion: Critical connections and Matthew effects. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26 (1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903397023

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

*Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2007). The effect of experimental manipulation of student motivation on the situational representation of text. Learning and Instruction , 17 (6), 755–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.015

Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., & Ulferts, H. (2013). Reading amount as a mediator of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48 (4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.52

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3-4), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653136

Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3 (3), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4

Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (4), 427–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.030

Schiefele, U., Stutz, F., & Schaffner, E. (2016). Longitudinal relations between reading motivation and reading comprehension in the early elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 51 , 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.031

*Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1991). Learning goals and progress feedback during reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior , 23 (3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969109547746

*Shelton, T., Anastopoulos, A. D. & Linden, J. D. (1985). An attribution training study with learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 18 (5), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948501800503

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension . RAND.

*Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction , 16 (1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006

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. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1

Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39 (2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_2

Strommen, L. T., & Mates, B. F. (2004). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older children and teens. International Reading Association, 48 (3), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.48.3.1

Stutz, F., Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2016). Relations among reading motivation, reading amount, and reading comprehension in the early elementary years. Learning and Individual Differences, 45 (1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.022

*Taboada Barber, A., & Buehl, M. M. (2013). Relations among Grade 4 students’ perceptions of autonomy, engagement in science, and reading motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education , 81 (1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.630045

*Taboada Barber, A., Buehl, M. M., Beck J. S., Ramirez, E. M., Gallagher, M., Richey Nuland, L. N., & Archer, C. J. (2018). Literacy in social studies: The influence of cognitive and motivational practices on the reading comprehension of English learners and non-English learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly , 34 (1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1344942

*Taboada Barber, A., Buehl, M. M., Kidd, J. K., Sturtevant, E. G., Richey Nuland, L., & Beck, J. (2015). Reading engagement in social studies: Exploring the role of a social studies literacy intervention on reading comprehension, reading self-efficacy, and engagement in middle school students with different language backgrounds. Reading Psychology , 36 (1), 31–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.815140

*Thames, D. G., & Reeves, C. K. (1994). Poor readers’ attitudes: Effects of using interests and trade books in an integrated language arts approach. Reading Research and Instruction , 33 (4), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079409558162

Toland, J., & Boyle, C. (2008). Applying cognitive behavioural methods to retrain children’s attributions for success and failure in learning. School Psychology International, 29 (3), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034308093674

*Toste, J. R., Capin, P., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G. J., & Kearns, D. M. (2017). Multisyllabic word-reading instruction with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A pilot investigation. The Elementary School Journal , 117 (4), 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1086/691684

*Toste, J. R., Capin, P., Williams, K. J., Cho, E., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Replication of an experimental study investigating the efficacy of a multisyllabic word reading intervention with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 (1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775114

Toste, J. R., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M. J., & McClelland, A. M. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K-12 students. Review of Educational Research, 90 (3), 420–456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352

Troyer, M., Kim, J. S., Hale, E., Wantchekon, K. A., & Armstrong, C. (2019). Relations among intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and comprehension: A conceputal replication. Reading and Writing, 32 (5), 1197–1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9907-9

*Turan, T., & Şeker, B. S. (2018). The effect of digital stories on fifth-grade students’ motivation. Journal of Education and Future , 13 , 65–78.

Unrau, N. J., Rueda, R., Son, E., Planin, J. R., Lundeen, R. J., & Muraszewski, A. K. (2018). Can reading self-efficacy be modified? A meta-analysis of the impact of interventions on reading self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 88 (2), 167–204. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743199

Vaknin-Nusbaum, V., Nevo, E., Brande, L., & Gambrell, L. (2018). Developmental aspects of reading motivation and reading achievement among second grade low achievers and typical readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 41 (3), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12117

Van Steensel, R., Oostdam, R., & Van Gelderen, A. (2019). Affirming and undermining motivations for reading and associations with reading comprehension, age, and gender. Journal of Research in Reading, 43 (3-4), 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12281

Van Yperen, N. W., Blaga, M., & Postmes, T. (2015). A meta-analysis of the impact of situationally induced achievement goals on task performance. Human Performance, 28 (2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2015.1006772

*Villiger, C., Niggli, A., Wandeler, C., & Kutzelmann, S. (2012). Does family make a difference? Mid-term effects of a school/home-based intervention program to enhance reading motivation, Learning and Instruction , 22 (2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.07.001

Walker, B. J. (2003). The cultivation of student self-efficacy in reading and writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19 (2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308217

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92 (4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32 (2), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3202_1

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420

*Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools , 45 (5), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20307

*Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of Educational Research , 97 (6), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.6.299-310

Wilson, D. B., & Lipsey, M. W. (2001). The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: Evidence from meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6 (4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.413

*Wolters, C. A., Barnes, M. A., Kulesz, P. A., York, M., & Francis, D. J. (2017). Examining a motivational treatment and its impact on adolescents’ reading comprehension and fluency. The Journal of Educational Research , 110 (1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1048503

*Wu, L., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2021). Supporting struggling readers at secondary school: An intervention of reading strategy instruction. Reading and Writing , 34 (8), 2175–2201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10144-7

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Wichor Bramer for his help with designing and conducting the literature search.

This work was supported by the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO; grant number 405-15-717).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Language, Literature, and Communication, Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Lisa van der Sande & Roel van Steensel

Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Roel van Steensel & Lidia Arends

Institute of Medical Education Research, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Suzanne Fikrat-Wevers

Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Lidia Arends

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa van der Sande .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

(PDF 21 kb)

Bibliographic information, intervention, sample, study, and measurement characteristics and effect sizes

Intervention characteristics.

• Intervention names: ERCI = explicit reading comprehension instruction, RR = reading recovery, LSC learning strategies curriculum, ISR = independent silent reading, LPA+G = learning progress assessment with goal setting, CORI = concept-oriented reading instruction, RT-P = readers’ theater practice; RT-G = readers’ theater goal; MORE = model of reading engagement; PBASA = personalized book advice smart application; PALS = peer assisted learning strategies, CRI = courageous reading instruction, PRP = paired reading program, BTD = becoming a text detective, USHER = United States history for engaged reading, MWR+MB = multisyllabic word reading with motivational beliefs, LiFuS = Lesen in Familie und Schule. Theoretical basis: REM = reading engagement model, EVT = expectancy value theory, IT = interest theory, SDT = self-determination theory, AT = attribution theory, AGT = achievement goal theory, SCT = social cognitive theory. Motivational mechanisms: int = interesse, aut = autonomy, soc = social motivation, comp = (perceived) competence, goa = (mastery) goals, att = attributions, ext = extrinsic motivators, val = value of reading. Text type: inf = informational, nar = narrative, W/ S = words/sentences

Sample characteristics

Study characteristics and characteristics of the outcome measures.

• Design: exp = experimental, quasi-exp = quasi-experimental. Control group type: bau = business as usual, int = (part of) an intervention. Measurement type: sr = self-report, tr = teacher report, obs = observation. ES motivation: aff = affirming, extr = extrinsic, und = undermining, comb = combined

Examples of motivational mechanisms in the interventions

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

van der Sande, L., van Steensel, R., Fikrat-Wevers, S. et al. Effectiveness of Interventions that Foster Reading Motivation: a Meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 35 , 21 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09719-3

Download citation

Accepted : 30 September 2022

Published : 11 February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09719-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Comprehension
• Interventions
• Meta-analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Differences in attitudes toward reading: a survey of pupils in grades 5 to 8.

• 1 Research Chair in Reading and Writing Learning in Young Children, Faculty of Education, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
• 2 Human and Artificial Cognitions (CHArt) Laboratory, University of East Paris Créteil, Paris, France
• 3 Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
• 4 Centro Interdisciplinar de Ciências Sociais (CICS), Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas (FCSH), Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Recent research on literacy has highlighted the impact of affective factors on learning to read. Among these factors, attitudes toward reading have been clearly shown to influence the development of reading skills and academic success. Nevertheless, differences in children’s attitudes across schooling have yet to be properly documented, especially for the French language and the transition between elementary and secondary education. In this cross-sectional study, our goal was to gauge the attitudes of French-speaking pupils across this transitional period. We therefore administered a computer-based questionnaire to 469 pupils in Grades 5 to 8 in Quebec (Canada), to gather their views about leisure reading and academic reading. Results showed that their stated attitudes toward reading remained stable across the final 2 years of elementary school, as well as across the first 2 years of middle school, but differences were observed for the transition from one education level to the next, with stated attitudes toward reading being less positive in the latter. This effect, which was observed for both leisure and academic reading, concerned girls and boys alike. We discuss possible explanations for these differences in reading attitudes at this juncture in children’s schooling.

Introduction

In this cross-sectional study, our goal was to gauge the attitudes of French-speaking pupils toward reading across the transition between elementary and secondary education. For several decades, researchers have sought to gain a better understanding of how children learn to read, the difficulties they may encounter along the way, and the most effective means of avoiding or overcoming these difficulties. Despite the implementation, mainly in North America ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2009 ), of several large-scale intervention programs based on sound data, a substantial proportion of students still fail to attain minimum thresholds for reading literacy ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2015 ). This stark fact has prompted researchers to examine how learning to read is impacted by affective factors such as literacy interest ( Hume et al., 2015 ), engagement ( De Naeghel et al., 2012 ), motivation ( Gambrell et al., 1996 ; Baker and Wigfield, 1999 ; Guthrie et al., 1999 ; Anmarkrud and Braten, 2009 ; Becker et al., 2010 ; Marinak and Gambrell, 2010 ), self-concept ( Katzir et al., 2009 ) and attitude toward reading ( McKenna et al., 1995 , 2012 ; Conlon et al., 2006 ; Martinez et al., 2008 ; Clark and De Zoysa, 2011 ; Clark, 2014 ). The links between reading attitude and achievement are now well documented ( Petscher, 2010 ), especially in the United States, as are changes in attitudes toward reading, at least among elementary school pupils. However, research on attitudes toward reading beyond elementary grades is still scarce ( Alexander and Fox, 2011 ; McKenna et al., 2012 ), even though the failure of schools in many locations to attend and respond to adolescents’ reading-related motivations makes research on affective factors in reading particularly relevant at the period of transition from childhood to adolescence. Researchers therefore need to examine how reading attitudes change as pupils move from primary to intermediate grades and beyond ( Graham et al., 2012 ). In addition, relevant past research on this topic in certain locations and contexts has still to be uncovered ( McKenna et al., 2012 ). We cannot assume that research findings on this subject (including the affective factors linked to reading) can be directly transferred from one linguistic context to another, and to the best of our knowledge, there have been no recent studies of attitudes to reading during the elementary–secondary transition in French-speaking countries.

In order, therefore, to improve current understanding of attitudes toward reading during the elementary–secondary transition in a French-speaking context, we conducted the present study among pupils in Quebec (Canada). The transition from one level to another takes place between Grades 6 and 7 (i.e., age 12 years) in this province, thus coinciding with the onset of adolescence. Attitude has been defined by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) as a “learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object” (p. 6), the term object referring to either entities (people, groups) or behaviors (e.g., reading) ( Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005 ).

According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) ’s conception, attitude is the result of multiple episodes involving the object, each episode shaping the individual’s beliefs about this object (e.g., fun or rather uninteresting). Although relationships between pupils’ attitudes toward reading and the development of reading skills have already been explored ( Martinez et al., 2008 ; Petscher, 2010 ), changes in these attitudes in the course of their schooling have yet to be properly addressed, especially during the transition from elementary to middle or secondary school. So far, researchers have chosen to focus on a single level of education–either elementary school ( McKenna et al., 1995 ; Hogsten and Peregoy, 1999 ; Lazarus and Callahan, 2000 ) or middle school ( Ley et al., 1994 ; McKenna et al., 2012 ; Kolicì-Vehovec et al., 2014 ). Although readers aged 9–12 years (i.e., pupils in the upper years of elementary school) are portrayed as avid consumers of books, especially for leisure purposes, consumption declines beyond the age of 12 years ( Johnsson-Smaragdi and Jönsson, 2006 ). This age coincides with the entry into secondary education, and also marks the start of adolescence, a period of physical, psychological, environmental and social transition ( Lipps, 2005 ; Benner, 2011 ; Serbin et al., 2013 ; Chouinard et al., 2015 ). Given the acknowledged link between reading habits and attitudes ( Ley et al., 1994 ; Keskin and Bastug, 2014 ), the elementary–middle/secondary transition should clearly be included in any study of changes in reading attitudes, in order to obtain the most accurate picture possible.

The present study therefore described differences in the attitudes of young readers in Quebec between Grades 5 and 8.

Previous Research on Reading Attitudes

A number of studies of reading attitudes in elementary or middle school have distinguished between reading goals (academic vs. leisure reading) and looked for sex-related differences. Several studies in this field have also distinguished between digital and print reading, as some authors argue that young people’s literacy experiences, especially from adolescence onward, are not restricted to traditional print settings. Nevertheless, the results of these studies suggest that, as far as academic reading is concerned, reading attitudes remain the same, whatever the medium ( McKenna et al., 2012 ). As far as leisure reading in digital settings is concerned, we reject the very broad conception of digital literacy adopted in some previous studies, such as being on social websites during free time and reading e-mails from friends (see McKenna et al., 2012 ). Like others ( Martin, 2008 ), we do not consider these particular activities to come under the heading of digital literacy. We therefore chose not to distinguish between digital and print reading when addressing the question of attitudes. Rather, we emulated previous studies on reading attitudes in elementary or middle school that distinguished between reading goals (academic vs. leisure reading) and looked for sex-related differences.

Reading Attitudes by Grade

Some authors claim that reading attitudes depend on the nature or goal of the activity ( McKenna et al., 1995 , 2012 ; Lazarus and Callahan, 2000 ; Ivey and Broaddus, 2001 ), making a distinction between leisure (or recreational) reading, when it is the reader who decides when and what to read, and academic reading which, for young people, often means reading imposed by a teacher in a school setting ( McKenna et al., 2012 ; Conradi et al., 2013 ). Most studies in this area, especially cross-sectional ones, have reported a gradual increase in negative attitudes toward reading across elementary school. In a major study conducted in the United States, McKenna et al. (1995) administered the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS; McKenna and Kear, 1990 ) to a stratified sample of 18,185 first to sixth graders drawn from 229 schools in 38 states. This cross-sectional study revealed an overall negative trend in attitudes toward reading across these grades. Whereas pupils starting school had generally positive attitudes, by the end of elementary school, these had been replaced by indifference and even negativity, especially with regard to academic reading. The survey undertaken by Hogsten and Peregoy (1999) among second and sixth graders, this time using the Estes Attitude Scale for Reading, mainly corroborated McKenna et al. (1995) ’s results, insofar as attitudes toward reading of whatever kind were not particularly positive at Grade 2, but were clearly negative in Grade 6. When Lazarus and Callahan (2000) replicated McKenna et al. (1995) ’s survey, this time among pupils with learning disabilities in special education resource rooms, they found that attitudes toward reading showed a comparable trend between Grades 1 and 5.

Surveys conducted among older children, such as the survey undertaken by McKenna et al. (2012) , have reported similar differences in students’ positive attitudes toward reading across middle school. In this cross-sectional study, McKenna et al. (2012) asked 4,491 American middle-school pupils in Grades 6 to 8 to complete an adapted version of the ERAS ( McKenna and Kear, 1990 ) 1 . The authors observed increasingly negative attitudes toward reading, with attitudes toward academic reading appearing to be more stable across grades–but more negative–than those toward leisure reading. In their longitudinal study, Ley et al. (1994) had earlier explored the nature of attitude change among American middle-school pupils, specifically exploring the values placed upon voluntary reading for three distinct purposes, namely individual development, utilitarian ends, or enjoyment. They administered the Teale–Lewis Reading Attitude Scales to 164 pupils on three occasions (Grades 6, 7, and 8), in order to disentangle the cognitive, affective and conative aspects of their reading attitudes. Although the authors observed a gradual deterioration in attitudes from Grades 6 to 8, they found that the relative values attributed to reading goals remained stable across this period, with students reading mainly to do well at school, rather than for individual development or enjoyment. Their results therefore foreshadowed McKenna et al. (2012) ’s main finding that middle-school readers’ attitudes toward academic reading are generally negative, but stable.

Surveys thus reveal that reading attitudes become more negative across grades, in both elementary and middle school. There has, however, been very little research on changes in attitudes toward reading during the transition between the two, even though reading frequency is known to decline around this time. One cross-sectional study did explore differences in reading attitudes across Grades 1 to 12, but in a very specific population: gifted American students ( Anderson et al., 1985 ). After administering a questionnaire on attitudes toward reading assignments, reading workload, and preference for reading as a leisure time activity, the authors ran analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for four separate groups: primary (Grades 1 to 4), intermediate (Grades 5 and 6), junior high (Grades 7 to 9), and senior high (Grades 10 to 12). Although pupils appeared to maintain a positive attitude toward reading in general, results showed increasingly negative attitudes with age and grade level whatever the reading purpose, with each successive group exhibiting a less positive attitude than the one before. These results suggested that attitude differences across schooling vary little between gifted and unselected students, and that the decline in reading attitudes that begins in elementary school continues into middle or secondary school. Bokhorst-Heng and Pereira (2008) also explored reading attitudes among high achievers, asking 173 pupils in Singapore to complete the Attitudes Toward reading questionnaire at the start and finish of their first year of secondary school. Results indicated a substantial deterioration in positive reading attitudes among pupils during their first year at secondary school. At the end of the year, the pupils perceived themselves to be less proficient readers than they had been at the beginning, and expressed less interest in reading for leisure. By contrast, their attitudes toward reading for learning and academic achievement remained unchanged. To explain these results, the authors hypothesized that the first year of secondary school coincides with the start of adolescence, when increasingly diversified interests potentially compete with reading activities. This could explain the overall worsening of attitudes toward reading during this first year of secondary school. According to Bokhorst-Heng and Pereira (2008) , the exam-oriented culture of secondary schools may prove more demanding and stressful than that of elementary schools, partially accounting for the stability of high achievers’ attitudes related to learning, and thus to academic attainment.

In a recent longitudinal study, Kolicì-Vehovec et al. (2014) tracked changes in reading attitudes in unselected pupils aged 10–14 years. A total of 175 Croatian elementary school children completed an adapted version of the ERAS ( McKenna and Kear, 1990 ) three times, in Grades 4, 6, and 8 (it should be noted that in the Croatian education system, the elementary level extends from first to eighth grade). The authors found that positive attitudes toward reading declined significantly between 10 and 14 years, that is, at the start of adolescence. Whereas positive attitudes toward leisure reading deteriorated steadily between Grades 4 and 8, positive attitudes toward academic reading declined steeply between Grades 6 and 8. In the wake of Bokhorst-Heng and Pereira (2008) , Kolicì-Vehovec et al. (2014) postulated that this deterioration in reading attitudes among pupils between the ages of 10 and 14 years was partly the result of gaining access to a wider range of leisure activities at adolescence, activities that are often more attractive to this age group than reading. As pointed out by Pitcher et al. (2007) , Kolicì-Vehovec et al. (2014) hypothesized that adolescents view reading as an essentially academic activity, and did not count the reading of magazines, newspapers or content on a computer screen as a proper reading activity, thus contributing further to the negative reading attitudes reported in surveys.

Reading Attitudes by Sex

As shown by a number of studies, most of which were cross-sectional, attitudes toward reading vary significantly according to grade, but also according to sex, with girls expressing more positive views, both in elementary school ( McKenna et al., 1995 ; Sainsbury and Schagen, 2004 ; Worrel et al., 2006 ; Logan and Johnston, 2009 ; Graham et al., 2012 ; Clark, 2014 ; McGeown et al., 2015 ) and in middle school ( Swalander and Taube, 2007 ; McKenna et al., 2012 ). In a longitudinal study conducted in Germany, from the beginning of kindergarten to the end of first grade, Wolter et al. (2015) reported greater motivation to learn to read in girls as early as kindergarten, owing to the negative impact on boys’ motivation of teachers’ gender role attitudes. In the United States, McKenna et al. (1995) showed that girls’ reading attitudes are consistently more positive than boys’ across Grades 1 to 6 of elementary school. Forshey (2013, Unpublished) reported similar findings, based on a cross-sectional study of 476 elementary-school pupils. In the United Kingdom, both Sainsbury and Schagen (2004) and Logan and Johnston (2009) observed significant sex-related differences in attitudes among pupils in the second half of their elementary education, with girls expressing more positive views, as did McKenna et al. (2012) among American middle-school students. In their longitudinal study, Kolicì-Vehovec et al. (2014) recorded similar results among Croatian pupils, who completed an adapted version of the ERAS ( McKenna and Kear, 1990 ) three times, in Grades 4, 6, and 8 (i.e., second half of elementary school in the Croatian system), with girls’ reading attitudes being consistently more positive than boys’ across those grades.

Exactly how these sex-related differences in reading attitudes change across the elementary and middle/secondary levels seems to depend on the reading goal, although results have so far been contradictory. McKenna et al. (1995) , for instance, found that girls’ and boys’ attitudes toward academic reading changed to the same extent during elementary school, with these attitudes becoming less positive with each successive academic year. In a longitudinal study, Kush and Watkins (1996) undertook a survey of 190 pupils in Grades 1 to 4. They failed to find any difference between girls and boys in their attitudes toward academic reading, while an initial gap in terms of leisure reading persisted across grades.

The Present Study

In sum, the various studies undertaken to describe and understand changes in pupils’ reading attitudes have consistently reported (i) a worsening of positive attitudes toward reading with age and grade level, across both the elementary and middle/secondary levels ( McKenna et al., 1995 , 2012 ; Hogsten and Peregoy, 1999 ; Lazarus and Callahan, 2000 ; Kolicì-Vehovec et al., 2014 ), (ii) better attitudes toward leisure reading than toward academic reading ( Ley et al., 1994 ; McKenna et al., 1995 , 2012 ), (iii) more positive attitudes toward leisure and academic reading in girls than in boys ( McKenna et al., 1995 , 2012 ; Sainsbury and Schagen, 2004 ; Worrel et al., 2006 ; Swalander and Taube, 2007 ; Logan and Johnston, 2009 ; Graham et al., 2012 ; Clark, 2014 ; McGeown et al., 2015 ), and (iv) a deterioration in positive attitudes toward reading across grades, with an earlier and sharper decline among boys than among girls, in the case of leisure reading ( McKenna et al., 1995 ). This decline does not differ according to sex for academic reading ( McKenna et al., 2012 ).

These results raise several questions.

First, although there appears to be an earlier and sharper decline for academic reading, current data are inconclusive when it comes to the precise nature of this decline, especially beyond elementary school. Surveys conducted among middle-school pupils have been mainly American. They show that attitudes toward academic reading remain stable, albeit not particularly positive, between Grades 6 and 8. One explanation for these results is that when pupils move from elementary to middle school, they have to contend with more demanding and stressful curricula, and therefore come to associate reading for learning with academic achievement. In other countries, however, some studies, notably Kolicì-Vehovec et al. (2014) ’s survey of Croatian pupils aged 10–14 years, have reported a sudden worsening of positive attitudes toward academic reading between Grades 6 and 8. In Croatia, elementary school lasts 8 years (i.e., until age 14 years). The sudden worsening of positive attitudes toward academic reading observed between Grades 6 and 8 does not, therefore, coincide with the move into secondary school. The results of Kolicì-Vehovec et al. (2014) ’s study therefore support the hypothesis that attitudes toward reading deteriorate at the start of adolescence, when young people’s interests begin to diversify and they gain access to a broader range of leisure activities which then compete with reading ( Johnsson-Smaragdi and Jönsson, 2006 ).

Second, the transition from elementary to middle or secondary school has been particularly poorly documented. This period, which generally also marks the start of adolescence, coincides with a major change in reading habits ( Johnsson-Smaragdi and Jönsson, 2006 ). Nevertheless, there has been little research on changes in attitudes toward reading during the elementary–middle/secondary transition, with most current data coming from surveys of high achievers or gifted students ( Anderson et al., 1985 ; Bokhorst-Heng and Pereira, 2008 ), rather than from unselected readers, and although some results point to a similar attitude change in both populations, we cannot assume this to be the case. Moreover, although sex-related differences (i.e., more positive attitudes toward both leisure and academic reading among girls) have also been observed from the start of elementary school, continuing into middle school, little is known as to why these differences occur with grade, according to reading goals (leisure vs. academic).

Third, despite the diversity of the pupil populations included in these surveys, in terms of age, grade level, geographical origin and learner profile, the vast majority of studies have been conducted among English-speaking pupils in North America. For this reason, it is important to undertake research among French speakers in North America, in order to document different language-related practices but within a similar, North American education system, rather than a European one featuring a different curriculum.

The present study was therefore specifically designed to respond to these questions by describing differences in reading attitudes–according to sex and reading goal–among young French-speaking readers in Quebec (Canada) between the end of elementary school and the beginning of middle/secondary school. As the transition between elementary and middle/secondary schools takes place between Grades 7 and 8 (i.e., at age 12 years) in Quebec, we set out to describe differences between Grades 5 and 8 (i.e., encompassing the last two grades of elementary school and the first two grades of secondary school), in order to assess whether the expected decrease in reading attitudes between the two levels is linear (gradual) or non-linear (sudden).

Moreover, in order to adequately and consistently complement previous studies with findings for the French language and Canadian context, we chose to use the survey developed by McKenna and Kear (1990) and McKenna et al. (2012) , which has already yielded a great deal of data, adapting it to the context of our study.

Based on previous studies, we expected to confirm the following hypotheses about the main and interaction effects of grade, type of reading, and sex:

(i) Whatever their sex or the type of reading, pupils in middle school (Grades 7 and 8) have less positive attitudes toward reading than pupils in elementary school (Grades 5 and 6). Moreover, the greatest difference in attitudes is between Grades 6 and 7 (i.e., transition from elementary to middle school);

(ii) Whatever their grade and sex, students have more positive attitudes toward leisure reading than toward academic reading. Nevertheless, the superiority of leisure reading decreases with grade;

(iii) Whatever their grade and the type of reading, girls have more positive attitudes toward reading than boys, particularly for leisure reading;

(iv) The effect of grade (i.e., decrease in positive attitudes, especially between Grades 6 and 7) is greater for boys than for girls, especially in the case of leisure reading.

Materials and Methods

In this section, we describe our sample, the survey items and rating scale, and the procedure for administering the survey.

Participants and Setting

Participants were recruited using a non-probabilistic sampling method. The Research Chair in Reading and Writing Learning in Young Children (CREALEC) facilitated the identification of participant schools through its partnerships with various school boards and schools in Quebec. The study was carried out in accordance with the ethical guidelines for research established by Sherbrooke University’s education and social sciences ethics committee. All parents were asked to provide their written informed consent prior to data collection. We only included children whose parents had given this consent. Parents and students were informed that participation was voluntary, and they could opt out at any time.

As shown in Table 1 , a total of 468 children (233 girls and 235 boys), including 201 drawn from seven elementary schools and 267 drawn from three middle schools, took part in the study. Table 1 shows the composition of the sample according to sex and grade level.

Table 1. Breakdown of sample according to sex and grade level.

As a group, participants were predominantly French-speaking students from Quebec (Canada), reflecting the school boards from which they came. Low-income and socio-economic deprivation indices were considered in the selection of participant schools ( Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sports, 2011 ). Based on these two indices, Quebec schools are ranked on a scale of 1 (least disadvantaged) to 10 (most disadvantaged), and data on the students’ backgrounds (by school) showed a relatively balanced distribution of the sample as a whole, between disadvantaged, average and advantaged backgrounds.

Table 2 shows the low-income (and decile rank) and socio-economic deprivation (and decile rank) indices of each participating school. The low-income cut-off is defined as the level at which families are estimated to spend 20% more than the overall average on food, shelter and clothing, in terms of the proportion of their total income. It provides a means of estimating the proportion of families whose income may be considered low, taking into account the size of the family and the place of residence (rural area, small urban area, large metropolitan area) ( Government of Quebec, 2018 ). The socio-economic index can be used to establish the proportion of families with children where the mother does not have any diploma, certificate or degree (two-thirds of the index weighting) and the proportion of households where the parents were not in employment at the time of the Canadian census of reference (one-third of the index weighting) ( Government of Quebec, 2018 ).

Table 2. Breakdown of sample according to grade level, sex, and low-income, and deprivation indices.

Schools and teachers participated on an entirely voluntary basis. All the pupils who agreed to take part were included in the data collection. Participants came from mainstream classes and schools. According to their schools, they had no developmental, behavioral, or cognitive problems or delay.

Survey Instrument

For the purposes of the survey, we administered an adapted version of the ERAS ( McKenna and Kear, 1990 ; McKenna et al., 1995 ) to measure the constructs of recreational and academic reading attitudes.

Item Development

Before selecting the instrument’s items, we considered past and recent studies of academic and recreational reading, and examined surveys addressing attitudes toward these two types of literacy in elementary and middle-school students. It should be noted that in the present study, we chose not to include items that referred to reading in digital settings, unlike McKenna et al. (2012) in their survey examining the current state of reading attitudes among middle-school students. There were two reasons for this choice. First, recent studies in Quebec on the introduction of technological tools in the classroom (e.g., Fieìvez and Karsenti, 2018 ) tend to show that teachers use new technologies in much the same way that they use texts in print settings (e.g., accessing and sharing information). Second, as far as leisure reading in digital settings is concerned, we did not accept the very broad conception of digital literacy adopted in some previous studies, such as being on social websites during free time and reading e-mails from friends (see McKenna et al., 2012 ), as we did not consider these particular activities to come under the heading of digital literacy (see Martin, 2008 ).

As McKenna and Kear (1990) ’s questionnaire seemed representative of what we wanted to capture in terms of attitudes toward reading in the target population, we used it as a working list of possible items. This list was then submitted to two consultants involved in the Action Plan on Reading in School, a reading program supported by the Youth Training Department of Quebec’s Ministry of Education and Higher Education 2 . These consultants served as experts, drawing on their extensive knowledge of the current reading practices of students in Quebec school boards to determine whether the items in the list targeted reading practices associated with one of the two constructs. By this means, we refined and narrowed the list of items to eliminate what seemed to be redundancies in each subscale. For example, the items “How do you feel when you read a book on a rainy Saturday?” “How do you feel about reading a book in your free time?” and “How do you feel about spending free time reading?” were judged to be similar, and thus redundant, by the experts (see Table 3 ).

Table 3. Dimensions and items adapted from McKenna and Kear (1990) ’s survey instrument.

Based on these judgments, 10 items were retained, half probing leisure reading and half academic reading ( McKenna and Kear, 1990 ; McKenna et al., 1995 ). As with McKenna and Kear (1990) ’s original instrument, participants in our survey were asked to rate each item on a simple four-point scale ranging from 1 ( I don’t like it ) to 4 ( I love it ), as some of our participants were in elementary school. Research has suggested that younger children have difficulty discriminating between more than five information units at the same time ( McKenna et al., 1995 ). Moreover, the even number of points had the added benefit of avoiding a central category, thus forcing participants to commit themselves ( Henk et al., 2011 ). As our study was aimed at Grades 5 to 8, we chose not to use the pictorial rating format favored by McKenna and Kear (1990) for use with elementary-school children. We calculated a mean score for each dimension of the questionnaire (i.e., leisure reading and academic reading). To assess the factor structure of this abridged version of the questionnaire, we conducted a principal component analysis with SPSS 23 software, based on the 10 items and using an oblique promax rotation (justified by a high factor correlation: r = 0.56). Results showed a significant effect of model (χ 2 = 228, df = 26, p < 0.0001), and the presence of two factors corresponding to leisure and academic reading (see Table 4 ).

Table 4. Principal component analysis, item loadings, and final selection of items that contributed most to the questionnaire’s factor structure (loading on corresponding factor > 0.70).

To enhance the power of the scale, we selected items that were coherently linked to the factors, with loadings of at least 0.70. Based on these criteria, we retained seven items to efficiently evaluate differences in attitudes toward reading in students: four for leisure reading, and three for academic reading. The reliability of the constructs, as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal consistency, was good (α = 0.83; varying from 0.786 to 0.842 when items were dropped).

Survey Administration

Data were collected over two consecutive academic years (2012–2013 and 2013–2014), between the months of February and May, from different schools and sets of students (i.e., cross-sectionally). Before collecting these data, the participating research assistants met with the principal researcher for a 3-h training session, and were given a data collection protocol to follow, to ensure that the procedure was rigorously implemented. We met the pupils as a group, in the school’s IT department, as the survey was computer-based and had to be accessed via the web. Two or three experimenters supervised the pupils while they responded to the survey. Verbal instructions were given at the start, after which the pupils responded to the survey on their own and at their own pace (10 min was enough to complete the survey). The experimenters took care to answer every question and clarify the instructions, if requested or required by pupils during the session. To avoid a social desirability bias, teachers were asked to stay out of the room while their pupils completed the questionnaire. As and when the pupils finished, they returned to their classroom.

Results of the survey are presented in Table 5 . To analyze changes in pupils’ attitudes toward reading according to grade level, sex and type of reading, we ran three-factor (Grade × Type of reading × Sex) ANOVAs with SPSS 23 software. We examined the interaction effects by means of partial comparisons, when subtended by a hypothesis, and by post hoc (Bonferroni) multiple comparisons when we needed to examine a particular effect.

Table 5. Means (and standard deviation) of attitudes toward leisure and academic reading among boys and girls across Grades 5 and 6 (elementary school) and 7 and 8 (middle school).

An ANOVA showed that the main effect of grade was significant, F (3,460) = 37.22, MS = 27.01, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.187. However, a contrast analysis (pairwise, Bonferroni-adjusted comparison) failed to reveal any significant difference in attitude scores between fifth graders ( M = 2.61) and sixth graders ( M = 2.65). By contrast, attitude scores fell significantly between Grades 6 (i.e., final year of elementary school) and 7 (i.e., first year of middle school; M = 2.17, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between Grades 7 and 8 ( M = 1.90).

The main effect of type of reading was significant, F (1,460) = 176.93, MS = 62.07, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.257, with attitude toward leisure reading ( M = 2.58) scoring higher than attitude toward academic reading ( M = 2.04).

The main effect of sex was also significant, F (1,460) = 17.63, MS = 15.35, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.035, with boys ( M = 2.16) having less positive attitudes than girls ( M = 2.45).

Regarding interactions between the factors, the effect of the Grade × Type of reading interaction was significant, F (3,460) = 5.95, MS = 2.09, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.026. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the superiority of leisure reading over academic reading gradually diminished across the four grades, such that the difference was no longer significant by Grade 8 (+0.75, p < 0.001; +0.62, p < 0.001; +0.63, p < 0.001; +0.13, p > 0.15). The Grade × Sex interaction was not significant. The effect of the Sex × Type of reading interaction was significant, F (1,460) = 26.02, MS = 9.12, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.038. The attitude score was higher for leisure reading than for academic reading, especially among girls (+0.79, p < 0.001 for girls vs. +0.31, p < 0.001 for boys). Lastly, the effect of the second-order interaction between the three factors was significant, F (3,460) = 2.65, MS = 0.93, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.012. The superiority of leisure reading over academic reading persisted among girls across the grades ( p < 0.002), whereas it was no longer significatively present among boys in Grades 7 and 8 ( p > 0.006 after Bonferroni adjustment, with p < 0.001 in Grades 5 and 6).

The present study was designed to examine differences in reading attitudes among young readers between the end of elementary school and the beginning of middle school, according to sex and type of reading. Based on previous findings, we expected to observe differences in attitudes toward reading in participants during this transitional period (i.e., from Grades 5 and 6 to Grades 7 and 8), with pupils in elementary school (Grades 5 and 6) having more positive attitudes toward reading, whatever their sex or the type of reading, than pupils in middle school (Grades 7 and 8). Moreover, this difference in attitudes would concern the transition between elementary and middle schools (i.e., between Grades 6 and 7).

We also expected to see more marked differences in attitudes toward academic reading as opposed to leisure reading, and a widening gap between boys and girls (favoring girls), based on previous findings.

As expected, results showed differences in pupils’ attitudes between Grades 6 and 7, corresponding to the transition from elementary to middle school for our participants. Sixth graders exhibited more positive attitudes toward reading than seventh graders. However, we failed to find significant differences either between Grades 5 and 6 (i.e., last 2 years of elementary school) or between Grades 7 and 8 (i.e., first 2 years of middle school). Anderson et al. (1985) had noted a significant worsening of reading attitudes between these two cycles among gifted students, but whereas these authors observed a steady decline in attitudes across elementary and secondary education, our results indicated that the only significant difference in attitudes toward reading was between the final year of elementary school (Grade 6) and the first year of middle school (Grade 7). Our finding of relative stability in attitudes toward reading during the last 2 years of elementary school and then during the first 2 years of middle school contrasts with previous findings, both for elementary school ( McKenna et al., 1995 ; Hogsten and Peregoy, 1999 ; Lazarus and Callahan, 2000 ) and for middle school ( Ley et al., 1994 ). Instead, it tends to confirm the results of Petscher (2010) ’s meta-analysis, which highlighted a smaller grade effect among elementary school children than among middle-school students. When McKenna et al. (2012) conducted their study in middle school, they too found only weak grade-related variance, even if there was a “slight, non-monotonic worsening” of attitudes toward reading across middle school.

At first sight, the difference in reading attitudes we observed between the end of elementary school (Grades 5 and 6) and the start of middle school (Grades 7 and 8), with attitudes growing more negative, suggests that the transition between the two levels should be regarded as one of the factors influencing young people’s attitudes toward reading. Johnsson-Smaragdi and Jönsson (2006) emphasized that “the age between 9 and 12 is usually considered as ‘the book devouring age,’ whereafter the interest in reading tends to decrease” (p. 522). This could partially account for the negative trend observed among the pupils in our sample as they entered middle school, but we are left with the question as to why this book-devouring phase peters out at 12 years. Only a more detailed analysis of the links between this developmental change and other factors will allow us to formulate explanatory hypotheses. Research conducted with pupils in the elementary or middle/secondary level ( Gervais, 2000/2001 ; Hooper, 2005 ; Johnsson-Smaragdi and Jönsson, 2006 ) has shown that young readers tend to read less and less as they go through school. Reading habits may depend on a number of factors, including reading environment ( Keskin and Bastug, 2014 ; Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2014 ; Hume et al., 2015 ). For example, a rich reading environment both at home and in preschool (including the availability of interesting books, but also–in the case of boys–a teacher fostering less gender-typed attitudes and behaviors conveying the idea that reading is a feminine activity) is associated with more positive attitudes toward or interest in reading among young children ( Cunningham, 2008 ; Hume et al., 2015 ; Wolter et al., 2015 ). Similarly, studies conducted with secondary-school pupils have revealed links between the richness of the reading environment at home, the reading habits (in terms of frequency) of family members, including the students themselves, and the latter’s attitudes toward reading ( Keskin and Bastug, 2014 ).

Regarding changes in attitude according to type of reading (Grade × Type of reading interaction), in our study among pupils from Grades 5 to 8, we found more positive attitudes toward leisure reading than toward academic reading, even though there was a negative trend in attitudes toward both types of reading across grades, in line with previous studies among elementary or middle/secondary school pupils ( McKenna et al., 1995 , 2012 ). As we had predicted, differences in attitudes were more marked for academic reading than for leisure reading across grades. However, the gap between attitudes toward leisure versus academic reading gradually narrowed across grades, such that it had ceased to be significant by Grade 8. These results can be interpreted in the light of Bokhorst-Heng and Pereira (2008) ’s findings. These authors reported a decline in high achievers’ attitudes toward leisure reading in their first year of secondary school, whereas their attitudes toward academic reading, more closely associated with learning and thus with academic success, remained stable. In our study, where the pupils were unselected, attitudes toward leisure reading continued to decline in middle school, but less steeply than before.

It is also possible that the results of our survey only concern differences in attitudes toward reading in the traditional medium (i.e., print), as none of the items in our survey explicitly referred to reading in digital settings. Pitcher et al. (2007) and McKenna et al. (2012) showed that attitudes can be expected to vary, not only according to the perceived purpose–academic or leisure–of the literacy activity, but also according to the medium in which this activity takes place. Hutchinson and Henry (2010) reported differences in the use of and preferences for digital activities between preadolescents (Grades 4 and 5) and adolescents (Grades 6 to 8). Even though the former said they preferred to use the Internet rather than print for reading activities, they believed it was harder to use the Internet for reading than a book. They also believed they would learn more from a book than from the Internet. By contrast, adolescents seem to have extensive digital literacy habits out of school ( Alvermann, 2008 ).

Nonetheless, McKenna et al. (2012) ’s survey showed that attitudes toward academic reading do not vary across media (i.e., print vs. digital). These authors postulated that this result reflected the tendency of middle-school teachers to incorporate technology into teaching in much the same way as they do printed texts. They argued that, as a result, the potential of digital environments to increase students’ engagement remains untapped, and attitudes toward reading remain similar across these two settings. Future research should address this issue, in the light of findings from previous studies such as theirs. McKenna et al. (2012) ’s survey also showed that adolescents tend to prefer recreational reading activities in digital settings, but here again, no outright differences emerged in terms of attitudes toward specific reading activities in print versus digital settings. It is worth noting that all the recreational digital items in their questionnaire involved reading texts produced by peers or friends. However, many educators and researchers question McKenna et al. (2012) ’s premise that the activities that adolescents particularly enjoy in digital environments, such as viewing Facebook pages or what a friend has posted on social media, actually constitute recreational reading activities.

Regarding differences between boys’ and girls’ reading attitudes, our data showed a persistent sex effect from fifth to eighth grade. Overall, these results corroborate those of previous research ( McKenna et al., 1995 , 2012 ; Worrel et al., 2006 ; Swalander and Taube, 2007 ; Logan and Johnston, 2009 ) showing a sex effect throughout schooling. In the present study, girls’ attitudes between fifth and eighth grade proved more positive than boys’, for both leisure and academic reading. The second-order Grade × Type of reading × Sex interaction was also significant, showing that the superiority of leisure reading over academic reading persisted among girls across the grades, whereas it was no longer significatively present among boys in Grades 7 and 8. Thus, we can conclude that, as far as our study is concerned, goal-related reading attitudes differed according to sex between Grades 5 and 8. However, our study design did not allow us to explain the sex-related difference in attitudes toward reading. Future research should therefore address this issue.

As our study was intended to describe differences in attitudes toward reading during the transition from elementary to middle school, we did not consider links between these attitudes and actual reading performances, even though this “complex and possibly reciprocal” ( McKenna et al., 2012 , p. 287) relationship is well documented ( Petscher, 2010 ). Nor did our study design allow us to explain the sex-related difference in attitudes toward reading. Poorer reading performances among boys could not account for McKenna et al. (1995) ’s results, as the boys and girls in their sample had comparable reading skills. Both McKenna et al. (1995) and Johnsson-Smaragdi and Jönsson (2006) have suggested that the sex gap can instead be explained by cultural expectations, which are higher for girls in this respect. Wolter et al. (2015) also emphasized the effect of kindergarten teachers’ reading-related gender stereotypes, whereby reading is for girls, in lowering boys’ motivation for reading.

This hypothesis that the sex gap can be explained by cultural expectations and gender stereotypes is supported by the results of the longitudinal study by Archambault et al. (2010) , which indicated that boys place less subjective value on reading than girls throughout the whole of their elementary and secondary schooling.

Lastly, despite the diversity of the pupil populations included in previous surveys, the vast majority of research has so far been conducted among English-speaking pupils in North America. Our study was therefore intended to describe differences in attitudes toward reading in North America, but among French-speaking pupils. This allowed us to document attitudes toward reading, focusing on the transition from elementary to middle school, in a context with different linguistic practices but a similar education system, rather than a European one featuring a different curriculum. Overall, our results corroborate those of previous research, regarding differences in reading attitudes according to sex and type of reading (leisure vs. academic), showing a persistent sex effect among pupils in Grades 5 to 8, favoring girls ( McKenna et al., 1995 , 2012 ), and more positive attitudes toward leisure reading than toward academic reading, even though there was a negative trend in attitudes toward both types of reading across grades (Ibid.). However, our finding that significant differences in reading attitudes were restricted to the period of transition from elementary to secondary school contrasts with previous findings, which generally show a steady decline in attitudes across both elementary school ( McKenna et al., 1995 ; Hogsten and Peregoy, 1999 ; Lazarus and Callahan, 2000 ) and middle school ( Ley et al., 1994 ). The how and why of these changes during the move from elementary to secondary school in our study context are still unclear, but the transition between the two levels should probably be regarded as one of the factors influencing young people’s attitudes toward reading, at least in some contexts. These discrepant results also suggest that we cannot assume that the results of research on this subject are transferable, thus underlining the relevance of closely documenting these differences and changes in attitudes toward reading among pupils in the course of their schooling in a range of linguistic and education contexts.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

The present study had several limitations. First, our survey took the form of a self-report questionnaire, meaning that our results should therefore be viewed with caution, owing to the social desirability bias associated with this type of instrument. Furthermore, using a Likert-like rating scale to measure attitudes means relying on respondents’ subjective judgments. In addition, as our sample was made up of volunteers, it was not randomized, and mostly consisted of French-speaking Canadian students. Our results cannot, therefore, necessarily be considered as being representative of the reality of certain multi-ethnic school environments. That being said, all socioeconomic backgrounds were relatively equally represented in our sample.

Moreover, as noted above, our survey did not take account of attitudes toward reading in different media (i.e., reading in both traditional and digital settings). Future research should explore non-traditional media, as this could provide a clearer picture of pupils’ attitudes toward reading during the transition from elementary to middle school.

In addition, as ours was a cross-sectional study, we could not track individual participants’ reading attitudes over time. Longitudinal studies are therefore needed to provide a more finely grained picture of changes in attitudes toward leisure and academic reading across schooling, especially during the transition from elementary to middle/secondary education.

Also, our results did not allow us to explain the differences in pupils’ attitudes toward reading, especially the significant negative trend at the start of middle school. We can only make assumptions, based on previous research highlighting the many changes that take place, both socially and academically, during the transition from elementary to middle school, as well as the disturbances associated with the onset of adolescence.

Future research should therefore examine changes in the reading habits of young readers between Grades 1 and 11 as well as any modifications to their reading environment during this period. The links between pupils’ reading habits, reading environment and attitudes toward reading should also be explored across education levels, in order to identify the factors behind the changes observed in reading attitudes, especially between the end of elementary school and the beginning of middle school, a period that seems to be characterized by significant changes in both reading attitudes and reading habits. This would also shed light on the sex gap in reading attitudes and, consequently, in reading habits across schooling.

The present survey should also be complemented by studies that distinguish between different reader profiles in elementary and middle school, as this would help to explain developmental differences in attitudes toward reading. In particular, case studies featuring in situ observations and interviews could build on our results by exploring some of the socioaffective and cognitive factors that contribute not only to reading skills –as emphasized in earlier studies (e.g., Jenkins et al., 2003 ; Gillioz et al., 2012 ; Unsworth and McMillan, 2013 )– but also to reading attitudes among young readers. Such studies would provide an opportunity to assess how individual differences shape the profiles of young readers, with a view to tailoring reading instruction to their diverse cognitive and socioaffective needs throughout schooling.

We conducted the present investigation to extend previous research by examining reading attitudes among pupils as they move from elementary school to middle school. Results showed that attitudes toward reading in general (i.e., regardless of reading goal) remained stable among participants, except during the elementary–middle school transition, when we observed a significant difference in pupils’ attitudes, which grow more negative during this period of schooling. Our results do not, therefore, corroborate previous reports of a broadly negative trend in students’ reading attitudes across education levels.

Regarding attitude differences in relation to reading goal, as in several previous studies, we found that attitudes toward leisure reading remained more positive than attitudes toward academic reading, at least until Grade 8, when there ceased to be any significant difference between the two.

As for attitude differences according to sex, our data showed that girls’ attitudes were more positive than boys’ toward both leisure and academic reading. Overall, our results corroborate previous findings of a sex effect throughout schooling.

The value of our investigation stems partly from the fact that it was designed to focus on differences in reading attitudes during the elementary–middle school transition which, to our knowledge, had not previously been investigated –at least not among typically developing pupils. In addition, there is scant relevant research on this topic among young readers in Quebec (Canada). Our research highlighted a general negative trend of students’ attitudes toward reading between Grades 6 and 7, thereby helping to build up a more detailed picture of attitude change between the beginning and end of schooling in Quebec.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Sherbrooke University’s education and social sciences ethics committee. The parents/guardians of all the participants gave their written informed consent, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by Sherbrooke University’s education and social sciences ethics committee.

Author Contributions

All the authors agreed to be accountable for the content of the work. They all collaborated in the planning, data analysis, and writing stages.

This study was supported by Research Chair in Reading and Writing Learning in Young Children (CREALEC) grant number 25077. This study was also supported by Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sports (MELS) and Direction-Lecture.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• ^ In this survey, Grade 6 corresponded to the first year of middle school.
• ^ “The Reading at School Action Plan is intended to create practices that will allow young people to enjoy reading, make regular and effective use of reading, and make reading a lifelong habit. It is aimed at preschool, elementary and high-school students, particularly boys, as well as school staff who work with youth on reading. Parents are also targeted, so that they are made aware of the importance of reading” ( Government of Quebec, 2018 , p. 5).

Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (2005). “The influence of attitudes on behavior,” in The Handbook of Attitudes , eds D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 173–221.

Google Scholar

Alexander, P. A., and Fox, E. (2011). “Adolescents as Readers,” in Handbook of Reading Research , eds M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, and P. P. Afflerbach (New York, NY: Routledge), 157–176.

Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom practice and research? J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 52, 8–19. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.1.2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, M. A., Tollefson, N. A., and Gilbert, E. C. (1985). Giftedness and reading: a cross-sectional view of differences in reading attitudes and behaviors. Gift. Child Q. 29, 186–189. doi: 10.1177/001698628502900411

Anmarkrud, O., and Braten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learn. Individ. Differ. 19, 252–256. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002

Archambault, I., Eccles, J. S., and Vida, N. (2010). Ability self-concepts and subjective value in literacy: joint trajectories from grades 1 through 12. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 804–816. doi: 10.1037/a0021075

Baker, L., and Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Read. Res. Q. 34, 452–477. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4

Becker, M., McElvany, N., and Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: a longitudinal study. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 773–785. doi: 10.1037/a0020084

Benner, A. D. (2011). The transition to high school: current knowledge, future directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 23, 299–328. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9152-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bokhorst-Heng, W., and Pereira, D. (2008). Non-at-risk adolescents’ attitudes towards reading in a Singapore secondary school. J. Res. Read. 31, 285–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.00369.x

Chouinard, R., Bowen, F., Fallu, J.-S., Lefrançois, P., and Poirier, L. (2015). La Transition au Secondaire et l’Incidence des Mesures de Soutien sur la Motivation, L’Adaptation Psychosociale et les Apprentissages des Élèves (Rapport de Recherche, Programme de Recherche sur la Persévérance et la Réussite Scolaires, Action Concertée FQRSC-MELS). Montreal: University of Montreal.

Clark, C. (2014). The Reading Lives of 8 to 11-Year-Olds 2005–2013 An Evidence Paper for the Read On Get On Coalition. London: National Literacy Trust.

Clark, C., and De Zoysa, S. (2011). Mapping the Interrelationships of Reading Enjoyment, Attitudes, Behaviour and Attainment. London: National Literacy Trust.

Conlon, E. G., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Creed, P. A., and Tucker, M. (2006). Family history, self-perceptions, attitudes and cognitive abilities are associated with early adolescent reading skills. J. Res. Read. 29, 11–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00290.x

Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., Bryant, C., Craft, A., and McKenna, M. C. (2013). Measuring adolescents’ attitudes toward reading: a classroom survey. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 56, 565–576. doi: 10.1002/JAAL.183

Cunningham, D. D. (2008). Literacy environment quality in preschool and children’s attitudes toward reading and writing. Lit. Teach. Learn. 12,19–36.

De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., and Rosseel, Y. (2012). Relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: a self-determination theory perspective. J. Educ. Psychol. 104, 1006–1021. doi: 10.1037/a0027800

Fieìvez, A., and Karsenti, T. (2018). Usages et perceptions des enseignants lors de l’utilisation de la tablette en contexte scolaire. Formation Prof. 26, 55–73. doi: 10.18162/fp.2018.394

CrossRef Full Text

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., and Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. Read. Teach. 49, 518–533. doi: 10.1598/RT.49.7.2

Gervais, F. (2000/2001). Habitudes de lecture chez les 9-12 ans: une enquête aux résultats qui nous laissent songeurs. Can. Child. Lit. 100–101,94–107.

Gillioz, C., Gygax, P., and Tapiero, I. (2012). Individual differences and emotional inferences during reading comprehension. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 66, 239–250. doi: 10.1037/a0028625

Government of Quebec (2018). Action Plan on Reading in School. Available at: http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/dossiers-thematiques/lecture/

Graham, S., Berninger, V., and Abbott, R. (2012). Are attitudes toward writing and reading separable constructs? a study with primary grade children. Read. Writ. Q. 28, 51–69. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2012.632732

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., and Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Sci. Stud. Read. 3, 231–256. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3

Henk, W. A., McKenna, M. C., and Conradi, K. (2011). “Developing affective instrumentation for use in literacy research,” in Literacy Research Methodologies , 2nd Edn, eds N. K. Duke and M. H. Mallette (New York, NY: Guilford), 242–269.

Hogsten, J. F., and Peregoy, P. A. (1999). An Investigation of Reading Attitudes and Self-perceptions of Students Reading on and Below Grade Level. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Hogsten%2c+J.+F.%2c+%26+Peregoy%2c+P.+A.+%281999%29

Hooper, R. (2005). What are teenagers reading? Adolescent fiction reading habits and reading choices. Literacy 39, 113–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9345.2005.00409.x

Hume, L. E., Lonigan, C. J., and McQueen, J. D. (2015). Children’s literacy interest and its relation to parents’ literacy-promoting practices. J. Res. Read. 38, 172–193. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01548.x

Hutchinson, A., and Henry, L. A. (2010). Internet use and online reading among middle grade students at risk of dropping out of school. Middle Grades Res. J. 5, 61–75.

Ivey, G., and Broaddus, K. (2001). Just plain reading: a survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Read. Res. Q. 36, 350–377. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.36.4.2

Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., and Deno, L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 719–729. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719

Johnsson-Smaragdi, U., and Jönsson, A. (2006). Book reading in leisure time: long-term changes in young peoples’ book reading habits. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 50, 519-540. doi: 10.1080/00313830600953600

Katzir, T., Lesaux, N. K., and Kim, Y. S. (2009). The role of reading self-concept and home literacy practices in fourth grade reading comprehension. Read. Writ. 22, 261–276. doi: 10.1007/s11145-007-9112-8

Keskin, H. K., and Bastug, M. (2014). A study of the correlations among reading frequency, participation in reading environments and reading attitude. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. 4, 560–568.

Kolicì-Vehovec, S., Rončevicì Zubkovicì, B., and Pahljina-Reinicì, R. (2014). Development of metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies and attitudes toward reading in early adolescence: the effect on reading comprehension. Psychol. Top. 23, 77–98.

Kush, J. C., and Watkins, M. W. (1996). Long-term stability of children’s attitudes toward reading. J. Educ. Res. 89, 315-319. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1996.9941333

Lazarus, B. D., and Callahan, T. (2000). Attitudes toward reading expressed by elementary school students diagnosed with learning disabilities. Read. Psychol. 21, 271–282. doi: 10.1080/027027100750061921

Ley, T. C., Schaer, B. B., and Dismukes, B. W. (1994). Longitudinal study of the reading attitudes and behaviors of middle school students. Read. Psychol. 15, 11–38. doi: 10.1080/0270271940150102

Lipps, G. (2005). Faire La Transition: Les Répercussions Du Passage De L’école Primaire À L’école Secondaire Sur Le Rendement Scolaire Et L’adaptation Psychologique Des Adolescents. Ottawa: Statistique Canada.

Logan, S., and Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: examining where these differences lie. J. Res. Read. 32, 199-214. doi: 10.1080/00131911003637006

Marinak, B. A., and Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: exploring the gender gap. Lit. Res. Instr. 49, 129–141. doi: 10.1080/19388070902803795

Martin, A. (2008). “Digital literacy and the “digital society,” in Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices , eds C. Lankshear and M. Knobel (New York, NY: Peter Lang), 151–176.

Martinez, R. S., Aricak, O. T., and Jewell, J. (2008). Influence of reading attitude on reading achievement: a test of temporal-interaction model. Psychol. Schools 45, 1010–1023. doi: 10.1002/pits.20348

McGeown, S. P., Johnston, R. S., Walker, J., Howatson, K., Stockburn, A., and Dufton, P. (2015). The relationship between young children’s enjoyment of learning to read, reading attitudes, confidence and attainment. Educ. Res. 57, 389–402. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2015.1091234

McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B. G., and Meyer, J. P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: results of a U.S. Survey. Read. Res. Q. 47, 283–306. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.021

McKenna, M. C., and Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: a new tool for teachers. Read. Teach. 43, 626–639. doi: 10.1598/RT.43.8.3

McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., and Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: a national survey. Read. Res. Q. 30, 934–956. doi: 10.2307/748205

Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sports (2011). Agir Autrement. La Strateìgie d’Intervention Agir Autrement (siaa). Contrer les Eìcarts de Reìussite Entre les Milieux Deìfavoriseìs et Ceux Qui Sont Plus Favoriseìs. Queìbec, QC: Gouvernement du Queìbec.

National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2009: National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8 (NCES 2010-458). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2015). Results in focus, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf

Petscher, Y. (2010). A meta-analysis of the relationship between student attitudes towards reading and achievement in reading. J. Res. Read. 33, 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. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 50, 378–396. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.50.5.5

Sainsbury, S., and Schagen, I. (2004). Attitudes to reading at ages nine and eleven. J. Res. Read. 27, 373–386. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00240.x

Sénéchal, M., and LeFevre, J. (2014). Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Dev. 85, 1535–1551. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12222

Serbin, J. S., Stack, D. M., and Kingdo, D. (2013). Academic success across the transition from primary to secondary schooling among lower-income adolescents: understanding the effects of family resources and gender. J. Youth Adolesc. 42, 1331–1347. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9987-4

Swalander, L., and Taube, K. (2007). Influences of family based prerequisites, reading attitude, and self-regulation on reading ability. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 32, 206–230. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.01.002

Unsworth, N., and McMillan, B. D. (2013). Mind wandering and reading comprehension: examining the roles of working memory capacity, interest, motivation, and topic experience. J. Exp. Psychol. 39, 832–842. doi: 10.1037/a0029669

Wolter, I., Braun, E., and Hannover, B. (2015). Reading is for girls!? The negative impact of preschool teachers’ traditional gender role attitudes on boys’ reading related motivation and skills. Front. Psychol. 6:1267. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01267

Worrel, F. C., Roth, D. A., and Gabelko, N. H. (2006). Elementary reading attitude survey (ERAS) scores in academically talented students. Roeper Rev. 29, 119–124. doi: 10.1080/02783190709554395

Keywords : leisure reading, academic reading, reading attitude, pupils, students, elementary school, secondary school, Quebec (Canada)

Citation: Nootens P, Morin M-F, Alamargot D, Gonçalves C, Venet M and Labrecque A-M (2019) Differences in Attitudes Toward Reading: A Survey of Pupils in Grades 5 to 8. Front. Psychol. 9:2773. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02773

Received: 10 July 2018; Accepted: 24 December 2018; Published: 11 January 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Nootens, Morin, Alamargot, Gonçalves, Venet and Labrecque. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Pascale Nootens, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Trump’s Truth Social Holdings Down To $2 Billion As DJT Stock Crashes Again

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

The stock linked to former President Donald Trump’s social media company crashed again Monday, burning another hole in Trump’s net worth on paper.

Trump appears ahead of the start of jury selection in his New York criminal trial Monday.

Shares of Trump Media sank more than 18%, building on last week’s 20% loss for the entity linked to Trump’s conservative social media platform Truth Social majority owned by Trump.

Trump Media’s $27 share price Monday is a whopping 65% below its $79 peak on March 26, the first day it was publicly traded under its $DJT ticker following the completion of its merger with its blank-check partner firm.

The Monday selloff came after Trump Media filed to issue as many as 146 million new common shares in the company and another 21 million in warrants (the rights to purchase shares at a certain price), and it would severely dilute existing shareholders’ stakes considering the company currently has only 137 million shares outstanding, about 79 million of which belong to Trump.

Though it’s a routine move for a company who went public via reverse merger like Trump Media, and does not guarantee Trump Media will in fact follow through with an offering of that size, the filing opens the door for Trump and other insiders to more easily cash out on their shares, Bloomberg noted .

Trump’s 58% equity stake in Trump Media could be reduced to below 30% depending on the size of any potential stock offerings.

$2.17 billion. That’s how much Trump’s stake in the Truth Social parent was worth Monday, accounting for a majority of his $4 billion net worth. His social media nest egg was worth as much as $6.25 billion last month, falling almost $500 million Monday alone.

The nine-figure drop in Trump’s fortune coincided with his arrival at a Manhattan courthouse for the start of his criminal trial related to fraud charges tied to his alleged “hush money” payments to former adult film actress Stormy Daniels two decades ago.

Key Background

The direct listing of Trump Media also overlapped with the GOP’s presumptive 2024 presidential nominee’s escalating legal headaches and fees, and Trump posted a $175 million bond for a civil fraud case earlier this month. Trump Media’s market value, which peaked at over $10 billion in March, is now below $4 billion. Its crash reflects growing commentary about the true value of its core Truth Social business and its poor fundamentals for a company of its valuation, exemplified by its roughly $750,000 in total revenue during 2023’s final quarter, a tiny fraction of what other social media companies reported during the same period.

Further Reading

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions