the peter effect revisited: reading habits and attitudes of college students

This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 23 August 2014, At: 13:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Literacy Research and InstructionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20

The Peter Effect Revisited: ReadingHabits and Attitudes of College StudentsAnthony J. Applegatea, Mary DeKonty Applegateb, Martha A.Mercantinib, Catherine M. McGeehanc, Jeanne B. Cobbd, Joanne R.DeBoye, Virginia B. Modlaf & Kimberly E. Lewinskifa Holy Family University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvaniab St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvaniac Kutztown University, Kutztown, Pennsylvaniad Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolinae Lincoln University, Lincoln University, Pennsylvaniaf LaSalle University, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaPublished online: 09 May 2014.

To cite this article: Anthony J. Applegate, Mary DeKonty Applegate, Martha A. Mercantini, CatherineM. McGeehan, Jeanne B. Cobb, Joanne R. DeBoy, Virginia B. Modla & Kimberly E. Lewinski (2014)The Peter Effect Revisited: Reading Habits and Attitudes of College Students, Literacy Research andInstruction, 53:3, 188-204, DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2014.898719

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.898719

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19388071.2014.898719

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.898719

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Literacy Research and Instruction, 53: 188–204, 2014Copyright © Association of Literacy Educators and ResearchersISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19388071.2014.898719

The Peter Effect Revisited: Reading Habits andAttitudes of College Students

ANTHONY J. APPLEGATE

Holy Family University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

MARY DEKONTY APPLEGATE AND MARTHA A. MERCANTINI

St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

CATHERINE M. McGEEHAN

Kutztown University, Kutztown, Pennsylvania

JEANNE B. COBB

Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina

JOANNE R. DEBOY

Lincoln University, Lincoln University, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA B. MODLA AND KIMBERLY E. LEWINSKI

LaSalle University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Certainly a primary goal of literacy education is the creation of avid, enthusiastic, and highly moti-vated readers. However, in this article revisiting the Peter Effect (Applegate & Applegate, 2004),researchers surveyed more than 1,000 college sophomores and found strikingly low levels of enthu-siasm for reading. Only 46.6% of surveyed students could be classified as Enthusiastic readers, andonly 5.7% could be classified as Engaged and Avid readers. Thus, it appears that the Peter Effect stillpersists. The authors investigated the reading attitudes of college students, particularly those aspiringto be teachers, and found that 48.9% of teachers will be called on to inspire their students with a loveof reading that they do not have. Finally, implications reveal that teacher educators must address theimportance of enthusiasm for reading if teachers are to transcend their literacy dispositions to createpositive impacts on their future students.

Keywords qualitative research, teacher education, motivation

Address correspondence to Anthony J. Applegate, Holy Family University, Education, 9801 FrankfordAvenue, Philadelphia, PA 19114. Email: [email protected]

188

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014

mailto:[email protected]

The Peter Effect Revisited 189

The American educational community has long been exposed to conflicts and disagree-ments among reading educators. However, if there is one issue that has the potential tosmooth over past differences and unite teachers, theorists, and researchers alike, it is thevision of the ideal reader, the ultimate goal of virtually all literacy educators. That idealstudent is an avid, engaged, and enthusiastic reader, immersed in the joy of learning, withan imagination set free by words (Guthrie, 2001; Scharer, Pinnell, Lyons, & Fountas, 2005).Teachers rejoice when they encounter such students because they know, both from expe-rience and research, that enthusiasm for reading sets off a cascade of effects that result insome very significant advantages in the academic lives of these young people.

First of all, ideal readers are motivated to spend significantly more time reading thanthe average student (Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997),almost certainly because they experience more rewards from it. And because readingimproves with practice, they become steadily better at it (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding,1988; Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992), as reflected in higher grades in school (Donahue,Daane, & Grigg, 2003; Sweet, Guthrie, & Ng, 1998), better test scores (Gottfried, 1990),and higher levels of text comprehension (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999). Ideal readers thinkmore deeply about what they read and this thoughtful response to text appears to be relatedto their overall motivation to engage in the activity of reading (Applegate & Applegate,2010).

With the emergence and widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards(National Governors Association, 2010), the resurgence of interest in the nature of theideal reader seems to be happening at a most opportune time. Common Core StateStandards discussions are sending a clear message to American literacy educators thatthe stakes are rising, particularly the expectation that students demonstrate a thoughtfuland well-supported response to ideas embedded in complex text. In a world increasinglycharacterized by global interaction and competition, the timing could not be better. Forexample, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reported that 15 yearolds from the United States ranked 24th among the 64 countries that participated in inter-national comparisons in reading (OECD, 2010). While international comparisons of thistype are not without their critics (Turgut, 2013), one finding may be even more important.In all 64 countries, the level of enjoyment that students associated with reading was highlypredictive of their levels of achievement. And, since levels of enjoyment are linked to levelsof intrinsic reading motivation (Schiefele, Schaffner, Moller, & Wigfield, 2012), Americanliteracy educators are being challenged not to be content with the training of technicallyproficient readers. Instead they must challenge their students to apply their skills by engag-ing with text, responding with sophisticated analysis, and learning to be energized andrewarded by the intellectual challenge that such deep thinking entails.

When we consider our prospects for success in producing increasing numbers of idealreaders, the challenges are formidable. The National Endowment for the Arts conducts reg-ular surveys of the extent to which Americans read literary texts, and they characterized thesteep decline represented in their 2004 results as a “national crisis” (Bradshaw, 2004). The2008 survey indicated an encouraging rebound in reading habits, particularly among collegeage students (NEA, 2009). However, the data also included the observation that barely halfof college age students engage regularly in the reading of literature. Other researchers havereported higher amounts of time spent on recreational and academic reading (both literaryand informational text) by college students (Mokhtari, Reichard, & Gardner, 2009). But itis hard to avoid the conclusion that huge numbers of college age students are functionallyaliterate; that is, they can read but choose not to do so. Far too many students completetheir assigned readings and duly receive their grades and degrees, but they emerge from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014

190 A. J. Applegate et al.

their educational experiences with their distaste for and avoidance of reading relativelyuntouched.

Even more discouraging is the fact that among these college graduates is a significantpercentage of students who aspire to become teachers in the nation’s schools. As such, theywill be charged with promoting and encouraging the development of the ideal and deeplyengaged readers that they themselves are not. This puts them squarely into the unfortunateposition described as the Peter Effect (Applegate & Applegate, 2004). The label itself isdrawn from a New Testament story of a beggar who approaches St. Peter and asks him formoney. Peter responds that he “cannot give what he does not have” (Acts 3:5). In the formerstudy of the same name, we found that of the nearly 400 elementary education majorssurveyed, less than half could be classified as enthusiastic readers. And lest we think thatthese preservice teachers are not finding their way into the nation’s literacy classrooms,Nathanson, Pruslow and Levitt (2008) reported similar findings among practicing teachers.

Thus, the problem that we investigated in this study is not only the extent to whichteachers may be called upon to inspire their students with a love of reading that they do nothave, but also the levels of reading enthusiasm that college sophomores who have passedthrough our educational system have managed to develop. We will describe the means bywhich we investigated the reading habits of college sophomores, report our findings andobservations, and finally discuss some of the challenges that face teachers, parents, andinstitutions that prepare the nation’s teachers as they ready young children to attain thelevels of achievement embodied in the Common Core.

Influential Teachers and the Aesthetic Stance

Perhaps the most alarming scenario that emerges from the research is the notion of a recur-sive cycle of teaching producing large numbers of uninspired students, many of whom goon to become teachers who struggle to ignite in their students a love of reading that theyhave never experienced (Commeyras, Bislinghoff, & Olson, 2003; McKool & Gespass,2009; Powell-Brown, 2003/2004). If we as a nation are to break out of this cycle, it willtake battalions of what Ruddell (1997) described as influential teachers. Influential teachersare those who have a profound and lasting effect on their students. They engage studentsin intellectual discovery, set high expectations, and provide students with the logical toolsto think deeply about what they read. Ruddell found that one of the hallmarks of the influ-ential teacher is an approach to reading that Rosenblatt (1995) referred to as the aestheticstance. Rosenblatt envisioned the individual’s reading stance as existing somewhere alonga continuum of aesthetic (predominantly literary) to efferent (predominantly nonliterary).However, Rosenblatt (1995) emphasized that “in both kinds of reading, the reader focusesattention on the stream of consciousness, selecting out the particular mix of public and pri-vate linkages” (p. 293) with the text. In short, the reader with an aesthetic stance is onewho reacts deeply and thoughtfully to any kind of text and, as a consequence, is intenselyfamiliar with the engaged and enthusiastic reader we described above.

We regard the notion of the aesthetic stance as a vitally important element of an individ-ual’s view of reading, a set of concepts that comprise an individual’s internal model, or setof beliefs about the very nature of reading itself (Burgess, Sargent, Smith, Hill, & Morrison,2011). If, for example, a teacher believes that the key to reading success is the ability toread text and then faithfully reproduce the author’s intended message, then that teacherwill likely emphasize literal recall of text details. If a teacher believes that a thoughtfulresponse to the author’s message is the essence of reading, techniques such as discussion,literature circles, and the ability to use textual information to support one’s ideas will be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


emphasized. As will be evident in the discussion that follows, the college sophomores inour sample encountered a host of teachers who used a broad array of different techniquesand approaches in their literacy classrooms.

Methods

The original Peter Effect study (Applegate & Applegate, 2004) included only students whowere pursuing certificates in elementary school education. In this study, we included stu-dents from a cross-section of college majors. In considering the original study, we all sharedmany questions. Has the love of reading among preservice teachers improved significantlysince 2004? Is a lack of enthusiasm for reading largely restricted to education majors or isit equally prevalent among students pursuing degrees in other fields? Since our college anduniversity sophomores are largely products of our educational system and have, if the dataare accurate, encountered many teachers who have no love for reading. Have they man-aged to avoid the potential effects of teachers who are uninspired readers? Do particularliteracy teaching approaches tend to promote student engagement in and enthusiasm forreading? What, in general, has been the reaction of college students to the literacy instruc-tion they received in their earlier years? The answers are important because the stakes areincreasingly high.

Participants

The participants in this study were 1,025 college sophomores, a convenience sample fromseven different East Coast colleges and universities (four urban and three suburban). Thebroad positive response we received enabled us to insure solid representation among majorsfrom business (n = 166), health sciences (n = 120), humanities (n = 124), mathematicsand science (n = 108), and social sciences (n = 124), in addition to a healthy sample ofeducation majors or preservice teachers (n = 348).

Data Collection and Data Sources

Investigators sought out colleagues who were slated to teach sophomore level courses andasked if they would be willing to spare the ten to fifteen minutes that it would take theirstudents to complete the study questionnaire. We assessed levels of student reading activityby asking students to write about what reading they had done over the past summer andthen compared it with their self-reported level of enjoyment of reading. Our expectationwas that enthusiastic and engaged readers would make time to do a reasonable amount ofleisure reading over the course of a summer. We then asked the sophomores to rate theinstructional emphases that they recalled from elementary and secondary reading educa-tion and to describe their early literacy experiences. In addition, we prompted subjects tocontrast their school and home reading experiences, as well as to describe their college oruniversity reading experiences. Finally, we asked if any of their teachers had effectivelyinspired them with a love of reading. We modeled the instrument on the already field-testedoriginal Peter Effect questionnaire, utilizing open-ended questions deliberately designed toencourage respondents to write freely about their learning experiences. The instrument isincluded in Appendix A.

Using a constant comparison method (Glaser, 1965), three of the investigators inde-pendently scored the questionnaires by classifying the respondents as enthusiastic orunenthusiastic readers, utilizing the rubric included in Appendix B. At the same time, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


investigators coded open-ended responses that shared commonalities and indicated cleartrends in reading experiences. This work was, of course, simplified by the fact that theprevious Peter Effect study (Applegate & Applegate, 2004) had identified a set of char-acteristics shared by a significant number of respondents. The work that remained was toidentify characteristics of college age students from a variety of backgrounds and majorsand seek out links between their beliefs about reading and their home and school experi-ences. At the conclusion of their independent review, the investigators met and resolvedany differences in scoring by discussion. They also identified and refined a set of key com-monalities in responses that were associated with the reading attitude and habits of theindividuals who participated in the study. In all, the project spanned nearly six months,including questionnaire administration and analysis of data.

Enthusiastic Readers: Appreciative, Focused, or Engaged and Avid

We classified as enthusiastic those who reported a positive attitude toward reading andwho engaged in reading during the summer, whether that reading was selective or broad.We should emphasize from the outset that we chose not to set the bar for enthusiasm in read-ing very high. Instead, we regarded enthusiastic reading as reading that extended beyondnewspapers and magazines and included the reading of at least a single book (other thanchildren’s literature or textbooks assigned in a summer course). In the final analysis, weidentified three specific types of enthusiastic readers. Appreciative readers were those whoreported (a) the reading of at least one book over the course of the summer and (b) a positiveattitude toward reading in general. Focused readers were those who reported enthusiasmonly for particular types or genres, but also exercised that preference over the course of thesummer. Engaged and Avid readers were those who reported a love of reading and readbroadly and extensively over the summer.

Unenthusiastic Readers: Lukewarm, Reluctant, and Unwilling Readers

Lukewarm readers were those who expressed little enthusiasm for reading and did littlesummer reading. We also viewed as lukewarm those respondents who claimed to like orenjoy reading, but who did not find the time to read a single book over the course of the pre-vious summer. Reluctant readers were more overt in their dislike for reading; they will oftendo the work that is asked of them from a sense of responsibility rather than from a love ofwhat they are doing. Unwilling readers, on the other hand, were those who expressed fairlyopen dislike for reading and sought to exclude reading from their personal and academiclives whenever possible.

Findings

As can be seen in Table 1, only 46.6% of the college students we polled could be classifiedas enthusiastic readers. Perhaps equally disturbing is the low overall percentage of studentswho were identified as Engaged and Avid readers (5.7%). Rounded off to whole numbers,our sample included 47% enthusiastic and 53% unenthusiastic readers.

Responses to Open-Ended Questions

As noted above, we constructed our reading habits questionnaire with an eye toward invit-ing college students to talk about their experiences without having to respond to narrowly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


Table 1Percentages of Enthusiastic and Unenthusiastic Readers Among College Students

Enthusiastic Unenthusiastic

Avid Focused Appreciative Total Lukewarm Reluctant Unwilling Total

58 138 282 478 338 111 98 5475.7% 13.4% 27.5% 46.6% 33.0% 10.8% 9.6% 53.4%

targeted prompts. In this way, we hoped to identify those elements that respondents feltwere important enough to include in their responses, rather than elements that we hadalready concluded were important. The vast majority wrote detailed responses that reflectedwhat they considered to be the most important features of their educational and literacyexperiences. Consequently, the analysis of their free responses provided us with a greatdeal of insight into what college students regarded as positive and negative dimensionsof their reading education journey. The key themes that emerged from our analysis werea view of reading as intellectual challenge, the influence of parents and teachers on stu-dent growth, the effects of one’s view of reading on attitudes and habits, and reactions toexperiences with reading instruction. We will discuss each of these themes in turn. Finally,we will discuss our findings related to preservice teachers and identify what we regard asimportant implications for teacher preparation programs.

It is impossible to read through the comments of the respondents and not be struckby the sheer complexity and unpredictability of their observations. For every student wholoved the books that teachers selected, it seemed we had another who resented the factthat the reading was assigned and students had no choice in the matter. Many participantswere delighted that their teachers read aloud to the class and often shared their own favoritebooks. Others complained that by reading aloud to the class, their teachers “shoved theirlove of reading down our throats” or were “always preaching about how we should readmore.” Many participants acknowledged their need to take their reading habits more seri-ously, but others blamed their lack of regard for reading on their teachers and on professors“who choose such boring books.” If anything, these findings re-emphasized our convictionsthat human motivation is an immensely complex disposition, complicated even further bythe nuances of the educational situations in which students find themselves.

Reading as Intellectual Challenge

Despite the enormous range of individual comments, several patterns of student responsesserved as crystal clear lines of demarcation between enthusiastic and unenthusiastic read-ers. For example, more than 150 students commented on the association they made betweenreading and intellectual growth. Some described reading as a challenge that “exposed themto new ideas” or “forced them to think in different ways.” Even a number of students whoregarded reading as a chore admitted that their reading assignments “forced them to thinkoutside the box” or “made them learn things they never knew anything about.” Of thesophomores who viewed reading as this type of intellectual challenge, 84% were classi-fied as enthusiastic readers. On the other hand, 175 sophomores specifically associatedreading with career advancement, or as an obligation they had incurred as students. Somestated that they completed their assigned readings because they knew the knowledge they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


acquired “would help them in their career.” Still others cited their “responsibility to com-plete their assignments” and the need “to earn good grades” in their courses. Among thelatter students, the incidence of enthusiastic readers was only 18.9%. Not surprisingly, theattitude of college students toward reading is predictive of their enthusiasm for it. Whatsurprised us was that so many had come to view reading as either an adventure or a respon-sibility, and the difference in the levels of reading enthusiasm of the groups could hardlyhave been sharper (see Table 2).

Parental and Teacher Influences on Reading Attitudes

While it is not feasible to specify in numerical terms the influence of parents on the readinghabits of their children, rich and extensive research exists that describes the role of parentsin helping children become skilled and enthusiastic readers (Durkin, 1966; Hart & Risley,1995; Klauda, 2009; Plessas & Oakes, 1978). The college students in this sample wereno exception. Respondents who noted that they received parental encouragement to read,or who were praised by parents for their reading skill were significantly more likely to beclassified as enthusiastic readers (62.7% to 43.7%) than those who made no note of parentalinfluences. In the same vein, among those students who reported that they actually read lessat home than they read at school, only 21.3% could be classified as enthusiastic readers.

Sophomores in this study reserved their most detailed and specific responses for theteachers who guided them through the reading acquisition process with varying degreesof success. Higher percentages of enthusiastic readers occurred among those students whorecalled their teachers reading aloud to them (54.1%), or their teachers offering some levelof choice in reading assignments (55.1%). The most striking observation, however, camefrom college students who noted that their former teachers encouraged class discussionsof books (Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz, 2010). Among these students,68.4% were enthusiastic readers and among the preservice teachers, the percentage ofenthusiastic readers was even higher (75%). Thus, it appears that active approaches toreading education, approaches that release more responsibility to students for choosing and

Table 2Characteristics of Enthusiastic and Unenthusiastic Readers

nPercent

enthusiasticPercent

unenthusiastic

Saw reading as intellectual challenge 151 84.0 16.0Saw reading as an obligation 175 18.9 81.1Received parental encouragement 153 62.7 37.3Read less at home than at school 75 21.3 78.7Reported that teachers read aloud to them 74 54.1 45.9Reported that teachers allowed some choice 283 55.1 44.9Reported that teachers encouraged discussion 95 68.4 31.6Named a teacher who ignited love of reading 175 64.6 35.4Saw teachers in general as influential 365 54.5 45.5Could not name an influential teacher 454 37.0 63.0Reported that teachers recommended books to

them58 72.4 27.6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


exploring what they read, are more likely to be associated with enthusiastic readers (Daisy,2010; Patall, Cooper, & Wynn, 2010; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006).

When sophomores were asked if any of their teachers had effectively shared a love ofreading with them, 175 respondents specifically identified a teacher, either by name or bygrade level, who had inspired them as readers. Among these respondents, 64.6% were iden-tified as enthusiastic readers. Even those who identified their former teachers as successfulin promoting a love of reading in general, the percentage of enthusiastic readers was muchhigher than those who were unable to recall an influential teacher (54.5% versus 37.0%).One particularly striking element of the open-ended responses was the number of respon-dents who noted that one or more former teachers had recommended personalized choicesof books that the teacher(s) felt they would like. Of the students with such memories, 72.4%were classified as enthusiastic readers. In light of these findings, it is difficult to avoid theconclusion that a teacher’s love for reading puts a great many young readers at a significantadvantage. Furthermore, only highly skilled actors can convey to children a love of readingthat they do not possess, and as any seasoned teachers will note, their students are oftenincisive and brutally honest critics, certainly capable of discerning insincerity versus trueaffection for reading.

Patterns of Respondents’ Views of Reading

Several patterns of the college students’ responses included embedded hints about theirviews of reading. One such pattern surfaced when college students were asked how muchenjoyment they associate with reading. In terms of their reading habits, 60 students offeredresponses such as “the book needs to grab my attention” or “my interest level depends onthe book.” These respondents seemed to begin the reading activity waiting for the book toconvince them that it is worth reading. They seem to minimize the contribution that theirown related ideas and experiences bring to a book. It is not surprising that such a passiveview of reading was associated with a very low percentage level of enthusiastic readers(20.3%).

In the same vein, many respondents described their experiences with reading in termsof external attribution, with an emphasis on factors beyond their control. For example, manyblamed their lack of enthusiasm for reading on “poor teaching” or “teachers who chose bor-ing books.” Among these college students, professors who “assign unreasonable amountsof reading” or “teachers who didn’t love reading themselves” were also attributed a mea-sure of responsibility for the attitudes of the respondents. Again the primary characteristicof these respondents is a tendency to minimize the active nature of the transaction thatoccurs between reader and writer, and to maximize the importance of the text as a stand-alone entity. Only 20% of the respondents who demonstrated external attribution could beclassified as enthusiastic readers.

In sharp contrast, nearly 220 students described their experiences with reading as anopportunity to “escape into a different world” and to “relax and unwind.” To these respon-dents, reading is a chance to “get into the minds of different characters” and to “exploredifferent societies.” These responses are remarkably similar to what Rosenblatt (1995) andRuddell (1997) described as the aesthetic stance in reading, described earlier. The aestheticstance represents a view of reading that balances the contributions of both reader and writerand portrays reading as an essentially active and thoughtful process. We were surprised, notthat students with an aesthetic view would tend to be enthusiastic readers, but that such alarge percentage would be. Fully 90% of the respondents who cited elements of an aestheticview of reading were classified as enthusiastic readers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


Early Experiences With Reading

We identified respondents who reported struggles in learning to read during their early ele-mentary years. These college students described being placed in the lowest reading group,being pulled out of their regular classroom for extra work in reading, or being declaredlearning disabled. It is impossible not to be moved by the first-person descriptions ofrespondents who began to doubt their own ability or self-worth, and to learn that someof their teachers could not help them. The encouraging news is that 37% of these studentsovercame their difficulties and went on to become enthusiastic readers. The less encourag-ing news is that 63% remain unenthusiastic. In sharp contrast, 58.1% of the respondentswho related that they excelled in reading in elementary school went on to become enthu-siastic readers. Similar results were obtained for respondents who took the opportunity tocommend the good teachers they had (55.8% enthusiastic) or to note that those teachersselected good books and made reading fun (57.3% enthusiastic). If we incorporate enthusi-asm for reading into our goals for literacy education, we would be well served to take noteof the importance of early reading success (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010).

Of the respondents who viewed college reading as positive, 54.0% were classified asenthusiastic readers. However, among respondents who viewed college reading as neutralor negative, the results were considerably less encouraging (43.2% and 25.0% enthusias-tic, respectively). To put the findings into a different perspective, respondents who viewedcollege reading as negative were three times more likely to be classified as unenthusiasticreaders than those who viewed it positively. Even more striking, students who specificallydescribed their college reading as “boring” were more than four times more likely to beclassified as unenthusiastic. Those who characterized their reading assignments as interest-ing and mind-expanding were much more likely to be enthusiastic readers (57.7%). Thesefindings appear to be simply another facet of the contrasts between reading as intellectualgrowth and reading as responsibility. As literacy professors, we are all too familiar with thedifference between students who are hungry for learning and those who hunger for a goodgrade.

We would be remiss if we did not remind ourselves and our readers that the resultsof this study are reports of simple relationships among variables. One difficulty in inter-pretation of results is that the directionality of the relationship cannot be determined. Forexample, we found that college students who expressed a tendency to regard their readingas an aesthetic experience were much more likely to be classified as enthusiastic readers.We do not know, however, whether it was an already-existing aesthetic approach that madethem more enthusiastic readers, or whether it was their enthusiasm for reading that impelledthem toward an aesthetic stance.

Findings for Preservice Teachers

Among the 1,025 students in our sample were 348 education majors, a cross-section largeenough to address some issues raised in the original Peter Effect study (Applegate &Applegate, 2004). This sample differed from the original sample focused on elementarypreservice teachers in that 114 of the current respondents were preparing for middle orsecondary school. In our original 2004 study, just 48.5% of the preservice teachers couldbe classified as enthusiastic readers. Nine years later that number had risen by only 2.6%to 51.1% and nearly 40% of that gain may be accounted for by the inclusion of studentspreparing to teaching in middle and secondary schools. Thus, it appears that the Peter Effectstill persists. No matter how we scrutinized the data, we could not escape the fact that nearlyhalf of the preservice teachers in the current study were still unenthusiastic about reading.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


Table 3Percentage of Enthusiastic Readers by Major

Enthusiastic Unenthusiastic % Enthusiastic

Business 65 101 39.2Education 178 170 51.1Health Sciences 45 75 37.5Humanities 81 43 65.3Math & Science 42 66 38.9Social Sciences 53 71 42.7Undecided 14 21 40.0Total 478 547 46.6

Table 4Education Majors by Class Level of their Preferred Teaching Assignment

Enthusiastic Unenthusiastic % Enthusiastic

K–1st grade 36 63 36.42nd–4th grade 74 45 62.25th–6th grade 8 8 50.07th–8th grade 14 17 45.2Secondary 46 37 55.4

We could take some rather grim comfort in the fact that education majors were moreenthusiastic about reading than other majors (see Table 3). Education majors were, onthe whole, significantly more enthusiastic as readers than their non-education classmates(51.1% to 44.3%). But as the reader has almost certainly perceived, we had become quitedesperate to find anything that looked like good news in the results.

One particularly disconcerting finding was the low level of enthusiasm for readingamong education majors aspiring to teach kindergarten and first grade. This group ofrespondents demonstrated an enthusiasm level more than 21 percentage points lower thanthe average percentage of preservice teachers aspiring to teach at all other grade levels com-bined (see Table 4). This is an especially disquieting result since, as we have seen in ouranalysis of data, initial experiences with reading can have profound and long-lasting effectson emerging readers. This result bears some further scrutiny from the literacy research com-munity (see Table 4). In a similar vein, we found that education majors aspiring to teach inSpecial Education classrooms lagged behind their regular education counterparts in termsof enthusiasm for reading by 4.1%.

Discussion

In this study, 84% of the respondents who viewed reading as intellectually challenging wereclassified as enthusiastic readers, as opposed to only 19% of those who viewed reading asa career-related responsibility. This finding presents teachers with concrete challenges oftheir own. The ability of teachers to promote intellectual curiosity and abandon classroompractices that encourage “copying, remembering and reciting with few tasks assigned that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


engage students in thinking about what they have read” (Allington, 2001, p. 94) may spellthe difference in their students’ future reading attitudes. Even if some students are becomingavid readers because they are naturally inclined toward intellectual growth, an atmosphereof classroom inquiry that is cooperative, challenging, and exciting can be infectious (Almasi& Gambrell, 1994; Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003). At the same time,savvy teachers are well-positioned to make a note of students who are developing the habitsof the mind that lead them to approach reading as an obligation to be met. Teachers who cannudge such students back onto the road that leads to satisfaction in conquering intellectualchallenges have the chance to make a monumental difference in their literacy lives.

Literacy teachers must note that the results of this study suggest once again thatparental influence on the literacy attitudes and motivation of children cannot be over-estimated. Many respondents clearly viewed parental influences on their attitude towardreading as more important, and in some cases infinitely more important, than their schoolexperiences. As a consequence, schools that pass up the opportunities to enlist parents asallies in the battle for the intellectual growth of their children are most unwise. Effectiveprograms for parents should share research studies that emphasize the importance ofparental influence, good concrete advice for parents as to how to engage their children fromtheir very earliest years in thoughtful response to text, and pointers on how to make home aplace for family reading and mutual literacy encouragement and engagement. Educationalprograms for young parents, even though they may fall outside the pale of traditional schoolresponsibilities, may pay valuable future dividends for the schools and communities thattake up the challenge of developing and delivering them.

If we ever doubted the role that teachers can play in the lives of individual students,those doubts disappeared when we read the vivid stories of 19-year-olds who, for example,still remembered the name of their second grade teacher and how that teacher impressedupon them the importance of reading. In the process of analyzing and considering teach-ers’ influences, we identified a set of conditions that seemed to have the greatest effectson reading enthusiasm. Teachers who aspire to be influential teachers need to seek out cre-ative ways to (1) recognize and promote student autonomy (providing choices of readingmaterial), (2) give students opportunities to share ideas about what they have read (offeringbook discussions), and (3) take time to react to youngsters as valued individuals in theirown right (recommending books to students).

We found that respondents who take a passive approach to reading and learning are farless likely to be classified as enthusiastic. That finding in itself is not particularly surprising.Because reading is defined by most experts as an active, thoughtful process during whichreaders bring their own experiences to the text in order to construct meaning, a passiveperspective almost certainly represents a distorted and potentially harmful view of reading.Teachers at all grade levels need to be able to identify learners who appear to be developinga passive view of reading, and take steps to correct that erroneous view (Turner & Patrick,2008). Informal attitude surveys and reading motivation assessment instruments can oftenbe very valuable tools to aid in early identification of students with a distorted view ofreading.

These modest results echo many of the broader and more significant findings in thefield of literacy education about the nature and impact of influential teachers, supportiveparents, and the literacy models we use in classrooms. If, in our teacher preparation pro-grams, we tend to minimize motivational factors, those complex human interactions thatare difficult to assess, it appears that we will have little chance to break the recursive PeterEffect cycle. For it is still impossible to avoid the fact that even among the enthusiasticpreservice teachers, no guarantee can be made that all will eventually become influential

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


literacy teachers. Some preservice teachers likely will be forced by circumstances to followprograms or basal scripts that do not encourage engagement, discussion, choice, or intellec-tual exploration. Others may listen to the siren song of linear instruction and never take theirstudents beyond the most fundamental of reading skills (Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser,& Long, 2003). On the other hand, those teachers without an enthusiasm for reading wouldseem to have very little chance to transcend their experiences and make positive impacts ontheir students unless schools and professional development providers recognize their needsand address the importance of enthusiasm for reading.

The challenges that face teacher preparation institutions are formidable, but not insur-mountable. As teacher educators we are sometimes quick to criticize the lack of attentionpaid to reading motivation. But, are we in fact guilty as well? If the corpus of researchon reading habits and attitudes is even remotely accurate, large numbers of teachers andprospective teachers have never experienced the aesthetic stance in their reading. That is,they read but they tend not to see links between what they read and their private selves,or even the human condition. In the maze of state standards and regulations for teacherpreparation programs, one might simply assume that, of course, our preservice teachers areenthusiastic readers. Unfortunately, the results of study after study suggest otherwise. If,as teacher educators, we incorporated effective modeling, insuring that students have theopportunity to experience the aesthetic stance, the changes in reading attitude reported bycollege students might be strikingly positive (Applegate & Applegate, 2006). In the samevein, school districts that are actively seeking new and influential teachers would do wellto make enthusiasm for reading an important part of their hiring process.

There is no reason to believe that the same attention to modeling and instruction willnot work for inservice teachers in the course of their professional development. If Ruddell’sresearch (1997) is correct, low achieving readers encountered only 1.5 influential teachersin the course of 12 years of formal education. High achieving readers, on the other hand,encounter an average of 3.2. Increasing the number of influential teachers in our schools iscertainly an achievable goal and one that could have a sizeable impact on reading attitudeand motivation. One of the hallmarks of the influential teacher is the tendency to “tap inter-nal student motivation that simulates intellectual curiosity . . . use aesthetic imagery andexpression, and motivate the desire to solve problems” (p. 982). If we can help preserviceand inservice teachers to re-experience and re-think their own reading, they stand a muchbetter chance of influencing their future young students. After all, the comments of morethan 40 of our respondents suggest that it was not until college that they developed an appre-ciation for the rewards of reading. Taking steps to create communities of readers with thefaculty as leaders may help schools to achieve goals that are far more worthy than upticksin standardized test scores (Applegate & Applegate, 2006).

In the final analysis, of course, educators need to attend to the engagement levels ofnot only preservice teachers but of all students. It is nearly impossible for avid readers toregard unenthusiastic ones as anything but shortchanged, in both their education and in therichness of their lives. It is equally impossible to avoid thinking of the loss to the nation ofmany potential leaders and learners. As a result, the need for a national vision of what itmeans to be a literate citizen has probably never been more acute. Certainly the CommonCore State Standards seem to be a solid first step in the articulation of a national agenda, andwe applaud their emphasis on thoughtful literacy. Yet, missing from the CCSS are conceptssuch as reading motivation and enthusiasm.

Rather than wait for a national articulation of goals, districts and schools that valueengaged reading must address the need for educators to assess and respond to levels of read-ing engagement and enthusiasm among their students. The rewards of engaged reading are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


simply too great to overlook. Although this task is complicated by the absence of account-ability assessments that measure reading engagement, teachers sensitized to monitor theprogress of their students toward enthusiastic reading may be an even more valuable sourceof data. No doubt, concepts such as human motivation and engaged reading are complex,interactive, and messy. But when we ignore them on those grounds, we do so at our peril.If as a nation we succeed in producing generations of children who are technically profi-cient readers, but who have little use for reading in their lives, we will win nothing morethan a hollow and illusory victory.

When we examined our current findings in light of the original Peter Effect (Applegate& Applegate, 2004) results, we found some considerable reasons for encouragement. Manyteachers and parents are experiencing high levels of success in generating enthusiastic read-ers for the future. Although the sheer proportion of those identified as enthusiastic readers,the higher percentages of unenthusiastic readers, and the sense of a loss of intellectualpotential are all deeply discouraging, these results suggest that our nation can take manysteps to provide more favorable conditions in our schools for the growth of reading enthu-siasm and creative thinking. The responsibility for disseminating this knowledge and forencouraging the support of stakeholders falls directly on the shoulders of the literacy edu-cation community. Whether we can muster the will to assess and monitor the growth ofreading enthusiasm among our children may, in the final analysis, determine whether wecan break out of the debilitating sphere of influence of the Peter Effect.

References

Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers. New York, NY: Addison Wesley.Almasi, J. F., & Gambrell, L. B. (1994). Sociocognitive conflict in peer-led and teacher-led discussion

of literature (Research Report #12). Athens, GA: Universities of Maryland and Georgia, NationalReading Research Center.

Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P., & Fielding, L. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend theirtime outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285–303.

Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches todeveloping understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and highschool English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.

Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The Peter Effect: Reading habits and attitudes ofpreservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 554–563.

Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2010). A study of the relationship between thoughtful literacyand motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 64(4), 226–234.

Applegate, M. D., & Applegate, A. J. (2006). The guided literature learning strategy: The processand an analysis of pre-service teachers’ reflections. College Reading Association Yearbook, 27,136–149.

Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation aspredictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4),773–785.

Bradshaw, T. (2004). Reading at risk: A survey of literary reading in America. Washington, DC:National Endowment for the Arts.

Burgess, S. R, Sargent, S., Smith, M., Hill, N., & Morrison, S. (2011). Teachers’ leisure reading habitsand knowledge of children’s books: Do they relate to the teaching practices of elementary schoolteachers? Reading Improvement, 48(2), 88–102.

Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children’sexposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74–89.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


Commeyras, M., Bislinghoff, B. S., & Olson, J. (Eds.). (2003). Teachers as readers: Perspectives onthe importance of reading in teachers’ classrooms and lives. Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Daisy, P. (2010). Secondary preservice teachers remember their favorite reading experiences: Insightsand implications for content area instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(8),678–687.

Donahue, P., Daane, M., & Grigg, W. (2003). The nation’s report card: Reading highlights 2003.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12,

436–445.Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538.Guthrie, J. T. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAEP. Journal

of Educational Research, 94, 145–162.Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies

of Reading, 3, 199–205.Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors

of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256.Hart, T., & Risley, B. (1995). Meaningful differences in the early experience of young American

children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, G. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest

and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4),880–895.

Klauda, S. (2009). The role of parents in adolescents’ reading motivation and activity. EducationalPsychology Review, 21(4), 325–363.

McKool, S. S., & Gespass, S. (2009). Does Johnny’s reading teacher love to read? How teachers’personal reading habits affect instructional practices. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(3),264–276.

Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. A., & Gardner, A. (2009). The impact of Internet and television use on thereading habits and practices of college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(7),609–619.

Nathanson, S., Pruslow, J., & Levitt, R. (2008). The reading habits and literacy attitudes of inserviceand prospective teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 312–321.

National Endowment for the Arts. (2009). Reading on the rise: A new chapter in American literacy.Retrieved from www.arts.gov

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers(2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/socialstudies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.

Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time:Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes,35(2), 135–198.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 at a Glance, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095298-en

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choicein the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915.

Plessas, G., & Oakes, C. (1978). Prereading experiences of selected early readers. The ReadingTeacher, 17(4), 241–245.

Powell-Brown, A. (2003/2004). Can you be a teacher of literacy if you don’t love to read? Journalof Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(4), 284–288.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.) New York, NY: Modern LanguageAssociation (originally published in 1938).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014

www.arts.gov

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095298-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095298-en


Ruddell, R. B. (1997). Researching the influential literacy teacher: Characteristics, beliefs, strate-gies, and new research directions. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models andprocesses of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Scharer, P. L., Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader.Educational Leadership, 63(2), 24–29.

Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Moller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation andtheir relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427–463.

Sweet, A., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and students’ reading motivations.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 210–223.

Turgut, G. (2013). International tests and the U.S. educational reforms: Can success be replicated?Clearing House, 86(2), 64–73.

Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2008). How does motivation develop and why does it change?: Reframingmotivation research. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 119–131.

Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, socialrelationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 331–349.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amountand breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.

Appendix A: Study Questionnaire

A. Class Level (Circle One) Freshman Sophomore Junior SeniorB. Your Major: __________________________

If your major is Education, please complete items C through EIf your major is not Education, please proceed to Item # 1.

C. Circle the item that best describes the focus of your program of study:Elementary Education Special Education Early Childhood

Education Middle School Education Secondary EducationDual Certification (if dual, please circle both cert programs above)

D. When you consider your career as a teacher, which of the following professionalsituations appeals most to you?

Regular education Special EducationE. Which of the following grade levels would you prefer to teach?

Kg-1st 2nd-4th 5th-6th 7th-8th Secondary school========================================

1. What reading did you do this past summer? Are there any titles or authors that you canrecall? In general, what did you read for recreation?

2. When you think of yourself overall as a reader, how much enjoyment do you associatewith reading? What reason(s) do you have for responding in this way?

3. When you consider the instruction in reading that you received in school, how wouldyou rate the emphasis that was placed upon each of the following:

Scale

5—strong emphasis 4—considerable emphasis 3—some emphasis2—little emphasis 1—no emphasis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


ElementarySchool High School

Remembering the details of what you read 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

Your reaction to or interpretation of what you read 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

Discussing your reactions with classmates or teachers 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

Completing assignments or reports on what you read 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

4. When you consider your early elementary school reading experiences with learning toread, do you recall them as primarily positive, negative or neutral? Why?

5. Did your experiences with reading at home differ from your experiences at school? Ifso, how?

6. Were any of your teachers effective in sharing with you a love of reading? If so, how didthey do this?

7. When you consider your college level reading experiences, do you see them as primarilypositive, negative or neutral? Why?

Appendix B: Scoring Rubric for the Assessment Measure

The authors quantified the responses of respondents according to the following scale:

A. Summer reading activity1– did no reading during the past summer2– read only newspapers or magazines3– were in the midst of reading a book4– completed one book5– read several books

B. Level of enjoyment associated with reading (Both studies)1– Unwilling: associate no enjoyment with reading2– Reluctant: associate little enjoyment with reading3– Lukewarm: reading is “OK” but they do not do it regularly;

or “like reading” but did not engage in it over the summer4– Focused: like reading, engaged in it, but qualified the types and/or genres that they

read5– Appreciative: find reading enjoyable and rewarding and read regularly6– Engaged & Avid: tend to read widely in a variety of genres and topics

C. Characteristics of elementary & high school reading instruction1– no emphasis2– little emphasis3– some emphasis4– considerable emphasis5– great deal of emphasis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014


D. Elementary school experiences with reading1– negative2– neutral3– positive

E. Experiences at home with reading1– different- home more negative than school2– same – both home & school negative3– same – both home & school neutral4– same – both home & school positive5– different – home more positive than school

F. College level reading experiences1– negative2– neutral3– positive

G. Teachers share a love of reading1– Yes with identification of teachers2– Yes but in general3– No

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

3:06

23

Aug

ust 2

014

the peter effect revisited: reading habits and attitudes of college students

Documents