'{€“:‘:'1J" '4."

 

m~

.>...H‘.. :4.“ ’5‘ - I”...
My...“ ._ ”V’YH: ’ I

..‘,-',

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

llllllllllllllllllllHlllIllllllllllllHlllllllHlllllUlllll L

31293 00779 5416 j

A

r T ‘1
LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Toward a Definition of Aliteracy
among Community College Students

presented by

Raelyn Agustin Joyce

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. English

degree in

 

 

WM 4/ KM

Major professor

Date 30 ”744/! /7&//
, \j 7

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

... 1/“ ‘
" . I ..’
f i/ ‘l ' .
V ’ \ ‘

”>5

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

DEC 9 0 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
c:\clrc\datndue.pm3—p.1

 

TOWARD A DEFINITION OF ALITERACY
AMONG COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS

BY

Raelyn Agustin Joyce

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1991

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII------—-———————————‘

 

 

~1‘7’/5

675%“

 

ABSTRACT

TOWARD A DEFINITION OF ALITERACY
AMONG COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS

BY

Raelyn Agustin Joyce

A survey of the literature on aliteracy demonstrates
the need to define the term precisely. Much of the litera-
ture laments the "problem" of aliteracy without explaining
what it is and without citing evidence that it exists. The
aims of this study were to define and explicate aliteracy;
to determine the accuracy of claims that aliteracy is
widespread; to find out to what extent aliteracy exists
among community college students; and to explain the impli—
cations of alitercy in the light of new, comprehensive
definitions of literacy.

To explicate aliteracy, I reviewed the literature on
literacy, literacy instruction, aliteracy, and topics
related to aliteracy (e.g., reading reluctance). Using
questionnaires, I conducted a survey of students at Kalama-
zoo Valley Community College (KVCC) and interviewed nine
students who through their answers showed aliterate tend-
encies.

Defined as a condition of having skills in reading but

not utilizing these skills, aliteracy, like literacy,

 

 

 

needs to be viewed as a complex, multi-dimensional, and
contextual phenomenon. It represents a pattern of thinking
and behaving towards print. Aliteracy is a continuum,
involving these components: attitude toward reading, read-
ing behavior, types of text read, motivations for reading,
intensity of motivations for reading, and reading ability.
These components, each a continuum, interact with each
other to form a configuration that may be highly individu-
al, leading to the conclusion that there are many types of
aliteracy.

The results of the survey suggest that the KVCC sample
is similar to the American adult population: a very high
percentage read newspapers, magazines, 9; books, but almost
half of the sample did not read books and showed aliterate
characteristics (they tended to have a negative attitude
toward reading, read less, read fewer types of texts, have
fewer motivations for reading, have lower intensity of
motivations for reading, and have lower self-perceived
reading ability.) A conclusion of the study is that stu—
dents who showed aliterate characteristics yieg§g_th§m;
§§IX§§ as people who did pg; like to read, especially
DQQKfi, and as people who avoided reading. Their negative
view of reading and poor perception of themselves as read-

ers seemed to have come from school reading experiences.

g':;-,.=_ .>.,_(1. ‘

 

Cc

19

 

Copyright by
RAELYN AGUSTIN JOYCE
1 9 9 1

 

 

 

To my mother, Efigenia Soriano Agustin (1900— ), an
untiring reader and writer.

Since she learned to read and write (from the first
wave of American teachers who went to the Philippines in
the start of this century ), her literacy has been her
hallmark. She became a teacher after only seven years of
formal schooling and received commendations for her exem-
plary teaching.

She became a mother of eleven children. Her days were
arduous as she helped earn a living for her family. But
her nights were devoted to Bible—reading, meditation and
learning. As her youngest child, I have vivid memories of
her reading and writing by kerosene light at all hours of
the night, to wake up before we did at dawn to start
another busy day.

She had a dream that each of her children would re-
ceive the education that she didn’t have. On behalf of her
children, all of whom have earned college degrees, I thank
her for her dream. Without her groundwork, this disserta—
tion could never have been written.

 

""1ch

(D ‘1‘ III‘ 1 I1 II- ] . I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the many people who have con—
tributed to the writing of this dissertation:

President Marilyn Schlack, Vice President Helen
McCauslin, and Dean Betty Chang and others at Kalamazoo
Valley Community College for their encouragement and sup—
port of my work.

The instructors at Kalamazoo Valley Community College
who invited me into their classes and allowed me to admin-
ister the survey to their students: Pat Baker, Marlin
Gerber, Robert Haight, Doug Howe, Nick Meier, Sadie Miles,
Julie Moulds, Natalie Patchell, and Dick Phillips.

The students at Kalamazoo Valley Community College for
participating in the study. I especially want to thank the
nine students who, in willingly talking about their lives
as readers, helped me understand the nature of aliteracy.

Keith Kroll and Ellen Brinkley for the rides, the
conversations, the faith, and the fun that we shared.

The members of my guidance committee: Professors
Stephen Tchudi (chair), Diane Brunner, Sheila Fitzgerald,
and Marilyn Wilson-—not just for the helpful comments on
the dissertation but also for the support and encouragement
they have given me as a doctoral student. My special
thanks to Steve Tchudi, whose manifold talents as teacher,
scholar, researcher, and editor have inspired me and made
possible the speedy completion of this dissertation. His
interest and confidence in my work has meant much to me.

Finally, my family——my husband Dick and children
Rebecca and Andrew for their love and support. Dick has
helped in countless ways. His unfailing patience and
willingness to help at all times has sustained me through-
out the writing of this dissertation.

vi

 

 

 

 

 

LIS'.
LIS'.

CHA]

CHAI

CHAI

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . .

General Statement of Purpose . . . . . . .
Background and Rationale . . . . . . .
~Rationale for Defining "Aliteracy“ and
other Related Terms . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . .
Organization of the Study . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER II - LITERACY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP
TO ALITERACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

raLiteracy: Multiple Meanings . . . . . . .

.Promotion of Basic Literacy: Consequences

.Literacy and Schooling . . . . . . . . . .
‘CHAPTER III — REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . .

”Literature on Reading Reluctance . . . . .

:Literature on Aliteracy . . . . . . . . . .
'Attitudes toward Reading . . . . . . . . .
Reading Habits and Readership Surveys . . .

The Extent of Aliteracy in Society . . . .
Indicators of Aliteracy . .
Reading Attitude and Reading Behavior
Book Reading . . . . . . . . . . .
Range of Texts Read . . . . . .
Range and Intensity of Motivations
for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reading Ability . . . . . . . . . . .
Gender . . . . . . . .
Reading in Relation to other
Activities . . . .
Toward a Comprehensive Definition of
Aliteracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

xi

P‘H

H
OKDWU

 

CHAPT]

CHAPT

CHAP'I

 

 

CHAPTER IV - METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Rationale for Survey and Interviews .
Research Methodology Assumptions . . . . . . . 85
Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Selection of Subjects . . .

. . . . . . . . . . 87
Pilot study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Construction of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 89
Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Answering the Research Questions . . . . . . 95

CHAPTER V - INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Profiles of Nine Students . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Bob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Sue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Ann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Ruth . . . . . . . .
Joe . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . 112

Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Keith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Students’ Perceptions of Themselves as
Readers . . . . . . . . . 128
Students’ Views of Book Reading . . . . . 128
School Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Home Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Reading Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Reasons for Reading . . . . . . . . 130
Students’ Attitudes Toward Their Reading
Habits . . . . . . . . . . . 131

CHAPTER VI - ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . .

Aliteracy in American Society . . . . . . . 132
Aliteracy among Kalamazoo Valley Community

College Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Reading Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Non-Book Reading . . . . . . 137

The Nature of Aliteracy Among KVCC Students .
Students’ Perceptions of the Influences on
Their Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

O 138

Home Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
School Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Reading Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Gender as a Predictor of Aliteracy . . . . . . 156
Reasons for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Types of Texts Read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

 

 

Reading Ability

Multi-dimensional Nature of Aliteracy .

CHAPTER VII - CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Popular Beliefs about Aliteracy versus
Findings of the Study

Recommendations for Educators and
Implications for Classroom Teaching
Future Research . .

APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B:

LIST OF REFERENCES

ix

0

The Survey Questionnaire

0

Approval for Human Subjects Research

164
168

173 '

174

197
211

215
222

223

 

 

Talc

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES-

Table Page
1 Reasons for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

2 Positive and Negative Influences on Reading
Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

3 Liking to Read vs. Reading for Enjoyment . . . 155

 

Figl

 

igure
1

2

10

11

LIST OF FIGURES

Comparison of BISG and KVCC Results

Attitudes toward Reading . . . . . .

Types of Texts Read

Variety of Motivations

o o o o o o o

Intensity of Motivations . . . . . .

Self-Perceived Reading Ability . . .

Gender and Reading Behavior . . .

Gender and Attitude Toward Reading .

Overlapping Components of Aliteracy

Components of Literacy and Aliteracy .

"A Vicious Circle: Nonreaders produce

nonreaders"

Page
136
139
140
141
142
143
157
158
179

188

203

 

 

 

ex
11
de
mi
ri

CC

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

eral Statement of Purpose

In this dissertation, my goal is to clarify and
licate the concept of aliteracy through a review of the
erature and through a study of community college stu-
ts. More specifically, I will develop an extended defi-
ion of aliteracy, identifying its indicators and catego-
s. I will determine if aliteracy exists among community
lege students and, if it does, to what extent. Final-

I will discuss the significance and implications of
teracy in relation to new, comprehensive definitions of

eracy.
(ground and Rationale

The motivation for this study grew from comments I
a received from community college students in children’s
arature classes over a period of seven years. Asked to
30nd to a local newspaper editorial contrasting illit-

:y and aliteracy (the latter defined as having the

 

 

 

ab.
ve:
tit
as
re
th
ha
ot
of
a1

te

3i

tlity to read but choosing not to), students have re-
iled in journals, in class discussions, or in conversa-
>ns with me that they do not like to read. Comments such
"I never read unless I have to." or "Reading has never
ally interested me." are typically voiced by about a
ird of the students in each children’s literature class I
ve taught. One student remarked that she was jealous of
her students in the class who talked about the pleasures

reading because she herself had never felt any. Almost
1 of these students had never before encountered the
:rm, but many of them have admitted that "aliterate"
>plies to them.

Although they are too new to be in the dictionary, the
irds "aliterate" and "aliteracy" are increasingly being
:ed not just in the professional literature but in the
ipular media as well. Only a handful of sources have
itually used these terms, but a greater number have cited

.e problem of people who can read but don’t, using such

tbels as "reluctant reader," "non-reader," "illiterate
iterate," "literate non—reader," or "non-reading
iterate." Similarly, many policy and curriculum state-

‘nts on the teaching of reading have stressed the promo-
lon of life-long reading habits and the encouragement of
creational reading. The National Academy of Education
mmission on Reading (1985), for instance, states: "In-

easing the proportion of children who read widely and

 

 

re.

WI.

tht

:h evident satisfaction ought to be as much a goal of
struction as increasing the number who are competent
aders" (p. 15). Likewise, Thomas and Loring (1979)
ite, “True accountability in education . . . mandates
e development of students who not only can read, but who
e willing to read widely because they value reading as a

sitive and worthwhile process" (p. xi).

tionale for Defining "Aliteracy" and other Related Terms

It is fairly common to hear remarks that vast numbers
"illiterates" exist in America. But we need to ask:
at do these numbers mean? How do we define "illiterate"
’"literate"? Many scholars have noted the elasticity of
Le word "literate." Hillerich, for instance, observes
at
literate has no universally accepted defi—
nition. It may refer to degrees of proficiency
with print, ranging from the formation of a
personal signature to the interpretation of a
written passage; or it may reflect no proficiency
at all, representing nothing more than a duration
of time spent in a building called ’school.’
(1976, p. 50)
llerich also cites the contradictory meanings behind the
lliteracy" figures. UNESCO, for example, in 1965, re-
rted that 50 percent of the world’s population had been
assified "illiterate." "Illiteracy" in these figures,
#5 Hillerich, "may mean anything from one who has 3g

rmal schooling, to one who has attended four years or

as, to one who is unable to read or write at a level

 

 

 

 

ne

di
ab
ci
te
th
at
di
11'
de
Le
he
vi

CE

ea
he

CE

 

essary to perform successfully in his social position"
51).

This proliferation of meanings stems in part from the
fferent standards used in measuring literacy (e.g.,
Llity to sign one’s name, time spent in school or profi-
ancy with print). Another source of confusion is the
idency to interpret "literacy" as a dichotomy, following
a simple dictionary definition of "literacy" as the basic
ility to read and write. The tendency to view literacy as
:hotomous has persisted, even after the term "functional
teracy" was introduced to define more precisely the
gree of literacy needed for functioning in society.
vine (1982) points out that "literate" and "illiterate"

ve been used to make inaccurate distinctions about indi-

l
‘ual abilities. A flagrant example of the confusion

sed by the use of these terms occurs in the title of a
ular book, Kozol's Illiterate America (1985). In an
lier book, Prisoners of Silence (1980), which did not
e as dramatic an impact as Illiterate America, Kozol
efully explains the difficulties of trying to measure
1t literacy. He questions, for instance, the use of
de levels as a yardstick, saying that nobody knows
ctly what a grade level means; if grade levels were
ived from tests, we need to know which test, where it
k place, who took it, and what it tested. In his later

k, he is considerably less precise in his use of the

 

 

 

:m "illiterate," giving it a range of meanings. He ex—
ains that he uses "illiterate" to refer to those who
:arcely read at all,“ and "semiliterate" to those "whose
ading levels are unequal to societal demands." However,
writes: ". . . for the sake of unencumbered prose, I
ll combine both categories in the single phrase 'Illiter-
e America.’ This does not indicate a loss of recognition
the spectrum that extends from the marginal ability to
he at all" (p. 11). Taking this eye-catching but inaccu-
te label "illiterate," he stamps it on 60 million people,
presenting more than one-third of the entire adult popu-
tion (p. 4). The problem is that, faced with this title,
suspecting readers would interpret "illiterate" as the
ability to read and write, according to the common dic—
pnary definition, and fail to see the "spectrum" that
01 has intended to convey.

Still another source of confusion is the way in which
literate" has been used to refer to lack of interest in
ding or to a decline in book reading. Jacobs’ speech
aders--an Endangered Species? A Shamefully Illiterate
iety" (1985) offers an example. The speech is not about
iety’s inability to read and write or about illiteracy,
stated in the title. The speech is mainly about people

"have no will to read" or who "have no will to read
ks" (these two notions are used interchangeably in the

ech).

 

 

 

rem
3Y1
We]

we:

Who
mean

thes

Tchudi (1980) depicts the confusion surrounding the
:ept of literacy in describing the future of Johnny and
a, "the anti-heroes of every newspaper or magazine arti-
on literacy" (1980, p. xii):
If Johnny and Jane pursue the traditional
track through the schools (and college), their
story will pretty much end here. After their
last diploma, their bout with literacy will be
over: No more grammar, no more books, no more
teachers’ linguistic hooks. They will settle
into suburbia and watch a lot of TV. They will
never touch a pencil except to write a grocery
list and never pick up a book unless it has
already been on TV. They will raise kids, and
sooner or later, somebody will say of those kids,
"What’s the matter with them? They can’t even
read and write! (p. 74)
Johnny and Jane (and their kids) 1111LSLQLE, minimally
rate, or aliterate? Tchudi draws attention to socie-

inability to make clear distinctions between these
215. To cite still another example, is Mrs. George
’5 widely heralded pet project as First Lady truly a
sign to "erase illiteracy," as it has been referred to
1e popular press? Or is her real goal in promoting the
ing of children’s books the reduction of aliteracy?
tiling to see the distinctions between these concepts,
1y fail to understand the true nature of the problems
Lce .

On the surface, the relatively small number of writers
lave used "aliteracy" seem to agree on the general

ng. But a closer look at the ways in which they use

terms would reveal some obfuscation. A publication

 

 

 

enti
mesc
alit
"ali
who
latt
be I
not
read
sper
rela
say

amou

has

inst
ing

GViC
Equa
tior
Paps
read

tYpe

ate ’

legs

itled Aliteracy; People Who Can Read But Won’t (Thim-
ch, 1984), which came out after a 1982 conference on

teracy in Washington D.C., gives two definitions for

iterates": "people who can read but won't" and "people
can read but don’t." The former involves attitude; the
ter implies behavior. While attitude and behavior may

related, it is important to recognize that the two are

the same. People who have negative attitudes toward
ding and who say they don’t like to read may actually
nd a considerable amount of time on school- or job-
ited reading. Conversely, people who like to read (or
that they like to read) may actually spend a negligible
int of time reading.

The tendency to equate aliteracy with non-book reading
also been apparent in the literature on aliteracy. For
:ance, Mikulecky, Shanklin, and Caverley (1979), point-
to aliteracy as the real problem in America, use as
ience figures showing a low amount of book reading.
iting aliteracy with non-book reading raises the ques-
l of what the role of other types of material--news—
:rs, magazines, and documents--is in literacy and why
Ling of books is privileged over the reading of other
5 of text. .

Because of the heavy stigma associated with "illiter-
" Robinson cautions us from using it loosely and care-

1Y to label people (1990, p. 13). The same can be

 

 

 

 

Sdi(
thai
try‘
con:
ate:
Lab:
con:
our

must

be

real

the

bECl

tion

are

Ser;

den-

thi:

d about aliteracy. It has been called a “menace" worse
n illiteracy, which "is all but wiped out in our coun-
" (Thimmesch, p. 31). A participant in the aliteracy
ference I had previously mentioned refers to the aliter—
s and illiterates as occupants of the "social basement."
sling and, worse, mislabeling have serious and damaging
sequences. For this reason alone, we must be precise in

definitions of "illiterate" and "aliterate," and we
t exercise great care in how we use them.

A comprehensive and clear definition of aliteracy will
useful to educators. It will help clarify goals for
ding instruction and help teachers better understand

problems they face as they help students of all ages

)me successful readers.

aarch Questions

This study will attempt to answer the following ques—
is:

1. What is aliteracy? How should it be defined? What
its indicators and categories?

2. To what extent are claims about aliteracy and its
ousness as a societal problem accurate?

3. Does aliteracy exist among community college stu-
5? If it does, to what degree? What is the nature of

aliteracy?

 

 

 

9

4. In the light of new, comprehensive definitions of
'\

iteracy, what are the implications of aliteracy?

.mitations of the Study

The study has the following limitations:

1. The survey of community college students elicited
udents’ reports of their reading habits, attitudes, and
itivations. Since reading is perceived as a desirable
tivity in this society, the tendency to exaggerate read-
g activity or report attitudes more favorable than they
tually are is inherent in studies of this type. In this
udy, it was virtually impossible to find out if and to
at extent overstatement occurred because reading behavior
5 not observed directly.

2. The interview procedure that I used in this study
5 certain features, one of which is inherent in qualita-
Je research and others of which may be unique to the
asent study. One feature that is inherent in qualitative
search is allowing free and spontaneous interactions
:ween the interviewer and the interviewees in order to
'sue questions and explore issues as deeply as possible.
use of this approach created the possibility that during
2 interviews the interviewees might have changed their
.ponses as a result of the interaction. However, this

dy is unlike other forms of qualitative or ethnographic

LN

 

 

i"

 

rese
ipar
view
repc
each
amou

the

thei

exam
tior
rev
tOpi

read

inte
COmm

Sign

10

earch in that it did not include observations of partic-
nts in natural settings. I conducted in-depth inter-
ws with participants in different school settings and
orted on the results of the interviews by summarizing
h interview. The length of the summary varied with the
unt of information that I received and my judgment of
relevance of the information to the research questions.

3. In the survey the students are asked to report on
ir perceptions of the origins of their reading attitudes
habits. In presenting and interpreting the findings, I
not intend to reach conclusions about the causes and
acts of aliteracy. However, I consider their answers
[estive of causes and effects especially in the context
)bservations and conclusions made by educators about

Leracy as a problem.

nization of the Study

This study consists of several stages. In Chapter 2, I
ine literacy as a concept and explore its many defini-
15 from a historical perspective. In Chapter 3, I
Lew the literature on aliteracy and related
cs--reluctant readers, reading habits, and reports on
ership surveys. I describe the methodology in Chapter
nd, in Chapters 5 and 6, I present the results of the
rviews and survey that I conducted at Kalamazoo Valley
inity College (KVCC). Finally, I discuss the conclu—

5 and implications of the findings in Chapter 7.

 

 

for
Fir
lit
or

edu
def
the

ing

witl
prei
defi
and
ate
Pres
Char
hist
supp

€th

 

CHAPTER 2

LITERACY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ALITERACY

A broad understanding of literacy is important in
ulating a definition of aliteracy for many reasons.
t, as a historical exploration of literacy would show,
racy has received many different definitions. Whether
ot and to what extent we see aliteracy as a personal,
:ational, and societal problem, would depend on our
nition of literacy. Second, the ambiguity surrounding
term "literacy" has added to the difficulty of develop-
a precise meaning for aliteracy. Related concepts such
lliteracy and functional illiteracy have been confused
aliteracy. Educators need to have a fuller and more
ise understanding of literacy in order to develop a
ition of aliteracy. Third, understanding how literacy
iteracy instruction have evolved would help us evalu-
he state of literacy and literacy instruction in the
nt. As Tuman points out, "We may not be able to
e any of these conditions readily, but without the
ical understanding of them we can hardly know what to
t and what to oppose when contending factors clash,

proclaiming itself to be the champion of literacy"

 

 

 

am
32!
CO]
ed<
get
em

int

 

12

man, 1987, p. 172). Further, it is important to consid-
new perspectives on literacy and their implications for
structing a definition of aliteracy. Research in commu-
tion, cognitive development, linguistics, and anthro-
gy have contributed insights and perspectives on how
'viduals read, write, learn, and communicate. Paris and
on (1987) have noted the diversity of this "explosion
esearch" and the difficulty of integrating the find-
. Nevertheless, the perspectives generated by this

arch are crucial to our understanding of aliteracy.

:racy: Multiple Meanings

A historical exploration of literacy will reveal the
‘ meanings that it has had in the last two centuries.
racy scholars and historians have stressed the impor-
e of an adequate historical understanding of literacy.

range of meanings attaching themselves to the term

   

rac and to the related terms literate and

   
 
 
   
 
  
  
  

erate is at once an interesting semantic phenomenon
barrier to clear thinking about the topic," (1987, p.
Robinson notes. That literacy and literacy education
nd a high priority in this society is common knowl-

However, as Tuman points out, "While there may be
al support for literacy education today, it is never
ely certain what is being supported" (1987, p. 169).

raff (1987) writes: “Modern societies tend to show

 

 

 

ti
re
67
1e

Cl

iii
no
En
me
"L
to

 

13

he importance of literacy without defining or understand-
ng it. Consequently, literacy by itself is over valued and
aken out of meaningful contexts, creating pressures that
ncrease the difficulties of learning useful skills" (p.
3).
"Literacy" is a relatively recent word. The first use
the word cited in the Oxford English Dictionary came
cm a work published in the 18805 (Ohmann, 1985). Howev-
, the adjectives "literate" and "illiterate" have been
.ound longer. Before the nineteenth century, "literate"
aant "Acquainted with letters; educated, learned";
.lliterate" meant "Ignorant of letters or literature:
thout education" (Oxford English Dictionary). The adjec-
ves did not indicate "a line that divided those who could
ad and write from those who could not" (Ohmann, 1985, p.
5). The noun "illiteracy," which meant "ignorance of
tters; absence of education,“ was in use before "litera-
.n
In tracing the history of the usages of "literacy,"
liams (1977) explains that "literate" was an adjective
mally associated with "literature," which came into the
lish language from French and Latin (Latin "littera"
nt letter of the alphabet) in the fourteenth century.
tterature" meant “a condition of reading: of being able

read and of having read" (p. 46). This meaning is

 

 

cloe
atuz
defi

poli

in t
with
teac
Fass

Amer:

read

aPpli
SUPP<
liter
new 1
have

did r
therm
readi

°°pyi

 

14

se to the modern sense of literacy. Further, "liter—
re" was not limited to imaginative works, as it is
ined today, but included historical, philosophical,
itical, and scientific works.

(Ohmann (1985) contends that the influx of immigrants
he later part of the nineteenth century and the concern

finding a way of educating them led to an emphasis in
hing the rudimentary skills in reading and writing.

(1989) describes the education of the majority of
.icans in the nineteenth century:

'Except for the extremes of those who received no
schooling and the very few for whom schooling was

a fundamental part of professional training or an
expression of elite status, the large majority of
Americans received little more than the fundamen-

tals of literacy and the rudiments of what was
believed neceSsary to the exercise of responsible
citizenship. (pp. 40-41)

Thus, from its earliest known meaning of being widely
and being civilized, a standard of literacy that was
ied only to a limited elite, whose culture valued and
orted wide reading (Goodlad, 1984: Graff, 1987),
racy by the end of nineteenth century had developed a
eaning. It became a word used to separate those who
the basic skills of reading and writing from those who
ot; literacy became dichotomous (Graff, 1979). Fur-
ore, as taught in the schools, reading meant the oral

ng of a simple, familiar passage and writing meant

ng (Langer, 1987, p. 1).

 

 

sr
cc
me
sc
2a
1e
bu
an

th

Co

of

th

in

 

15

Historians like Gerald Graff (1987) explain that a
it in thinking toward reading, especially the reading of

arature, occurred in this country in the late nineteenth

:ury. According to Graff:

. . . the idea had hardly arisen that the litera-
ture of one’s own language needed to be taught in
formal classes instead of being enjoyed as part
of the normal experience of the community.
Literary culture was already a flourishing part
of the extracurricular life of the college and
the general community. College and town literary
and debating societies, college debating clubs,
student literary magazines, undergraduate prize
competitions, and frequent public lectures and
reading constituted an informal literary educa-
tion of impressive proportions. (p. 19)

Graff describes the advent of literature as a college
ect, saying that it "coincided with the collapse of the
unal literary culture and the corresponding estrange-

of literature from its earlier functions in polite

ty, where it had been an essential element of sociali-

on" (p. 20). The educated class, with its wealth,

re time, and culture, was gradually displaced by the

ess and industry—dominated class, which wielded more

ore political power. Hence, the literary values of
lite class became less and less tacitly shared.
Robinson (1985) comments on the way "literature" has
to mean "a set of procedures for interpreting a body
ecially privileged texts" and "the specialization of
oncept of reading to the narrower professional activi-
criticism, a shift from reading as learning to read-

s the exercise of taste and sensibility" (p. 489).

 

 

 

 

t:

11

fc

 

16

ccording to Robinson, "it is literacy thus defined that
nglish departments strive most energetically to institu-
ionalize" (p. 484). (Chambers [1969, 1983] and other
ducators have reasoned that literary criticism as taught
n many English classes does not promote interest in the
aading of literature and in reading as an activity.)

The methods used in teaching literature in the nine—
aenth century colleges probably did not encourage stu-
ants to read on their own. It was taught with methods
:ed in teaching the classics: through recitation and as a
:01 for teaching such subjects as grammar, rhetoric,
igic, and elocution. Graff also reports that in the
lleges of the 18005, authorities discouraged the reading

books because they "feared that reading too many books
uld only encourage student unorthodoxy" and "create
nfusion in the students’ minds" (p. 27). Instead, the
e of a single textbook was promoted. Although oral
:itation is no longer the today’s dominant mode of teach-
; literature, it is enlightening to learn where the
masis on a single textbook or a reader could be traced
1m. One thing is certain: the instructional practices of

1800s in no way stressed voluntary or recreational
ding.

In his study of literacy in the nineteenth century,
ald Graff (1977) notes that commentators of that period

1d members of the middle and lower classes guilty of not

 

17

lizing their reading skills in much the same way that
terates are faulted today.
Despite the literacy claimed by members of

the society, commentators concluded that in

practice literacy was insufficiently used. Its

value was barely recognized; available time for
reading was not seized. Individuals, it was felt

need to be told to read, told how to read, and

told why to read. (p. 294)

As Graff has maintained, the influences of the old
leges of the 18005 are evident in the curriculum and
agogy of our schools today. The subsequent alienation of
dents from literature, Graff charges, "was in some
:ee a result of the system’s failure to make the rituals
the intellectual life intelligible to those who did not
aady presuppose them" (p. 108). Graff finds support in
lolph Bourne who argues that “the old college education
for a limited and homogeneous class. It presupposed

al and intellectual backgrounds which the great majori-

f students today do not possess." Bourne also reasons

. . . the idea of studying things "for their own
sake," without utilitarian bearing, is seductive

but implies a society where the ground had been
prepared in childhood and youth through family

and environmental influences. (p. 108)

In their historical exploration of literacy, Resnick
esnick trace the influence in American education of
d5 of teaching reading in nineteenth century Europe.
sing Protestant-religious instruction at first and

eventually civic-mindedness, these methods had as

 

 

 

 

eir goals the "the mastery of a very limited set of
escribed texts" and the development of "fluent oral
ders" (1977, p. 382). With the rise of child-centered
cries of teaching, stressing "the importance of intrin—

interest and meaningfulness in learning and the intro—
tion of standardized group testing during World War I"

381), a new standard of literacy emerged--the ability
understand an unfamiliar text through silent reading
:her than simply declaim a familiar one.

According to Tuman, the teaching of reading as a
ent activity was a major educational innovation. Tests
:d to determine how well students were reading were
eloped in response to it. With the growing influence
science in education, written standardized tests started
be used, beginning with the first intelligence test
n to army recruits in World War I (Resnick and Resnick,
; Applebee, 1974). In 1918, a general intelligence

given to army recruits used two forms: the Alpha for
recruits who could read English and the Beta for those
could not. Of those given the Alpha, it was found that
ercent could not read well enough to understand the
, a finding which alerted people to defects in the
ing instruction. This led to the growth in the 19205
raded and standardized achievement testing. The first

ardized reading achievement test, the Courtis’ stand-

zed silent reading test, appeared in 1915. This and

 

 

 

 

a:

st

qe
ef
li
re
9a
st

19

ither achievement tests that followed were never validated,
[Dd examinations of them revealed significant anomalies
Applebee, 1974, pp. 90-91); however, they formed a part of
L testing movement that has remained strong until the
iresent.

Graff, Applebee, and other historians help us see the
rigins of some of the teaching practices that have become
nstitutionalized in our schools. Graff laments the way in
hich, throughout the history of literary instruction,
edagogical approaches have continued to exist long after
he cultural and social reasons for using them have disap-

eared. In Chapter 3, I cite the numerous literacy schol-

 

rs and educators who suggest that such practices may harm
:udents, making them unwilling readers.

As Resnick and Resnick explain, we have seen a
>attern of rising literacy expectations," starting with a
eneral population that could not read, to a mass literacy
‘fort to produce readers who had oral mastery of a very
mited set of prescribed texts through oral reading and
citation, to a goal of silent reading for the purpose of
ining information applied to the entire population of
idents in this century. Resnick and Resnick contend that

. . . this high literacy standard is a relatively

recent one as applied to the population at large
and that much of our present difficulty in meet—
ing the literacy standards we are setting for
ourselves can be attributed to the relatively

rapid extension to large populations of educa—
tional criteria that were once applied only to a

 

 

 

20

limited elite. The result of this rapid expansion
is that instructional methods suitable to large
and diverse populations, rather than small and
selected ones have not yet been fully developed
or applied. Further, not all segments of our
population have come to demand literacy skills of
the kind that educators, members of Congress, and

other government officials think necessary. (p.
375)

'he new literacy standard based on silent reading empha-
.ized private meaning and gaining new knowledge. With this

ew concept of reading as a silent activity came the empha—

is on measuring how well people read. After several

ecades of preoccupation with testing reading ability and

erformance, we have started to express concern about

hether people actually use their reading ability. Whereas
reviously we might have simply assumed and hoped that

aople who learned to read would use that ability, now we

re starting to turn that assumption and hope into a stated
rpectation or even a standard of performance.

Note, for instance, the following statements made in

e last decade by literacy scholars. Writing about adult

teracy, Harman (1989) comments:

An aspect of literacy that has perhaps not
been adequately emphasized is that literacy
skills are only as valuable as the uses to which
they are put. Universal literacy--itself an
elusive goal--is not equivalent to universal
reading. Unapplied and unutilized literacy
abilities alone have no intrinsic value. . . .

Policy, programs. and research should all
begin grappling with the fundamental issue of
literacy activity, in addition to their preoccu-
pation with illiteracy. (pp. 99-100)

milarly, Guthrie and Seifert (1983) write:

 

 

21

A certain achievement implies that a student
has the capability for understanding certain
types of material. The student has potential for
learning, but these achievements do not imply
action. A high score on a test or a high measure
of reading ability neither guarantees nor pre-
vents the student from engaging in reading activ-
ities that will lead to knowledge, self—
awareness, or respite from daily tensions.
Although most educators honestly assume and
fervently hope that achievement will lead to
good ends, the real point of teaching is action.
Merely to endow students with a potential that is
never realized would be a profound error. (p.
499)

thrie and Seifert (1984) reason that "an underrated,
:entially fruitful criterion of education is readership."

Having attended an institution in which
learning to read is the central mission, do
students continue reading for social purposes
afterwards? A standard for teaching is that
graduates will not only acquire the capability to
read, but they will choose to read for psychologe
ical, political, occupational or domestic pur-
poses. (p. 57)

 

in (1984), likewise, describes the "literate person" as
. one who knows how to read, but one who reads: fluent-
responsibly, and critically, and because he wants to"
1). Further, the National Assessment of Educational
ess (1985) issues this statement:

If our schools are successful, students will
levelop the skills necessary to read a wide range
if materials. They will also develop the inter-

st and motivation to read frequently and widely
n their own. (p. 37)

rlish Coalition Conference in 1987 issued the follow-

tement:

at they [students] pe readers and writers,
Tividuals who find pleasure and satisfaction in

 

 

22

reading and writing and who make these activities

an important part of their everyday lives, volun—
tarily engaging in reading and writing for their
intrinsic social and personal values. (Lloyd-
Jones and Lunsford, 1989, p. 3)

According to Stanton (1968), "lifetime reading habits

e the utilitarian and recreational use of reading
roughout a person's life, with emphasis placed upon the
ea that these habits must play a dual role" (p. 38).
e expectation that students read for both utilitarian and
creational reasons and find pleasure and satisfaction in
ading and writing appears to be a part of the "pattern of
sing expectations." However, the fact that some educa-
s have articulated this expectation, even turned it into
olicy statement, does not mean that it is a value shared
roughout the educational system and the general public.
'haps with time it will become widely adopted and imple—
ted.

Many contemporary literacy scholars have elaborated on
definition of literacy as a cognitive ability. For
ance, Oxenham writes, "The most important use of lit—
y, perhaps the most unexpected to those who invented
ind, as we have seen, often the most neglected, is its
ion as a technology of the intellect. Literacy . . .
sen the major enabling technology in the development
ason, logic, systematic thinking and research"

.pp. 132). Likewise, Soltow and Stevens comment

teracy, by implication, is a "mind-expanding skill,

 

 

 

23

hat it is valuable in information processing and aids the
'ndividual in the making of decisions and the sharing of
ower" (1981, p. 7). The assumption that the acquisition
f literacy bestows cognitive or mind-expanding powers on
ndividuals has been questioned by some scholars. In their
tudy of literacy among the Vai people in Liberia, Scribner
nd Cole (1981) conclude that cognitive skills are not a
esult of literacy but of schooling. Pattison (1982) is
he of those who reason that the kind of literacy valued in
erican society, mechanical literacy, does not bring about
gnitive growth. He argues that "much of the concern about
'teracy in America grows out of a mistaken belief that
chanical literacy ought to complement the acquisition of
artain rational skills that make the good citizen, but the
,ct is that the mechanical habits of reading and writing
e not sufficient for the development of the critical
1d" (pp. 176-7). Langer (1987) conceives of literacy not
"the act of reading and writing" but "a yey of thinking
speaking." She explains,

Reading and writing as low level activities can
involve little literate thought, and using liter-

ate thinking skills when no reading and writing

has occurred may use a good deal of literate
thinking. It is the way of thinking, not just

the act of reading and writing that is at the

core of the development of literacy. (p. 3)
Current notions of literacy have been broadened to

de new technologies such as aural and electronic

They are not restricted to reading and writing or

 

 

ir
tl'.
we
la
re

fr

 

24

print. Langer calls literacy "a way of thinking, " and
ltung (1981) considers it a way of dealing "with words
a social setting, not merely to read and write them" (p.
0). Tchudi writes, "A more satisfactory coined term
ht condense ’language competency,’ including oral,
nt, and non-print forms to create ’languacy,’. . . . In

event, one can see that 'literacy’ can be defined only
only of one takes into account the broad functions of
guage in people’s lives" (1980, p. 15).

An important dimension has been added to the concept
literacy with the growth of ethnographic research on
racy. This is the View that literacy is a social and
ural construct that cannot be separated from the con-
t in which it exists. "Evidence from cross-cultural
earchers, anthropologists, and ethnographers remind us
literacy is not a set of decontextualized cognitive
ls," comment Paris and Wixson (1987, p. 45). And
2r writes, "The practices of literacy, what they are
hat they mean for a given society, depend on context.
are embedded in a cultural way of thinking and learn-
Id although they may appear stable in the short run,
re ever changing, reflecting the growing and changing
f thinking and doing enacted in the population at
(1987, p. 5). Heath (1985) has complained that
I has viewed context as a variable, and not as "the

>r learning, which it is" (p. 2). Heath (1980)

urs
ce}
use
ins
acq

ing

for
inv

pan

 

(Ka

rem

my,

 

 

 

25

gas researchers to recognize the complexity of the con—
pt of literacy, to devote attention to its functions and
es, and to understand that "literacy has different mean-
gs for members of different groups, with a variety of
quisition modes, functions, and uses" (p. 132). Comment—

on the value of Heath’s ethnographic research on lit-
cy, Bleich writes that Heath’s study "urges us to aban—

the idea of literacy as a trainable skill and to estab-
h the principle that attention to literacy in any of its
ects entails attention to the community, the culture,

the process of language acquisition" (Bleich, 1988, p.

In "The Ethnography of Literacy," Szwed (1981) argues
' the need to study contexts, maintaining that literacy
olves five elements: text, context, function, partici-

ts, and motivation. He says:

. . . what a school may define as reading may not
take account of what students read in various
contexts other than the classroom. A boy, other-
wise labeled as retarded and unable to read
assigned texts, may have considerable skill at
reading and interpreting baseball record books.
Or a student who shows little interest or apti-
tude for reading may read Jaws in study hall.
The definitions of reading and writing, then,
must include social context and function (use)
as well as the reader and the text of what is
being read or written. (pp. 304-5)

 

Literacy as a "life-long, developmental" process
remek, 1988, p. 480) has also gained recognition in
nt literacy studies. According to the National Acade-

f Education Commission on Reading (1985), "skilled

 

 

 

ar
ir
sc

1e

st
Ta
wh
da
er

SZ

Sci

ab

 

26

eading is a lifelong pursuit. Becoming a skilled reader
; a matter of continuous practice, development, and re-
.nement" (p. 18). Neilsen (1989) writes: "Literacy,
yond the rudimentary ability to encode and decode words
print, is a process of learning to participate fully in

cessary and personally important social, intellectual,

 

d political contexts. It is a lifelong process of learn-
to read and create contextual signs in print and in
iety. Literacy has many houses, each of which we can
rn to make our home" (p. 10).
The notion that "literacy has many houses“ or that it
a "plurality," consisting of "configurations," has
arted to receive wide support in literacy studies.
lor (1990) urges educators to study the actual ways in
ch they and their students use literacy in their every—
lives through literacy "digs." In this manner "lit-
cy configurations" of individuals can be explored.
ed (1981), likewise, writes:
Indeed, one might hypothesize the existence of

literacy-cycles or individual variations in
abilities and activities that are conditioned by

one’s stage and position in life. What I would
expect to discover, then, is not a single-level
of literacy on a single continuum from reader to
non-reader, but a variety of configurations of

literacy, a plurality of literacies. (p. 305)

Langer (1987) notes the changes that definitions of
ol-based literacy have gone through, starting with "the

ity to read a simple, familiar passage aloud, to the

 

 

at
th
mi
an
"f
re
sc
Na
li
ri
en
313
SF
si
in

C0

pu
er
Cy
th
ta

an

fr

27

ability to answer literal questions about the passage, to
the understanding of word and sentence meaning in an unfa—
miliar text-~a progression from rote to functional perform-
ance . . . " (p. 1). She adds that, while in the 19705,
'functional literacy, the ability to participate in the
:eading and writing demands of everyday living in modern
:ociety, was considered essential," in 1986, when the

rational Assessment of Educational Progress undertook a

 

iteracy survey of young adults, aged 21 to 25, the crite-
ia for literacy Changed again--"not as a set of independ-
nt skills associated with reading and writing, but the
pplication of particular skills for specific purposes in
pecific contexts. . . . This View marks an end to the
imple dichotomy between literate and illiterate citizens
n favor of a literacy profile, based in a variety of
antexts and uses of literacy" (pp. 1-2).

Anzalone and McLaughlin (1983) have created the term
specific literacy" to refer to the designing of a special
lrpose literacy activity instead of a general adult lit-
'acy training in developing countries. "Specific litera-
'" is a progression from "functional literacy," defined as
e "level of competence needed to meet day-to-day literacy
sks" (p. 5). Functional literacy, according to Anzalone
d McClaughlin, is ineffective for the needs of the rapid-
changing Third World nations, which would benefit more

om "specific literacy." To implement "specific

 

 

 

28

literacy," "training is planned around activities which do
10t primarily, or even secondarily, promote adult literacy.
lather, training focuses on content areas related to devel—
>pment which demand specific literacy skills" (p. 1).

Writing on "the lack of consensus on how best to
lefine literacy" because of the "differing views about

iteracy’s social purposes and values," Scribner (1988,

 

p. 72-73) argues that "ideal literacy" is a combination
f all three: literacy as "adaptation" (emphasis on func-
ional value in daily life), literacy as "power" (emphasis

literacy as a means for human liberation and social
hange), and literacy as a "state of grace" (emphasis on
me special powers, e.g., cognitive ability, attributed to
lose who are literate). She states that ". . . ideal
.teracy is simultaneously adaptive, socially empowering,
1d self—enhancing" (p. 81). Noting that Anzalone and
=Laughlin "have coined the term ’specific literacies’ to
signate such special-interest or special purpose literacy
ills," she writes, "The road to maximal literacy may
gin for some through the feeder routes of a wide variety
specific literacies" (p. 81).

Willinsky (1991) has coined the term "New Literacy" to
signate a broad view of literacy that is similar to
:ibner’s notion of "ideal literacy." Willinsky reasons
It literacy is not just a cognitive process but also a

ins of gaining social and cultural power. He explains

 

 

 

29

hat "New Literacy" is an umbrella "under which I can
ather and examine an array of innovations in the teaching
nd researching of reading and writing . . ." (p. 5),
inovations that he believes encourage not only personal
avelopment and transformation but also social involvement
1d change. His notion that literacy should promote self-
'ansformation and social change is similar to that of
man (1987), who argues that to be literate is to compose

d comprehend texts that embody "new modes of being" (p.

 

5) and to gain the power to change oneself and the social

1d.
motion of Basic Literac : Conse uence

In addition to the general confusion over the differ—
t meanings of literacy, controversy exists over which
)e of literacy should be promoted. Many scholars contend
Lt, despite the rise of new and more comprehensive defi—
ions, the definition of literacy still being supported
society is the basic ability to read and write. They
that our schools’ prevalent mode of teaching reading as
Lls is proof that we are promoting mechanical literacy,
:ead of a higher form.
Many educators are critical of this emphasis, which
' claim, as I will explain in Chapter 3, has led to the

dem of aliteracy. I will now summarize the arguments

 

 

 

 

f literacy scholars who have drawn attention to the inade—
acies of this notion of literacy and to the consequences
promoting it.

Since the beginning of this century the public has
ed "literate" and "illiterate" as labels that separate
ople who can read from people who cannot. Beach and
pleman (1984) explain why this definition is both sim-
istic and problematic, by comparing reading with cooking.
ey imply that there are varying abilities, uses, and
joyments of reading as there are varying abilities, uses,

enjoyments of cooking.
The often-heard charge, "Johnny can’t read,"
is a little like saying that "Johnny can’t cook."
Johnny might be able to read the directions for
constructing a radio kit, but not a Henry James
novel, just as Johnny may be able to fry an egg
but not cook a Peking duck. In discussing read-
ing in the schools, we must recognize that read-
ing involves as wide a range of different types
of text as there are different types of foods.
And, to imply, as does the slogan, "Johnny can't
read," that reading is a single skill suited to
all types of texts does not do justice to the
range of reading types. (p. 115)
The emphasis on the acquisition of basic literacy has
to a number of results. On the positive side, some
erts claim that almost universal literacy has been
aimed in this society. On the negative side, the focus
Low to read has spawned instruction that stresses decon-
:ualized skills rather than the total experience of

ling. As Wilson states, a "possible explanation for

eracy is that schools focus on subskills instead of on

 

 

31

he global reading act, an approach that might rob our
hildren of some of the enjoyment of reading" (Thimmesch,
.984, p. 4).
Dixon points out that although basic literacy "fitted
n era when initial literacy was the prime demand" (1967,
. 1), it is too narrow for the demands of our time. A
umber of scholars contend that the emphasis on basic
iteracy has resulted in the neglect of higher literate
(ills (Langer, 1987 ; Tuman, 1987, Pattison, 1982, Heath,
985). Tuman writes that ". . . the real threat to lit-
racy may be that the verbal meanings in written texts seem
ncreasingly irreleVant to more and more people who have
1e coding skill, but not the compelling motivation to
terpret them" (p. 4). He says that "one problem we face
that the rates of ’literacy’ may appear to be growing at
e very time when actual ability of students and the
ulation at large to read and write symbolic texts is in
line, and perhaps most troubling of all, the two trends
be related" (p. 170). In his study of the state of
eracy in the nineteenth century, Graff makes a similar
nt by saying that "a statistically high level of litera-
possession may in fact obscure attention from a loge;
litative level of ability to use that literacy" (1979.
270). He cites the case of Sweden, which in the middle
the nineteenth century had a high literacy rate, based

the ability to read well orally, but this ability did

 

 

 

32

ot include understanding what was read. Heath (1985)
ontends that the focus on basic literacy skill prevalent
n our schools does "not in reality provide access to the
roadest possible range of perceptual and cognitive skills.
f we push only literacy skills, we guarantee that the
:hools will not take responsibility for helping develop
Lterate behaviors [which she defines as a way of thinking
1d behaving]" (p. 17). Similarly, Harman (1987) writes:
The problem of generating literacy consciousness
poses a challenge possibly greater than that of
teaching literacy. It is one that has never been
squarely faced and about even less is known than
the problem of illiteracy. The numbers of
people who are capable of reading but don’t is as
baffling a problem as the numbers of people who
are unable to read. It is certainly possible
that the two phenomena are linked: nonreading
literates certainly do not inspire illiterates to
acquire reading habits. (p. 100)
Pattison (1982) asserts that not all Americans who can
d and write use their skills productively, partly be-
se their education has not equipped them to do so.
most all Americans can read and write. Thus we seem to
equal. But very few Americans possess discipline in the
its of language necessary for its advantageous use, and
se who do effectively control the many who do not "
82, p. 181). Pattison contends that two kinds of lit-
cy are fostered by our schools: a high literate training
leaders (students in high track classes or elite insti-

ions) and mechanical literacy for followers (students in

track classes or community colleges.)

(19:

SGCC

Robi
"has
dent
memb
thei

rema

lite]
Writ.
Prom<
the (
haVe
attit
Chap
empha
Vatic
about

Prob]

 

 

33

This view is shared by Goodlad (1984) and Robinson
1985). Goodlad has found that in most elementary and
econdary school language arts programs,

. . lower track classes tended to emphasize the
mechanics of English usage, whereas high track
classes were likely to stress the intellectual
skills of analysis, evaluation, and judgment
especially through literature. The low track
classes were unlikely to encounter the high
status knowledge dealt with in the upper tracks
and normally considered essential for college
admission. (p. 205)

>binson argues that stressing literacy as basic skills
[as harmed all students much, but most of all those stu-
ents whom we characterize as most needful of help. . . .
mbers of racial, social, and linguistic minorities, for
eir children most numerously populate our lower track and
medial classes" (1985, p. 485).

Scholars have explained the consequences of defining
eracy as the basic or mechanical skills of reading and
'ting. The issue of which concept of literacy is being
moted, basic literacy or a higher literacy, impinges on

concept of aliteracy. Many scholars and educators who
e written about aliteracy, reading reluctance, and
itudes toward reading (topics to be reviewed in the next
pter) assert that still another consequence of the
hasis on basic literacy is a loss of interest and moti-
ion to read--in a word, aliteracy. Moreover, decisions

ut the nature of aliteracy——what it is, whether it is a

blem and, if it is, how serious--depend in part on

 

 

34

one’s definition of literacy. If the prevailing notion of
literacy happens to be the basic ability to read and write,
once that skill is learned, then the goal of literacy has
been reached. What happens after that point is largely
inconsequential. However, with the new, broad definitions
of literacy, what happens after one has learned the basics
of reading and writing is enormously important. As Tchudi
explains, literacy is "a process of discovering and know-
ing," and "The fully literate person uses language in
every part of his or her life, not just as a tool of commu-
nication, but as a medium for knowing “ (p. 75). Literacy,
according to Tuman (1987) and Willinsky (1991), is a power-
ful tool. In their broad definition, to be literate, is to
have the capability to change ourselves and our society.
On the basis of these definitions, we have to conclude that
the gse of one's literacy is critical to the individual

and to society.
Literacy and Schooling

The relationship between literacy and schooling has
been explored by researchers and scholars. Cook-Gumperz
{1986), for example, states that although people tend to
:hink of literacy as a product of schooling, historically
.iteracy came first. Before mass schooling, literacy used
.0 be “pluralistic," "home—based," and "hard-to-estimate."

.ook-Gumperz explains that in the eighteenth century, there

 

 

 

35

was a “multiplicity of literacies," "a composite of differ-
ent skills related to reading and writing for many differ-
ent purposes and section of a society’s population" (p.
22). However, in this century literacy began to be associ-
ated with a "single, standardized sghgglgg_lit§ragy" (p.
22), which Cook-Gumperz describes as "a system of decontex-
tualized knowledge validated through test performances" (p.
41). Our current notion of literacy as consisting of many
literacies seems to be a return to the old definition of
literacy, as she has explained it.

Maintaining that literacy had social and recreation-
al value for people, Gumperz-Cook cites Robert Altick’s
1957 study of mass reading, which gives examples of how
workers in earlier times incorporated reading into their
work life-~for instance, a good reader would read to other
workers while they worked (p. 24). In the twentieth cen-
tury, "the popular cultural force of literacy was brought

under the control of schooling" (p. 29). "Schooled litera-

 

gy was thus differentiated from everyday uses of literacy.
What was learnt through schooled literacy was no longer a
part of a local common culture, so that ordinary people had
less control over their own cultural products" (p. 31).
urthermore, schooled literacy using testing created "a new
ivision in society, between the educated and the uneducat-
d (or sChooled and unschooled); and a new form of increas-

'ngly powerful control which could be exerted through the

t
L
11
n

n

u:
m
at
te
"t
ra
ev
1e
di
re

 

 

 

36

curriculum" (p. 27). (Pattison [1982], Goodlad [1984] and
Robinson [1985], cited earlier in this chapter, discuss
some ways in which the schools, through curriculum and
pedagogy, exert control, favoring some groups over others.)

Following a similar vein, Willinsky (1991) describes

the "popular literacy" that followed the invention of the
printing press, a literacy that “predates the emergence of
systematic schooling" (p. 177). Willinsky traces the
beginnings of New Literacy (which is explained earlier in
this chapter) to the popular literacy of earlier centuries.
Like Cook-Gumperz, he points out the effects of schooled
literacy, but he goes a step further by advocating a set of
new approaches to literacy instruction and by encouraging
"a form of reschooling" (rather than "deschooling," a term
used by Ivan Illich). His work summarizes the ideas of
many literacy scholars and educators who have written
about the negative effects of the "bottom-up" approach to
teaching reading and writing and who advocate a holistic
"top-down" model (pp. 68-69).

Educators have expressed concern about the gulf sepa-
ating school reading from the real functions of reading in
veryday life and about the effects of this separation on
earners. Purves (1984), for instance, describes some of
ifferences between reading as taught in the schools and
eading as experienced outside of school:

. . an individual outside of school may pur—
chase or borrow a novel, read it, and put it down

r
a

90

 

 

37

or perhaps recommend it to a friend, saying
something like, "You ought to read this; it is
good." In school that statement would not be
accepted as proof that the individual has read
and understood the novel. Reading the novel in
school involves a series of complex activities
before, during, and after reading to demonstrate
something called comprehension or appreciation or
understanding. The individual must be prepared
to answer oral or written questions about the
content, structure, or implications of the text,
must be prepared to produce oral, dramatic, or
cinematic reenactment of the different types of
text on demand, shift subject matter and style
every 45 minutes or so, have the reading inter-
rupted, and particularly read texts that deal
with subjects of little interest written in style
that may be opaque or downright incomprehensible.
I remember observing a class of high school
sophomores and being told that two girls "could—
n’t read." The class was dealing with contempo-
rary poetry; the two girls sat in the back read—
ing a magazine about film stars and discussing an
article intelligently. They could read but they
could not or would not do school reading.
(pp. 82-83) '

lere Purves implies that school reading has standards and
xpectations quite different from those in real life. He
oncludes that although they can competently read materials
f their own choosing, the girls "could not or would not
0 school reading."

In an article "In search of the ’good’ reader,"
asinski (1989) contrasts the definitions of the "good
eader" for students and for adults. For students, a "good
eader" is usually defined in terms of a level of reading
roficiency and later in terms of ability to use reading to
earn in the various subject areas. However, these stand-
:ds are abandoned when students become adults. To be a

>od adult reader, according to Razinski, is to be "active,

 

 

te
ti
mu
ha

01]

re
ti
gr
in
W
th
11
re
in.
SC

llt

 

 

voracious readers," to visit the library often, to read
without being told, and to talk about what they have read
with others. To bridge the gulf between student or
school—based definition and adult or real life definition,
Rasinski says that the ". . . ’good' reader in school needs
0 be reconceptualized to be congruent with the adult
’good’ reader" (p. 85).

Heath (1980) argues that school approaches to the
eaching of reading are incongruent with the actual func-
:ions of reading in real life and that, consequently, we
nust find means to bridge the gap. An ethnographer, Heath
1as added greatly to our understanding of reading in
>ut—of—school contexts. Because reading habit surveys
»rovide only a limited picture of reading habits, Heath
ecommends the use of such ethnographic tools as participa-
ion and observation in the lives of individuals and social
roups. Her own study of the functions and uses of reading
n an all-black working class community produced seven
ypes of uses of literacy, a list that does not include
ose usually emphasized in "school—oriented discussions of
'teracy uses: critical, aesthetic, organizational, and
creational" (p. 129). To Heath, the value of the gather-
g of such information as the uses of literacy in out-of-
hool context is not to make judgments but to show that

he extent to which physiologically normal individuals

 

39

learn to read and write depends greatly on the role litera-
cy plays in their families, communities, and jobs" (p.
130).

Heath has written extensively about the differences
between definitions of reading developed by policy-makers
and the actual functions and uses of reading in people’s
lives (p. 123). In the schools, "a student’s success is
measured by a sequenced move through the hierarchy of
skills and it is believed that acquiring these skills,

i.e., learning to read, is necessary before a student is

reading to learn" (p.

stresses reading to learn at the same time that students

131). A view of literacy that

are learning to read is an alternative to this approach,
according to Heath. She provides an example of a first
grade teacher whose teaching is governed by this philosophy

that he or she explains to children:

Reading and writing are things you do all
the time——at home, on the bus, riding your bike,
at the barber shop. You can read and you do
everyday before you ever come to school. You can
also play baseball. Reading and writing are like
baseball and football. You play baseball and
football at home, at the park, wherever you want
to, but when you come to school or go to a summer
program at the Neighborhood Center, you get help
on techniques, the gloves to buy, the way to
throw, and the way to slide. School does that
for reading and writing. We all read and write a
lot of the time, lots of places. School isn’t
much different except that here we work on tech-
niques and we practice a lot-—under a coach. I’m
the coach. (pp. 130-131)

ccording to Heath, the "teacher’s approach to reading

nabled these students to define themselves as readers and

 

 

wrfl

den<

ing

in 1
size
tior
know
many
as a
some
imp]
lite
asl
recr
ins
infl

tEac

defi

with

 

writers by their community norms and to grow with confi—
dence into being readers by school criteria" (p. 131).

One way, then, to bridge the gap between school read-
ing and real life reading is for the schools to use reading
as a tool for learning. The definition of literacy implied
in this approach is not a narrow definition that empha-
sizes the mechanical skills of reading, but a broad defini-
tion that recognizes the role of language as a means of
knowing and of dealing with the world. Heath (as well as
many literacy scholars today) has conceptualized literacy
as a lifelong process of learning to participate in per-
sonal and social activities involving language. Heath
implies that home literacy can be broadened by school
literacy through teaching strategies that stress reading
as learning. Thus, though their homes may not support the
recreational, aesthetic, or other uses of reading stressed
in school-based discussions of literacy, students can be
-nfluenced in using reading for these purposes by good
:eachers.

Some problems created by "schooled literacy" (as
efined by Cook—Gumperz) and by the pedagogy associated

ith it will be discussed in the next chapter.

 

 

CHAPTER 3

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In this chapter I will review the literature on alit-
eracy and reluctant readers and compare these two concepts
on the basis of what has been written about them. I will
also review the literature on reading habits and readership
surveys to determine the accuracy of the often-repeated
comment that the amount of reading has declined and that
the American society is becoming a non-reading society.
My final goal is to construct an appropriate, clear, and
precise definition of aliteracy based on a review of the
literature. I will show the meanings that have become
associated with the concept, noting where contradictions
and ambiguities exist. I will also identify indicators or
omponents of aliteracy.

The literature on reading reluctance is more extensive
han that on aliteracy, which is a newer and less estab-

ished term in the professional literature. The concepts
re similar: both have been used to refer to people who can
ead with varied degrees of ability but who either do not
r choose not to read. However, no attempt has been made
0 compare the studies on these two topics and to show how

he concepts are similar or different. Some differences

41

 

 

42

do exist in the ways these terms have been used. For
example, the term "reluctant reader" tends to be applied to
school-age children, whereas "aliterate" tends to be used
more with adults or the general public. Most of the liter—
ature on reading reluctance, furthermore, draws attention
to inadequate reading skills or disabilities that impair
the desire to read or cause children to avoid reading. It
tends to approach reading reluctance as a school—related,
if not a school-caused, problem. On the other hand, those
who have written about aliteracy have not focused on the
level of reading skills but on behavior (avoidance of
reading) and attitude (a dislike for reading or a disin-

clination to read or a disinclination to read books.) They

 

tend to assume that the level of reading ability is not a
crUcial factor in the aliteracy of individuals. Most of
the literature both on aliteracy and reluctant readers have

a practical thrust: to offer suggestions and remedies after

briefly identifying the problem.

 

Farr (1981) defines the reluctant reader as a child
ho "is unable to read and unwilling to try because of a
istory of unsuccessful attempts or is able to read but not
otivated to do so " (p. 3). Cianni (1981) refers to
eluctant readers as those “who function at a frustration

evel and those who have an aversion to reading." He

 

 

 

43

claims that "young people who can’t read (anything) are far
outnumbered by young people who can read (at least some
things) but don't" (p. v). Joseph and Wittig (1980)
maintain that "the capable reader who chooses not to read
has no advantage over the person who is incapable of read-
ing" (p. 3). They stress the importance of promoting
reading as a recreational activity.

In “Motivating Reluctant Readers," Johns (1978) iden-
tifies two major types of reluctant readers. There are
those who are reading below grade level on standardized
tests, have some trouble with reading and avoid reading and
those who are reading at or above grade level, can read
quite well but choose not to read. He presents school-
related and home-related reasons for "students’ reluctance
to use books for pleasure and for information" (p. 70).
School—related reasons include reading difficulties and
poor instruction. Among home-related factors mentioned are
parental indifference to reading and excessive television
watching. Johns stresses that the “end or goal of reading
instruction should be to produce students who gag read and
who want to read.“ He offers teaching suggestions for
changing "the student’s behavior and attitude from one of

pathy to one of self-satisfaction and involvement" (p.
1).

Thompson (1987) discusses the characteristics of

eluctant readers, citing definitions of the term given in

he professional literature. Among the characteristics of

44

reluctant readers are a lack of motivation resulting in a
"permanent non—reading habit" and anxiety about reading. A
reluctant reader may be a capable reader who lacks interest
in reading or-a reader who is hampered by inadequate read—
ing skills. Thompson recommends strategies, such as read-
ing aloud to children, to use in the early stages of their
reading development.

Nolan and Craft (1976) define reluctant readers as
those who have a reading disability which makes reading
frustrating. Consequently, they develop “personality
maladjustments," including "a crippling negative self-
concept" (p. 387). The article offers approaches that have
been found to be successful with this type of students. In
"Motivating Reluctant Readers to Become Mature Readers"
iCasteel (1989) presents instructional techniques for in-
creasing motivation to read and to help students develop a
positive attitude toward reading. Howell and Sylvester
(1983) address the problem of reluctant or unmotivated
readers by conducting a study of reluctant readers in third
and fourth grades. The children participated in an after-
school program in which adults read aloud appropriate
paperbacks. The results showed increases in motivation and
reading skills.

Holbrook (1982) reviews the materials in the ERIC
system that "address the problem of reluctant readers: the

causes and indications of reading reluctance, some broad

 

 

 

 

c2: ‘ a": _.T
_.__._.._._.—__.—_ —. .. . ..— — . .

45

approaches to reading instruction that will introduce
children to reading in a positive manner and alleviate
potential problems, and finally, sources for specific
activities to encourage young children in early reading
efforts and reengage those students already exhibiting
problems of disinterest." Holbrook says, "Young people who
cannot read at all are outnumbered by young people who can
read (poorly or well) but don’t. The latter, who choose
not to read, for whatever reasons, have little advantage
over those who are illiterate." That "reading never at-
tracted the student’s attention enough for him or her to
develop adequate reading skills" may be a cause of reading
reluctance. Holbrook states that one factor that contrib-
utes to the problem of reading reluctance is that "learning
to read is a risky business." A child who reads aloud and
is corrected by a teacher in front of the whole class,
feels frustrated and discouraged. Repeated experiences of
this kind result in anxiety over reading itself. Other
causes cited are the emphasis on isolated skills in teach-
ing reading, inappropriate reading materials, and labeling
of students by putting them in reading groups, causing them
to become self—fulfilling failures.

Several books by prominent scholars in English educa-
tion have addressed the problem of reading reluctance. Two
books that focus on reluctant readers come from England,

suggesting that the problem is a major concern in that

country as well. Written by Aidan Chambers, Relgggggt

._.— .._.— F—W-fi-.- ..

 

 

 

l'z'U

 

46

Readers (1969) and Introducing Books to Children (1983)
discuss the reasons why some students do not learn to like
reading, especially the reading of literature, and criti—
cize specific instructional practices that create reading
reluctance. He writes, "Reluctance. . . occurs in those
who have the ability to read without any mechanical prob-
lems but have no inclination to read except what is re—
quired by way of work or everyday normal life“ (1969, p.
4). The students might have begun school with a desire to
read, but "a good deal of this willing response has been
heavily damaged or at least disabled" (1969, p. 4). Among
the reasons for reading reluctance is the "the belief that
there are certain books which children, whether they like
or enjoy them or not, must be made to plod through in a
kind of literary pilgrimage." Chambers reasons: "But if
they are made to do so without liking what they read, then
how far have we (and they) gone? How much nearer have we
taken these young people towards the goal of true literacy?
Not far, I think, and we may have helped them take a step
or two away from it" (1969, p. 66). Chambers maintains
that "the most reluctant readers are also book-besotted
readers" (1969, p. 13) because they have to read books in
every school subject. As a result, "all but the most avid
child readers will want to escape from books and reading in
their leisure time" (1983, p. 37). Further, because books

are used primarily as sources of information, students

 

m

 

I!-—'

 

47

learn that there is only one way to read. Chambers’
particularly astute observations about the causes of reluc-
tant reading will be brought up again in the discussion of

the findings of this study in Chapter 6.

Literature on Aliteracy

The emphasis on the practical and on giving sugges—
tions to alleviate aliteracy is evident in the following
articles, which define and discuss aliteracy as a concept
very similar to reading reluctance. In "An Antidote for
Aliteracy: Aliteracy--People Who can Read But Won’t"
(Sullivan, 1985), the antidote for aliteracy is an ap-
proach to literature that teaches the reader to ask ques-
tions about the work so that he or she becomes more en—
igaged and stimulated. In "Teaching Freshmen Non-Readers,
the A-literate Majority," Tanner (1987) addresses the
problem of "seventeen and eighteen year old freshmen non-
readers" who "outnumber those who read as college students

ust and as educated citizens should." He contends that
hey are "the middle-American norm." They read strictly
or utilitarian reasons, such as reading road signs and
ppliance directions, and "they see no place in their lives
or reading as an opportunity for intellectual stimulation,
rowth, or enjoyment." The author argues that the teacher
an help the students find ways to like reading. He gives
one general suggestions for writing teachers to turn

tudents into self-motivated readers. In "Aliteracy: What

 

Cl

 

48

Students Can Do to Keep Johnny Reading," Decker (1985)
considers aliteracy, ''the ability to read but the unwill-
ingness to do so," a major problem in American society. It
affects all socioeconomic classes. Among the social
changes that have contributed to the problem are the influ-
ence of television on reading motivation and comprehension,
the changing structure of the American family, and state
minimum competency requirements. Decker offers solutions
derived from reading instruction in Greece and New Zealand.
They include the deemphasizing of basal readers, of work-
books, and of competency testing. She also suggests that
the teacher model good reading behaviors and encourage
written expression of ideas.

An important work on aliteracy is Aliteracy: People
Who,Can Read But Won’t. a report on the conference on
aliteracy sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute
for Public Policy Research in Washington D.C. in 1982. The
papers compiled in this volume express concern over alit—
eracy. Part of the intent of this volume seems to be to

ncourage a more systematic investigation of aliteracy by
aising theoretical and practical questions: whether alit-
racy exists and if so, to what degree, what its nature is,
nd what can be done about it. The work raises more ques-
ions than it answers.

In "Aliteracy and a Changing View of Reading Goals,"

ickulecky (1978) writes about aliteracy in relationship to

 

 

49

changing perspectives on literacy goals. He expresses
concern over the trend to create a sense of a "crisis" and
to emphasize extremes when people raise problems related to
literacy. He criticizes the tendency to hurriedly create
simplistic but politically expedient solutions on the
assumption that any action is better than none. Mickulecky
points out that concern with illiteracy has brought about
an emphasis on the teaching of basic skills and a lack of
concern over aliteracy. He contends that because of higher
literacy demands resulting from changing job expectations,
the ability to continue learning must be stressed as much
as the ability to read. This means that aliteracy and
illiteracy need to be dealt with simultaneously.

Winkle (1988) cites statistics from readerShip surveys
indicating that "people are becoming aliterate in increas—
ing numbers throughout all age groups in our society" (p.
40). She also discusses possible causes of aliteracy
suggested by the literature on reading: instructional
methods and materials used in the teaching of reading and
home environment of the child. A third possible cause is
low reading ability. However, Winkle points out that
"while there is support for the idea that reading ability

nd aliteracy are related, there is more support for the
'dea that reading ability is not a w of aliteracy“ (p.
1). Low reading ability may cause a child to lose inter-
st in reading, but it may not by itself be a cause for

literacy. However, the less interest a child has in

 

 

50

reading, the more he avoids it; the more he avoids reading,
the less reading improvement occurs. Winkle cites the
heavy emphasis on basal readers and on achievement test
scores as a possible cause of aliteracy. ". . . [M]any
students find little or no pleasure in reading when it is
presented as a series of skill and drill lessons year after
year" (p. 43). Winkle also contends that research has
indicated that the home environment of children strongly
influences their reading habits, mentioning educational and
economic levels of parents and family size as among those
sources of influence. She maintains that research does not
support the popular notion that television-watching has a
strong effect on reading habits.

Weaver (1989) argues that the "traditional basal
reading programs used in the majority of our schools have
focused on teaching reading as skills, instead of develop-
ing literacy in a broader sense" (p. 3). Because the basal
reading programs reflect a "transmission" model of educa—
tion as opposed to the "transactional" model, educators
have labeled students as failures "when we might more
appropriately consider our programs as failures instead,

iven the untenable assumptions upon which they rest" (p.
). Furthermore, the students who ch) succeed
'frequently . . . join the swelling ranks of the aliter—

tes: those who can read but rarely choose to" (p. 5).

K t
__,_- ‘—* .h.~_.—-d-—n-—_.. ..

 

 

 

51

Without using the terms "reading reluctance" or
"aliteracy," several authors have addressed the problem of
students developing negative attitudes toward reading as a
result of their school experiences. In The New Hooked on

Books (1976) Fader discusses reasons why American schools

 

have created "unwilling readers and writers" (p. 79). One
reason is the emphasis on teaching reading and writing as
"merely the means to the end of school success" so that
once that success has been reached, children no longer see
any purpose for reading. Fader also blames reading reluc-
tance on "our failure to give students reading materials
that touch their lives" (p. 204) because of our "exaggerat-
ed emphasis on quality,“ on the rampant use of readers and
anthologies, which he calls the "surrender of inspiration
to convenience" and on the use of oversimplified and unin-
teresting textbooks. Fader’s solution to the problem is
the "saturation and diffusion" of reading materials attrac-
tive to young people-—paperbacks and magazines--in every
English classroom. Fader is also critical of the emphasis
on reading strictly for information and school purposes.
Smith (1983, 1986) has taken a clear and strong stand
against practices that make reading unnecessarily difficult
and unpleasant for learners, saying that “the only way to
learn to read is with confidence and enjoyment" (1983, p.
20). He is severe in his criticism of "inept" teaching:
"If we succeed at all, it can be reasonably predicted that

the student will not want to practice what he or she has

 

 

 

52

learned or will do so reluctantly" (1983, p. 8). Smith
decries the reduction of reading and writing to drills and
exercises, creating students who "will only read and write
if they are required to do so, and then reluctantly" (1986,
p. 15). Smith further says:

Instead of constantly testing students to monitor
how well they read and write, it would make more
sense to check on how frequently they engage in
these activities or on what students think about
them. students who leave school interested
enough in the subjects they have been taught to
engage independently in activities related to
those subjects always have a chance to learn
more. But there is no hope for students no
matter how well they have ’achieved’ who graduate
thinking that all school activities are a
bore. . . . (1986, p. 263)

Trelease’s bestseller The New Read-Aloud Handbook
(1989) addresses reading reluctance and aliteracy, without

musing either term. He points out that the "reading is

jwork" mentality perpetuated by many classrooms can be
h

icounteracted by regularly reading aloud to children of all
gages. He writes: "It is imperative that we let our chil-
idren know there is something more to reading than the
(practicing, the blendings, the vowel sounds, something more
(to it than the questions at the end of the chapters. And
'he must let them know this early, before they have perma-
‘%ently close the door on reading for the rest of their
dives" (p. 8).

) In "Developing Lifelong Readers in the Middle

.i
Schools," Barmore and Morse (1979) cite surveys by the

National Opinion Research Center showing that Americans

k

 

 

 

 

53

read fewer books than citizens of England, France, Germany,
and the Scandinavian countries, that many adults in the
United States have never read an entire book, and that
"approximately ten percent of the population read roughly
eighty percent of the books." Furthermore, they write,

Many college students do not read one book a

year, and many people cannot even think of a book

they would like to read. Such facts suggest that

we are not developing in our schools students who

are enthusiastic, consistent readers as adults.

Few if any children come to school with a nega-

tive attitude toward reading, but an uncomfort-

ably large number of students do not like to read

by the time they reach middle level schools. The

numbers are proportionately higher by the time a

student has graduated from high school. (p. 75)
One cause for reading avoidance cited is early school
failure resulting from children not reading at the grade
level defined for their age. Because they feel they cannot
read, they learn to dislike reading. "Aversion leads to
avoidance and skill development slows down or ceases" (p.
75). Another contributing factor is the students’ tendency
to read only for grades or for approval of teachers and
parents. "Once they are on their own the central motiva-
tion for reading often disappears. Such students become
the American adults who feel that reading is a chore rather
than a source of pleasure or vehicle for learning for the
est of one’s life“ (p. 75). The authors blame practices

in the teaching of reading and literature in the middle

chools, practices that create or reinforce negative

 

 

 

54

attitudes toward reading. They suggest specific strategies
'that will foster positive attitudes.

Wilson (1985) argues that testing has a negative
impact on students’ attitudes toward reading. She contends
that testing "all but ignores the personal experience of
reading——the value of readers’ personal responses and
interpretations as they connect prior experience to the
text to make sense of it and to give it personal relevance.
And it is these personal experiences with literacy that are
the very foundation of life-long reading and writing hab—
its." (p. 13). She writes that the focus on the so-called
"literacy crisis" and on teacher accountability has pro—
duced "unwilling and uninterested readers and writers."

In sum, these educators point to aspects of literacy
instruction which they believe produce unwilling readers
and learners. They criticize the aims and methods of read-
ing and literature programs, criticisms that I will bring

up again in later chapters.

Attitudes toward Reading

Because aliteracy has much to do with attitude toward
reading, I will present in this section some studies on
attitudes toward reading. Despite the widely recognized
importance of the role of attitude in reading achievement,
some scholars have noted the lack of studies to support
this belief (Alexander and Filler, 1976; Fader, 1976).

Purves (1972) has called attention to the need for studies

 

55

that "should not look at cognitive growth only, but at
attitudes and reading habits as well" (p. 107). According
to Alexander and Filler (1976), because "research suggests
that attitudes tend to be ’unique, personal, and highly
unpredictable,’" (p. 1) and "because the number of studies
is limited and the findings are, at times, contradictory"
(p. 64), it is difficult to make valid generalizations
about the relationship between reading attitude and such
variables as reading achievement. Mikulecky, Shanklin, and
Caverley (1979) report that new means of measuring atti—
tude have made "research in the measurement of reading
attitudes and motivations more feasible" (p. 12). They
cite research suggesting that the "student frequently
leaves school with negative reading attitudes and habits
that influence younger siblings and the next generation"
(p. 12). To break this cycle, educators might focus on
improving reading attitudes and ability, rather than on
test scores. They conclude that "little is known about
adults’ attitudes toward reading or how these attitudes
might be improved to provide better models for the children
and thus break the cycle" (p. 12). The research in read-
ing attitudes and motivations by Mikulecky et al. has
contributed a great deal to the present study.

On the relationship between reading attitudes and
achievement, the National Academy of Education Commission

n Reading (1985) writes: "Predictably, poor readers have

 

L11

56

unfavorable attitudes toward reading. What is not so pre—
dictable is whether lack of proficiency in reading stems
from unfavorable attitudes or whether it is the other way
around. Probably the truth can lie in either direction"
(15). Van Allen (1965) stresses the importance of building
positive attitudes and habits in developing successful
reading experiences. He argues that "if the reading habit
is to mature and positive attitudes toward reading are to
support reading practices throughout a person’s life . . ."
(p. 6), then teachers should consider "the feelings and
attitudes of learners to be as important as the development

of skills . . ." (p. 5).

Reading Habits and Readership Surveys

All the surveys cited in this chapter have acquired

their information by asking respondents how much or how
bften they read. Sudman and Bradburn (1982) have pointed
out that some behaviors may be overreported because they
hre seen by subjects as socially desirable (p. 32). Some
authors reporting on major surveys of reading habits have
mentioned the possibility that because reading is generally
perceived as a socially desirable activity, the people in
the surveys might have exaggerated their reading activities
iNell, 1988). Therefore, the results of these surveys
thould be examined with this possibility in mind.

Lampert and Saunders (1976) discovered in their survey

if high school students in Massachusetts that there were

 

 

 

 

 

57

students who saw themselves as non—readers and who ex-
pressed low interest in reading although they scored almost
as well as "readers" on reading tests and received satis—
factory grades. They conclude that "the labels ’reader’
and ’non-reader’ may reflect students’ perceptions of
themselves, rather than measurable skill differences" (p.
34). They also report that among their subjects, "a varie-
ty of attitudes and levels of reading skill can be found
among a group of non-readers who typically do not receive
much attention in research or curriculum planning: the
skilled non-readers, students who can read well but who
perceive themselves as non-readers" (pp. 34-5). Lampert
and Saunders, however, discovered that "the 30% who said
that they did not like to read books, do, in fact, read:
50% read the newspaper more than ten minutes a day, maga-
zines one to two hours a week, and novels occasionally" (p.
35). In other words, individuals who say they don’t like
to read may actually do a fair amount of reading, especial-
ly when all kinds of reading are counted.

Because students at the University of Wisconsin-Osh-
kosh had been telling their reading teachers that they
disliked reading, Taylor (1978) conducted a survey of
freshmen in college composition classes to find out their
attitudes toward reading, their perception of their abili-
ty, and their reading habits and interests. Her survey

showed that out of 492 students, 59.3 percent stated that

.._._ ,. .

 

 

 

 

58

they enjoyed reading, 11.6 percent said that they disliked
reading, and the remainder indicated they were neutral to
reading. She interprets these results as "heartening in
view of the previous negative input from the students.
However, the neutral and negative numbers were larger than
reading teachers want to find" (p. 11). She also concludes
that "the students are reading more than was believed but
not the quantity that teachers desire" (p. 13).

Other small-scale studies have been conducted to
verify the accuracy of claims that large numbers of chil—
dren and adults are aliterate. These studies are generally
limited to specific geographical areas. Heather (1982)
interviewed 40 English school children five times in a
period of one and a half years to find out what types of
materials they read and how much they read. She summarized
her findings by saying: "I found that young people g9 read,

robably more than teachers think they do" (p. 4). She
ites another British researcher (Merril Brown) who con-
ucted a similar study and arrived at similar results.
nly one pupil in the each of the two studies could be
escribed as a "complete non-reader." Both studies had
our pupils who were "non—book readers." She reports great
ifferences in the numbers of books read from pupil to
upil and concludes that "mean scores of the number of
ooks read are not a very useful indicator" (p. 5). She
oints out that "reluctance to read often means a reluc-

ance to read English literature" (p. 7) and that "reading

 

tak

of"

stu

real
eac]
hen
acti
( PP
reat
prei
tha:
tha
the
by

the

tha

witi

Che.
SUI“
Sio

eXpi

 

 

59

takes place all the time which most teachers are unaware
of" (p. 4).

Anders and Cardell (1978) surveyed junior high school
students, college students, and adults in Tucson, Arizona
on their perceptions of their reading abilities and their
reading habits. They report that "the average member of
each of the population groups perceived that they compre-
hended more of what they read, enjoyed reading more, and
actually read more than the average person their own age"
(pp. 6-7). These researchers conclude "the amount of
reading done by these groups was a good deal greater than
predicted" (p. 8) and that "perhaps people are reading more
than has been previously thought" (p. 9). They also found
that "the more these subjects read the more diversified
their reading became. This diversification was accompanied
by an increase in positive feelings toward reading and
their abilities as readers" (p. 9).

The comment that aliterates exist in vast numbers or
that they outnumber the illiterates has often been made
without substantiation or reference to research findings.
It is significant to note that the few who attempted to
check the accuracy of comments of this type by conducting
surveys of specific populations have drawn similar conclu-
sions: that the problem is not as serious as they had

expected or as the public has assumed.

 

 

 

 

lI-a

 

 

— —, ' ’ —' wax <wg.——_ -- 7, <

60

The Extent of Aliteracy in Society

The question of whether there is a firm basis for the
claim that aliterates comprise a large segment of the
population, even outnumbering the illiterates, needs to be
addressed. The answer would depend in part on how one
defines "illiterate" (what degree of illiteracy?) as well
as how one defines "aliterate" (a non-reader or a
non-book-reader, for instance?). An examination of the
findings of major surveys of the reading habits, attitudes,
and motivations of nationally representative samples of the
American population gives some clues to the answer. Howev-
er, the data are difficult to compare because they do not
ask the same questions and because those who report on the
data focus on different aspects of the surveys.

The Book Industry Study Group (BISG) conducted two
large-scale surveys of representative samples of the Ameri-
can adult population (16 years and older) in 1978 and in
1983. According to reports on the findings of the 1978
study (Library Journal, 1978, Book Industry Study Group,
1978; Cole and Gold, 1978; McEvoy and Vincent, 1978), about

alf (55 percent) of the American public can be called
ookreaders (they reported that they read one or more books
'n the last six months). Six percent can be called com-
lete non-readers (they reported that they did not read
ooks, magazines, and newspapers in the last six months).

urther, 39 percent reported that they did not read books

 

 

 

bu
of
in
th
nc
pc
or
di
to
63
ti
th
te

th

8a
in
pe
Wa
da

ma

61

but read magazines and newspapers. A total of 94 percent
of the American public read books, magazines, or newspapers
in the last six months. These findings were replicated in
the 1983 survey (Boorstin, 1984). However, Lehr (1985)
notes that the 1983 survey shows that 96 percent of the
population read books, newspapers, or magazines, an in—
crease of 15 million from the 1978 survey. Lehr finds it
disturbing that the percentage of young people, aged 16
to 21, who were readers declined from 75 percent in 1978 to
63 percent in 1983. Lehr also notes that magazine circula-
tion had gone up to 92 percent since 1954 and that, despite
the decrease in the number of daily newspapers in the last
ten years, newspaper readership is higher. Lehr concludes
that

The picture of reading in the United States

appears bright--with several dark areas. Ameri-

cans may spend 11.7 hours a week reading (BISG),

but they spend 16.3 watching television and 16.4

listening to the radio. If 56% read books, 44%

do not. While individuals at all educational and

occupational levels do some reading, most reading

was utilitarian, with little done for pleasure or

mental stimulation [Guthrie and Seifert. EJ 236
210]. (p. 171)

Sharon (1973-4) reports on a survey of a national
sample of 5,067 adults, 16 years old and older, conducted
in 1971. His goal was to determine the time the average

erson spends reading on a typical day. Each respondent
as asked what he had done hour by hour on the previous
ay, and the total time spent on reading all kinds of

aterial (including job-related reading) was derived frOm

 

 

 

 

 

62

these data. Sharon found that the average person spends an
hour and 46 minutes reading on a typical day. However,
people differ greatly in the amount of reading that they
reported: 6 percent read 8 hours or more, 45 percent read 2
hours or more, 71 percent read 1 hour or more, and 6 per-
cent read for less than 5 minutes. The average adult spends
76 minutes daily on non-job-related reading, with news—
paper-reading as the type of reading most commonly cited.
Sharon concluded: "The results indicate that reading is a
ubiquitous activity of American adults."

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
conducts yearly assessments of representative samples of
9-, 13-, and 17- year olds. Despite the difficulty of
comparing results because different parts of the assess-
ments are highlighted by interpreters, it is useful to
review those relevant aspects that have been reported. In
1981, for example, it was found that 10 percent of each age
group reported that they did not read at all in their spare
time (Langer, 1984). In the 9—year-old group, 81 percent
reported that they enjoyed reading very much, while among
l7-year-olds, only 42 percent said that they enjoyed read-
ing very much. In other words, they liked reading less as
they grew older. In a 1986 NAEP assessment of history and
literature administered to a national sample of l7-year-old
high school students, it was found that 17 percent said

that they never read on their own (Ravitch and Finn, 1987),

 

 

 

 

63

an increase of 7 percent from the 1981 survey. In 1985 an
NAEP survey was conducted in a representative sample of
American young adults, age 21-25. Kirsch and Jungeblut
(1985) report that at least 85 percent said that they read
newspapers, magazines, books or other documents regularly.
A survey of the amount of time spent reading and the
reading achievement of fifth graders in "a middle-class
area of a small city" in Illinois was conducted by Ander-
son, Wilson, and Fielding (1988). Comparing the findings
of their survey with those of other surveys, they state:
"It can be confidently concluded that the typical child in
the middle grades reads less than 15 minutes a day out of
school. The amount appears to be considerably less than
this in the United States, maybe as little as 8-12 minutes

‘per day when all types of reading material are included,

   
  
   
  
   
  
  
  

and maybe as little as 4-5 minutes a day when only books
are counted" (p. 299). According to the authors, the study
"revealed truly staggering differences between children in
amount of out-of—school reading" (p. 296).

When Guthrie and Siefert (1983) interviewed seven
individuals from different occupations on their reading
activities, counting all types of reading, they concluded
that in the community that was surveyed the typical wage
earner reads at least 2.5 hours per day; much of that time
as spent in reading short documents. They also report
hat contrary to popular belief that nonskilled workers are

on-readers or read only documents required by work, their

 

 

fil

ll p<

th«
al
HO‘

CO?

Ne1
wr
ci'
It
BI
ad
th
mo
as
Ze
co
ti
Ho
Wh
de

CC

 

64

findings suggest that they read for other purposes such as
"political awareness, social development, aesthetic experi-
ence" (p. 508) as well. These findings are consistent with
those of Sharon, who found that the average adult spends
almost two hours a day reading all kinds of material.
However, these findings cannot be generalized beyond the
community in which the study took place.

Reporting on the state of reading in three countries,
New Zealand, the United States, and Iran, Guthrie (1980)
writes that in New Zealand, 69 percent of the population
cites book reading as a form of recreation they engage in.
It is the "most frequently cited“ form of recreation. The
BISG surveys have determined that 55 percent of American
adults are book readers (this means that they had read at
‘the time of the survey at least one book in the past six
months.) If these two figures are comparable, we need to
ask why there is much more interest in book reading in New
iZealand than in the United States. To compare the two
rcountries in terms of their cultural history and instruc-
Ltional practices is outside the scope of this dissertation.
(However, earlier in this chapter, I cited Decker (1985),
hwho examined instruction in New Zealand and found that it
ide—emphasizes the use of basal readers, workbooks, and
i
icompetency testing. Indeed, as I have shown earlier in

i
|

 

 

 

th;
cai

cl.

Na
re
fr
de
gr
19
ma
th
re

1i

Is
in
am
ha
la
cc

CC

 

 

 

65

this chapter, a considerable number of educators are criti-
cal of the use of these very methods in American schools,
claiming that it produces uninterested readers and writers.

Robinson (1980) reviews research, particularly the
National Opinion Research Center data, to determine if
readership of newspapers, magazines, and books has changed
from 1946 to 1977. He reports that daily newspaper reading
declined starting in the 19505, with the age 10-29 age
group showing the largest drop. However, between 1970 and
1980 the frequency of and time spent reading books and
magazines increased. Because this increase did not offset
the decline in newspaper reading, Robinson concludes that
reading appears "to be a less prominent feature of daily
life for all ages" (p. 141).

In an extensive study entitled Adult Reading Habitsl
AttitudesII and Motivatigns: a Cross-Sectional Study, Miku-
lecky, Shanklin, and Caverly (1979) attempt to answer
important questions about adult reading habits, attitudes,
and motivations. Among those questions is whether changes
have occurred in the total reading time of the adult popu-
lation over the past 50 years. Despite the difficulty of
comparing data gathered by surveys because of the lack of
consistency in the kinds of questions asked, they deter-
mined that since 1923, the trend shows "an increase in
adults’ total reading time per day. This increase emerges

despite the influence of television" (p. 32). Whereas

 

 

 

 

 

66

Sharon found that adults averaged 76 minutes on non-job—
related reading, Mikulecky, Shanklin, and Caverly found
that by the end of the 19705, the average adult was reading
85 minutes (Harste and Mikulecky, 1984, p. 63).

It appears that no clear and definite conclusions can
be drawn from these results. The answer to the question of
how serious the problem of aliteracy is in this society
depends on whether the interpreter views the findings from
the debit side or the credit side. Does he or she consider
the glass half-empty or half-full? Should we be alarmed at
the 44 percent who indicated in the 1983 BISG survey that
they have not read a book in the past six months or re-
joice over the 56 percent who indicated that they did? If
one considers all types of reading, not just bookreading,
the results are more favorable--a total of 96 percent of
the American public read books, magazines, or newspapers,
according to the 1983 BISG survey, a slight increase from
the 1978 survey. Further, Mikulecky et al. have found in
the past 50 years a pattern of increase in the average
adult’s total reading time per day. Nevertheless, there is
the disturbing trend discovered by the NAEP surveys of
school children liking reading less as they grow older.
As Lehr indicated, there are bright areas in the picture

but several dark areas as well.

 

 

 

 

67
lpgicepgrs of Aliperegy

Reading Attitude and Reading Behavior\\

Many studies report that being able to read isxhighly

\

valued in this society. For example, 95 percent of the“~~

students at ages 9, 13, and 17 reported in 1979-80 that
they considered being able to read "very important" (NAEP,
1981). However, whether people actually like to read is a
different matter. Attitude (disliking of reading) is an
important indicator of aliteracy. Another important indi-
cator is behavior (avoidance of reading). The two most
common definitions of "aliterates" are "people who can read
but won’t" (implying attitude) and "people who can’t read
but don’t" (implying behavior). These definitions are
usually used interchangeably; attitude and behavior are
often not separated. This view of aliteracy ignores the
possibility that people who say they don’t like to.read may
actually do a fair amount of reading, whether for enjoyment
or not. Such an instance occurred in the Lampert and
Saunders study (1976), where they found that students who
labeled themselves "non-readers" actually read magazines
and newspapers several hours a week and occasionally read a
book. Moreover, people who say they don’t like to read may
actually spend a considerable amount of time reading at

work or at school.

 

 

 

readi
peopl
book-
among
alite
ing e
readi
count

andii

Here

read

crea

68

Book Reading

Distinctions between the reading of books and the
reading of other kinds of material tend to be blurred when
people discuss aliteracy. Low interest in and avoidance of
book-reading are often real causes of concern, especially
among book-lovers. Hence, there is a tendency to equate
aliteracy with non-book reading. A bias toward book read-
ing exists in the following discussion of the difference in
reading habits between highly developed and developing .pa
countries. Blurring the definition of "non-reader," Barker
and Escarpit, (1973) write:

Almost certainly, even in the most highly de-
veloped countries, a fairly large proportion of
those who are able to read never read books, or
rarely do so. Paradoxically, this proportion is
probably higher in highly developed countries,
where schooling for all has made learning to read
an obligation, than in countries where progress
in development is in fact measured in terms of
the literacy rate and those who can read are very
highly motivated to do so. In the Netherlands
where reading is very widespread, a survey in
1960 indicated that 40 percent of the subjects
interviewed did not like reading. In East Paki-
stan, on the contrary, a sample survey made in
1963—64 among 145 families of government employ-
ees of all levels revealed only 53 non-readers
out of a total of 488 persons over the age of 12,
that is, barely 10.9 per cent. (p. 107)

Here "non-reader" applies both to those who don’t like

i

i
i Contending that it is "unscholarly" and "dishonest"

reading and to those who don’t read books.

to charge the United States with illiteracy or even de~
creasing literacy, Mikulecky et al. (1979) say,

However, this nation might be accused of "alit-
eracy." Even though most students who pass

 

 

 

 

Becat
Harri
to cc
ing.

other

read
ing ;
"bool
than
itse:
areas
59).
in t
quan
maga;
high
read.
alit
impo

Vari

69

through our educational system are able to read
to some degree, surveys indicate that declining
numbers of individuals regularly choose to read
or want to read. Though survey information
varies widely on this issue and may be sometimes
questionable, it consistently reflects a nation
with a large number of intentional non-readers.

(p.3)
Because they support this contention with figures from
Harris and Gallup polls relative to book—reading, one has
to conclude that they equate aliteracy with non-book-read-
ing. However, book reading is only one type of reading;

other types need to be considered.

Range of Texts Read

Some studies suggest that the pepge of texts being
read or not read should be taken into account in determin-
ing reading activity. Cole and Gold (1978) report that
"book readers demonstrate more heavy reading involvement
than non-book readers in nearly all areas. This manifests
itself in both the leisure reading and work/school reading
areas, and cuts across all types of reading material" (p.
59). In other words, book readers are also heavy readers
in that they read more than non-book readers in terms of
quantity and time. They are also more likely to read
magazines than non-book readers, and they read a slightly
higher number of magazines and newspapers than non-book
readers. Book-reading is indeed an important indicator of
aliteracy, not because by its nature it is more valuable or

important, but because it implies a higher volume and wider

variety of reading.

 

 

 

 

reasc
one I
plea:
ohooe
and '
who :
plea
"vir
read
only
read
plea
othe
read.
rang
find
(197
impo

for

read

impa

70

Range and Intensity of Motivations for Reading

Still another indicator of aliteracy is range of
reasons for reading. Most discussions of aliteracy favor
one reason for reading: reading for personal enjoyment and
pleasure. They maintain that an aliterate is one who
chooses not to read except for utilitarian or for school-
and job-related reasons. However, Cole and Gold (1978),
who report on the 1978 BISG survey, say that "reading for
pleasure is more common than work/school reading" and
"virtually all readers engage in some type of leisure
reading. . . . Almost no one reads for school or work
only" (p. 59). Additionally, heavy book readers tend to
read both for information and pleasure, but reading for
pleasure is a more dominant motivation for them. On the
other hand, the main motivation of non-book readers is
reading for general knowledge; they tend to have a narrower
range of reasons for reading than book-readers. These
findings were replicated in the Mikulecky et al. study
(1979). The Mikulecky et a1. study also stressed the
importance of measuring the intensity of the motivations

for reading.

Reading Ability
As I have mentioned earlier, while the literature on
reading reluctance tends to focus on a reading problem or

impairment that may cause reading reluctance, most users of

 

 

 

 

 

the t
suffi

do so

prese
amour
the :
neWSj
read
137)
exce
news
"app.
exam
from
mint
by w

1111

read

NAEP

71

the term aliteracy assume that the aliterate person has
sufficient ability to read but simply lacks the desire to
do so. They tend to stress that aliteracy is more a matter
of desire than of skill. In her review of the literature on
reading, Winkel (1988) states that "while there is support
for the idea that reading ability and aliteracy are relat-
ed, there is more support for the idea that reading ability
is not a eepee of aliteracy" (p. 41). Analyzing the 1978
BISG results, McEvoy and Vincent (1980) reason that the
presence of basic skills "has regulatory influence on the
amount and nature of book reading" (p. 140). They say that
the six percent who did not report any reading of books,
newspapers, or magazines in the past six months did not
read "because of an apparent absence of such skills" (p.
137). However, they offer no evidence for this inference
except to say that the non-readers, who did not read any
newspaper, magazine, or book in the past six months,
"appeared to represent the least ’privileged’ group. For
example, over 60 percent of the group had not graduated
from high school, with one-third having completed less than
ninth grade" (p. 136). They do not explain what they mean
by "absence" and "skills." (Are these people completely
illiterate? What kinds of skills do they lack?)

The positive relationship between reading ability and
reading volume has been documented by many studies. The

NAEP survey of young adults (Kirsch and Jungeblut, 1985)

 

 

 

Shl
in:
po
le
wh-
in

1e

72

showed that those who read more scored higher in the read-
ing assessment. Likewise, Walber and Tsai (1984) found a
positive relationship between frequency and amount of
leisure reading and reading achievement. Greany (1980),
who surveyed a sample of Irish children in primary schools
in 1976 found reading attainment a strong predictor of
leisure reading. He states,

The positive relationship between time devoted to

book reading and reading attainment supports the

findings of two recent British studies (Maxwell,

1977; Whitehead et al., 1975). The positive

relationship between time spent reading comics

[including magazines] and reading attainment

suggests that, despite the impoverished language

which is a feature of many of the popular comics,

a certain level of reading competence seems to be

associated with comic reading. (p. 354)

Maxwell (1977) also acknowledges the value of reading
comics and magazines relative to reading achievement in his
study of children between 8 and 15 years of age in Scot-
land. He found that students with the highest reading
achievement read more books and more ephemera (comics,
newspapers, and magazines) than students with lower reading
achievement. However, the reading of books, not the read-
ing of ephemera "is what distinguishes classes of higher
reading standard from the others" (p. 60). Pointing out
that ephemera is "of a fairly high level of content and
discussion" (p. 57) and does not necessarily require a low
level of reading ability, Maxwell states,

It is likely that reading in school is done more

slowly and meticulously, but the average pupil

appears to do more to lay the foundations for
recreational reading in later life outside the

 

 

 

clas:
schoc
ing c
kept
subst
(PP-
Two i
between ar
(1981) cox
and 18, fl
ing that
lowest. H
tional 51
three C01
Zealand s
20 percen
found t]
0f readi:
Countries
Sion anon
and parti
general
cited f0]
mentione
Andersen,
0f fifth.
reading 1
the fiftl

seCond t

73

classroom than within it. Whether it is the
school’s duty to encourage and develop the read-
ing of such material is debatable, but it must be
kept in mind that such reading constitutes a very
substantial part of the pupil’s reading activity.

(PP- 53-9)

Two important studies have focused on the relationship
between amount of reading and reading achievement. Guthrie
(1981) compared reading comprehension in two age groups, 14
and 18, for New Zealand, the United States and Iran, find-
ing that New Zealand had the highest scores and Iran the
lowest. He then used data from six national and interna-
tional surveys to determine the reading volumes of the
three countries and found a similar pattern, with New
Zealand surpassing the United States in reading volume by
20 percent, and Iran showing the lowest reading volume. He
found that "reading comprehension achievement and volume
of reading were highly associated" (p. 20) in the three
countries and that "the proficiency of reading comprehen-
sion among students at two age levels is highly correlated
and partially accounted for by the volume of reading in the
general p0pulation." He adds that the most frequently
cited form of recreation in one survey was book—reading,
mentioned by 69 percent of the population. Likewise,
Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) found in their study
of fifth-graders that "the amount of time a child spends
reading books is related to the child’s reading level in
the fifth grade and growth in reading proficiency from the

second to the fifth grade. The case can be made that

 

 

 

reading 1
reading p1

It i:
a cause a
read prac
because 0:

heavier a:

That
reading,.
major st]
Irish fit
bles whic
in virtue
attainmen
to spend
more tin
17-year-c
fOUnd th
own, 23
Similarlj
1980), 52
as Oppose
Cent of 1
to 46 pa]

were nOn

 

74

reading books is a cause, not merely a reflection, of
reading proficiency" (p. 301).

It is reasonable to argue that reading volume is both
a cause and an effect of reading proficiency: people who
read practice and strengthen their reading skills, and
because of their good reading skills they tend to engage in

heavier and more sustained reading like book-reading.

Gender

That gender is a significant predictor of leisure
reading, especially book-reading, is the conclusion of many
major studies. In his study of the leisure reading of
Irish fifth graders, Greany (1981) found that "two varia-
bles which emerged as strong predictors of leisure reading
in virtually all of the analyses were gender and reading
attainment" (p. 353). His study revealed that girls tended
to spend more time reading books, and boys tended to spend
more time reading comics. Reporting on a survey of
17—year-old high school students, Ravitch and Finn (1987)
found that among those who say they never read on their
own, 23 percent were boys and 10.6 percent were girls.
Similarly, in the 1978 BISG survey (McEvoy and Vincent,
1980), 58 percent of the females read books and periodicals
as opposed to 42 percent of the males. However, 54 per-
cent of the males were periodicals-only readers in contrast
to 46 percent of the females. Among the males, 53 percent

were non—readers, and among the females 47 percent were

 

non-readi
likely t
white" (l
lecky, S]
that gent
write the
demc
tore
tior
tenc
adu]
gr01
dic1
the
The stud:
had poor
Signific
women .

enjoyment

somethinl

McE
integrat.
the amou:
Claim t]
HOWever,
the most
0diCa1.c
leisure

etc.)u (

75

non-readers. The heavier volume book-readers "were more
likely to be women, between the ages of 21 to 49, and
white" (McEvoy and Vincent, p. 136). The study by Miku-
lecky, Shanklin and Caverly (1979) confirmed the finding
that gender is a strong predictor of reading habits. They
write that
demographic variables are not useful as predic-
tors of reading habit. Even education, a tradi-
tionally effective predictor of reading compe-
tence, is only mildly effective as a predictor of
adult reading habits. . . . The only demographic
group to prove individually effective as a pre-
dictor of adult reading habits and attitude was
the gender of the reader." (pp. 41-2)
The study’s findings also indicated that "men as a group
had poorer total reading attitudes than women" and "had
significantly narrower variety of motivations than
women . . . they read less for recreation and personal

enjoyment than women . . . but more to find out how to get

something done" (p. 34).

Reading in Relation to Other Activities

McEvoy and Vincent (1980) maintain that the ability to
integrate reading with other activities in life influences
the amount and kind of reading that people do. Many people
claim that they do not read because of lack of time.
However, McEvoy and Vincent found that book readers "were
the most involved of the three groups [book-readers, peri-
odical-only readers, and nonreaders] in a wide range of
leisure activities (active, passive, social and individual,

etc.)" (p. 137). Those who read periodicals only were more

 

 

 

 

active the
suggest t1
narrower 1
One «
competiti
studies 1
relation:
revealed ‘
readers,
the same
found in
relation:
comics 0
explains
televisic
355). Gut
Zealand 5
the readi
Ind:
lack a C
Pleasure
tWard a
affect t
Conditioj
be tempc
habits o

76

active than those who did not read at all. These results
suggest that aliteracy implies a tendency to engage in a
narrower range of activities, of which reading is just one.

One of the activities that has been perceived as a
competition to reading is television-watching. Several
studies have found that television has no significant
relationship with book-reading. The 1978 BISG survey
revealed that non-readers spent more time watching TV than
readers, but book-readers and non-book readers spend about
the same amount of time watching television. Greany (1980)
found in his study of Irish fifth graders no significant
relationship between television and time spent reading
comics or magazines and time spent reading books. He
explains this finding by saying that "children accommodate
television without dropping other leisure activities" (p.
355). Guthrie (1981), likewise, found in his study of New
Zealand students that television—watching did not decrease
the reading volume.

Individuals who can read may at one time or another
lack a desire to read or temporarily stop reading for
pleasure. In other words, all readers have tendencies
toward aliteracy. The circumstances of one’s life can
affect the amount and type of reading that one does: The
conditions that affect attitudes and amount of reading may
be temporary or longlasting. Often, surveys of reading

habits or discussions of the results of these surveys fail

 

to consid
influence
ity in a
adults to
Greany h;
activitie
However,
different
swing. 0
stop read
Char
book-rea
readers,
their own
(1979)
Students
ment tha
and "had
researcr
m0re abl
have hip
and She)
Students
fOUnd a
of time
fied an<

for an E

77

to consider that the time in which the survey is given can
influence the results. Most surveys measure reading activ-
ity in a specified time period. For instance, Sharon asked
adults to describe what they had read the day before, and
Greany had students keep a diary of their out-of—school
activities in three specified days of a one-week period.
However, students’ summer reading habits may be quite
different from their reading habits when school is in full
swing. Or a person who is too busy with a new hobby may
stop reading or not read as much for a period of time.
Chambers (1983) contends that the heavy emphasis on
book-reading in the schools has helped create reluctant
readers, "book-besotted" students who balk at reading on
their own or scorn recreational reading. Mikulecky et a1.
(1979) found that "adults employed full time or as
students . . . read less for relaxation and personal enjoy-
ment than did other groups according to employment status"
and "had the poorest attitude toward reading" (p. 34). The
researchers explain this finding by saying that "groups
more able to select their own reading material appear to
have higher attitudes toward reading" (p. 34). Carlsen
and Sherrill (1988) analyzed the reading biographies of
students enrolled in adolescent literature classes. They
found a group of students who stopped reading for a period
of time while pursuing other activities; they also identi-
fied another group of students whose non-reading went on

for an extended period and who admitted they could not be

 

 

-v:k.~. r-

 

 

called "I
latter gr!
hooked on
at a cert
cover real
eracy may
pending c
son’s lif
assessed.

As It
differen'
adulthood
survey 0
France 5]
Common a:
survey 51
31 indic
Most sai
had lost

Barker a;

The
lif
mos
lac
The
Gem
Sud
end
0f

78

called "readers." Carlsen and Sherrill described this
latter group as students who wrote that "they were never
hooked on reading," or they became unenthusiastic readers
at a certain period in their youth" or "they did not dis-
cover reading until college or adult life" (p. 137). Alit-
eracy may be short-lived or permanent--more or less--de—
pending on the time and circumstances surrounding a per-
son’s life while his reading habits and attitudes are being
assessed.

_ As many studies have revealed, aliteracy may occur at
different points in a person’s life, in childhood or in
adulthood. However, Barker and Escarpit (1973) say that a
survey on book-reading among youth in Switzerland and
France shows that "lack of interest in reading is not so
common among youth" (p. 108). They also cite an Italian
survey showing that out of 160 who were non-readers, only
31 indicated they had never been interested in reading.
Most said they had been readers when they were young but
had lost the reading habit. Concluding from this finding,
Barker and Escarpit state,

The problem, then, is one that arises in adult
life, particularly among young adults who are
most apt to lose their reading skills through
lack of practice. This is a general phenomenon.
The cultural activity of childhood and adoles-
cence, supported by the educational system, is
suddenly interrupted when schooling comes to an

end and often abandoned for lack of another form
of support. (p. 108)

 

 

'~ 5“”.-

.’

 

 

Barker ar
books wit]
which ma]
Their cont
"that ari
Lampert a
who have

students.

Toward a

 

AS I
have now:
dichotomy
0f liter
configure
family 1;
multi-di]
tions' 3;
Us that
text, Co

The
best be
bUt of r
behavior
reading,

my I and

79

Barker and Escarpit mention "the tendency to associate
books with school work" as just one of the many stereotypes
which may prevent people from reading" (pp. 109-110).
Their conclusion that losing the reading habit is a problem
"that arises in adult life" contradicts the findings of
Lampert and Saunders (1976) and the observations of those
who have written on reading reluctance and aliteracy among

students.

Toward a Comprehensive Definition of Aliteracy

As I have explained in chapter 2, literacy scholars
have moved away from simplistic notions of literacy as a
dichotomy or even as a single continuum. They now conceive
of literacy as "literacies"--a plurality, involving many
configurations. Taylor (1980) says ethnographic studies of
family literacy have suggested that "literacy is a complex
multi-dimensional phenomenon" and that "no two ’configura-
tions’ are exactly the same" (p. 12). Szwed (1981) reminds
us that definitions of reading and writing should consider
text, context, functions, participants, and motivation.

These ideas lead us to conclude that aliteracy can
best be defined as a condition of having skills in reading
but of not utilizing these skills. It involves a number of
continua relative tx> attitude toward reading, reading
behavior, types of text read, reasons or motivations for
reading, and reading ability. Aliteracy is pg; a dichoto—

my, and neither are its components. For example, attitudes

 

 

 

 

 

can range
behavior
Furthermo:
behavior
distincti<
Conc
behavior
"Which co
perceive
amount 01
contend t
ing/non-r
person w]
occasiona
aliterate
fests its
ing and
The
reading I
importam
a higher
reading_
reasons
definiti(
ins alon.

we shoul

 

 

 

 

80

can range from mild dislike to hatred of reading, and
behavior can vary from occasional to complete avoidance.
Furthermore, while we need to recognize that attitude and
behavior are related, we must maintain the necessary
distinctions between them in defining aliteracy.

Concerning the relative importance of attitude and
behavior in aliteracy, we need to deal with the question:
"Which counts more--attitude or behavior?" If people who
perceive themselves as non-readers actually do a fair
amount of reading, can they be considered aliterate? I
contend that the degrees of liking/disliking and of read-
ing/non-reading need to be considered. In other words, a
person who shows either a mild dislike of reading or an
occasional avoidance of reading may be a mild or occasional
aliterate. On the other hand, extreme aliteracy mani—
fests itself in both a very negative attitude toward read-
ing and a total avoidance of reading.

The range of texts read and the range of reasons for
reading need to be considered as well. Book-reading is an
important indicator in that book readers tend to engage in
a higher volume of reading as well as a wider variety of
reading. They also tend to read for a wider range of
reasons than non-book readers. However, in building a
definition of aliteracy, we should not consider book read-
ing alone as some discussions of aliteracy are prone to do.

We should consider all types of reading and count all

 

 

 

 

reasons f
for pleas
ability t
on aliter
ship beti
Therefore
attitude

. The
behavio:
ability--
needs to
attitude
range of
develOpm.
soning f
their re
Of that.
study.
esting,
reading
ing. The

do, Am

become a

81

reasons for reading, not just leisure reading or reading
for pleasure. Furthermore, although the role of reading
ability tends to be ignored or slighted in the literature
on aliteracy, many studies have found a positive relation—
ship between amount of reading and reading proficiency.
Therefore, one’s level of reading ability may affect one’s
attitude toward reading and reading volume.

The possibility that these indicators—~attitude,
behavior, texts, reasons for reading, and reading
ability--do interact with each other and in multiple ways
needs to be kept in mind as well. For instance, a negative
attitude may limit the amount of reading people do, the
range of texts read, the reasons for reading, and the
development of their reading ability. Pursuing this rea-
soning further, individuals who dislike reading may limit
their reading to textbook-reading, and only a small amount
of that. Their sole reason for reading then may be to
study. Because textbooks are generally dull and uninter—
esting, reading textbooks may reinforce their beliefs that
reading is dull and unpleasant and that they dislike read-
ing. The more they dislike reading, the less reading they
do. And the less reading they do, the less skillful they

become as readers.

 

 

 

In
followed
this stt
design a:
ments an

sis.

Research

Thi

followin

def

era
acc

col
Wha

dei
tic

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

In this chapter I will describe the steps I have
followed to answer the research questions that have guided
this study of aliteracy. I will discuss the research
design and the rationale for it, and describe the instru-
ments and methods used in the data collection and analy-

sis.
Research Questions

This dissertation proposes partial answers to the
following questions:

1. What is aliteracy? How should it be
defined? What are its indicators and categories?

2. To what extent are claims about alit-
eracy and its seriousness as a societal problem
accurate?

3. Does aliteracy exist among community
college students? If it does, to what degree?
What is the nature of this aliteracy?

4. In the light of new, comprehensive

definitions of literacy, what are the implica-
tions of aliteracy?

82

 

 

 

 

hearth—l

To p
cy, this
summary c
represen
literatur
aliteracy
and to 6
identify
These 90.
tion giv
at Kalam
eracy ex
extent.
Characte
CY- The
Prongs.

a Precis

 

 

 

W

To provide a clear and accurate definition of alitera-
cy, this dissertation has used a three-pronged approach. A
summary of the literature on aliteracy and related topics
represents one prong. The goals of the review of the
literature are to determine the accuracy of the claim that
aliteracy is widespread and serious problem in this society
and to develop an operational definition of aliteracy,
identifying its indicators, components, and categories.
These goals were achieved in Chapter 3. Using the defini-
tion given in Chapter 3, I conducted a survey of students
at Kalamazoo Valley Community College to find out if alit-
eracy existed among community college students and to what
extent. I also interviewed nine students who had aliterate
characteristics to learn about the nature of their alitera-
cy. The survey and the interviews are the second and third
prongs. Through these three approaches, I hoped to develOp

a precise and comprehensive definition of aliteracy.

Rationale for Survey and Interviews

The choice of methodology for this study was governed
by the axiom that the research must fit the research ques-
tions. According to Goetz and LeCompte (1984, p. ix) and
Kantor, Kirby, and Goetz (1981, p.295), decisions on
whether to use quantitative or qualitative methodologies

should be based on the goals of the research. Defining

 

 

 

aliteracy
searchers
To disco‘
communitj
questionr
Resp
give inf
informatf
used gui
intervier
give anS'
ing for.
provide
question
method e
subjects
The
Senting
relative
Summari:
Sallple i
SUrVQYe
communp
would v

Pared,

 

 

 

84

aliteracy by finding out how reading theorists and re-
searchers have used the term was a necessary first step.
To discover to what extent aliteracy is a problem among
community college students, I conducted a survey, using
questionnaires that students answered while in class.

Respondents in surveys asking for self-reports tend to
give information that is socially desirable and conceal
information that is not. Other studies of this type have
used guided interviews and diaries. The presence of the
interviewer in guided interviews might lead a respondent to
give answers that he or she feels the interviewer is look-
ing for. Questionnaires and diaries, on the other hand,
provide privacy which may encourage more honesty. I used a
questionnaire for that reason and for its efficiency as a
method of collecting information from a large number of
subjects.

The closed-ended portion of the questionnaire, repre-
senting the quantitative aspect of this study, provided
relatively objective data that could be easily compiled and
summarized. It also allowed for comparisons between this
sample and other segments of the population which have been
surveyed by other researchers. Any similarities between
community college students and the general adult population

would validate the methods used in the studies being com—

pared.

 

 

 

 

a The
key-inf01
sent the
the inte:
nation c
understa
tions of
The in-<
that cou
naire.
the pict

findings
Researe

Th
strateg
cording
Prevale
"If a t
tion t]
Althoug
a Sing]
eDriche

//Wt
Cerned
ings' t

meanim

 

85

g The interviews of nine students, who may be considered
key-informants (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984, p. 119), repre-
sent the qualitative portion of the study. The purpose of
the interviews was to get additional information and expla-
nation of the questionnaire answers and to gain a fuller
understanding of the reading habits, attitudes, and motiva-
tions of some of the students who took part in the survey.
The in-depth interviews provided additional information
that could not be obtained through a closed-ended question-
naire. The depth of information gained helped flesh out
the picture and offer valuable clues on how certain survey

findings should be interpreted.

Research Methodology Assumptions

This study has used quantitative and qualitative
strategies for gathering data, a methodology, which, ac-
cording to Goetz and LeCompte (1984), has become more
prevalent and is a sound approach to research. They state,
"If a theory is valid, it should be amenable to substantia-
tion through a variety of data-collection strategies.
Although many theories develop primarily through the use of
a single approach to data collection, they are generally
enriched by broadening the data-collection base" (p. 59).

//While the quantitative portion of the study is con-
cerned with reliability or the replicability of the find-
ings, the qualitative portion is focused on discovering the

meaning of the data and providing a valid interpretation

 

 

‘ ~ .....;,-__ -

 

 

 

(Rist, 1!
enable t1
an empat
interpre
by the 5
students
answers
particip
simply i
The
searche
Accordir
few mod
percept:
into tl
qualita
Pure et
tool co
intervj
Search,
/ Th
enable(
means ,
Called
triang1

the Qt

86

(Rist, 1977, p. 45).; As Rist explains, qualitative methods
enable the researcher "to get close to the data, to develop
an empathetic understanding of the observed, to be able to
interpret and describe the constructions of reality as seen
by the subjects, . . ." (Rist, p, 45). By talking to the
students, I was able to find out what they meant by their
answers to the questionnaire, in other words, to learn the
participants’ meanings from their perspective rather than
simply imposing my perspective on the data.

The acknowledgement of the subjectivity of the re-
searcher is an integral part of qualitative research.
According to Goetz and LeCompte, "Ethnography is one of the
few modes of scientific study that admit the subjective
perception and biases of both participants and researcher
into the research frame" (1984, p. 95). Although the
qualitative procedure used in this study cannot qualify as
pure ethnography, it makes use of in-depth interviewing, a
tool common in ethnographic research. This tool allows the
interviewer’s perspectives to become a part of the re-
search.

/1{ The use of both quantitative and qualitative methods
enabled me to cross-check the data gathered through one
means with data gathered through another means, a process

called triangulation. As Goetz and LeCompte (1984) notes

,ur ’

_,.

 

triangulation "assists in correcting biases that occur when

the ethnographer is the only observer of the phenomenon

 

 

 

 

 

 

under in‘
of the u:
the poss

the rese

§1£1§¥

I c
on sabbe
at Kalam
a total
Communi
(Englisl
to Read
Childre:
include
develop
in the
other c
ware (y
102), 1

(Law Er

8'7 /

I
under investigation" (p. 11). Another possible advantage

of the use of both methodologies, according Rist (1977), is
the possibility that, through the juxtaposition of the two,

the researcher will "see new and different things" (p. 48).

Surve !

I conducted the survey in September 1990 while I was
on sabbatical leave from my position as English instructor
at Kalamazoo Valley Community College. Eight classes, with
a total of 219 students, participated. Four were in the
Communication Arts department: Developmental English
(English 098), College Writing (English 101), Introduction
to Reading Skills (Reading and Study Skills 101), and
Children’s Literature (English 242). They were chosen to
include students at different levels of college, from the
developmental to the advanced level. To ensure diversity
in the sample, I administered the survey to classes in
other departments of the college: Microprocessors 1/Soft-
ware (Electronics 215), Principles of Sociology (Sociology
102), Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

(Law Enforcement 101), and Human Relations (Business 207).

Selecpion of Subjects

In selecting subjects for this survey, I sought a
sample that met the following criteria:

1. Different levels of classes, from developmen-
tal to advanced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.
tecl

sur
5.

sur
vie
Cor

Subject:

17, 199(
Pilot St

A I
ter to '
questio
then ir
negativ
parts c
analysi
t0 ansv
tions,
qUesti
Studen
Whethe]
whethe
approa.

Was re

88
2. Different programs, including business and
technical areas.
3. A mixture of males and females and of ages.

4. Instructors’ permission to administer the
survey during class time.

5. Students’ consent to participate in the
survey and, if asked, to be available for inter-
views after completing the questionnaire.

Consent for the study was obtained from the Human

Subjects Committee at Michigan State University on April

17, 1990.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted in the spring 1990 semes-
ter to test the initial questionnaire I had developed. The
questionnaire was given to an English class at KVCC. I
then interviewed two students in the class who indicated
negative attitudes toward reading. After the pilot study,
parts of the questionnaire were revised to permit easier
analysis of the data. Open-ended questions asking students
to answer in essay form were changed to closed-ended ques-
tions, giving them a list of answers to choose from. The
questions that were changed were questions that asked
students to evaluate themselves as readers, to explain
whether reading is easy or difficult for them, and to state
whether they think reading is important. Through this
approach, the number of open-ended, essay-type questions

was reduced from four to one, allowing for more efficient

 

 

 

analysis
ty of me
survey v
informat
view set

to inte
Construe

Th:
percept
attitud.
or mo:
abiliti
led me
tions 0
in the
Nation;
(Sudman
Stateme
were a<
tude M(
58-61)'
ments,
Suitab
Varietj
readin

throng:

89

analysis of the results. Questions on variety and intensi-
ty of motivations taken from the Mikulecky et al. (1979)
survey were also added. Realizing the range and depth of
information that students can reveal in an informal inter-
view setting, I decided to increase the number of students

to interview, from four that I had planned, to nine.

Construction of the Questionnaire (See Appendix A)

The purpose of the survey was to find out students’
perceptions of their reading behavior or habits, reading
attitudes, the types of materials they read, their reasons
or motivations for reading, and their reading
abilities--elements which my review of the literature had
led me to conclude are involved in aliteracy. The ques-
tions on reading behavior (what is read and how often) used
in the present survey were adapted from surveys of the
National Opinion Research Center and the Gallup Poll
(Sudman and Bradburn, 1982, p. 58). Eight of the fifteen
statements used in the Likert-type question (question 8)
were adapted from the Mikulecky Behavioral Reading Atti-
tude Measure (Mikulecky, Shanklin, and Caverley, 1979, pp.
58-61). (Slight modifications were made to make the state-
ments, which were designed for a telephone survey, more
suitable for a written questionnaire.) The questions on
variety and intensity of motivations for reading, types of
reading, and self-perceived reading ability (questions 9

through 13) were also taken from that study.

 

 

 

 

 

Res:
maintain
desirabl
would ht
nothing
gain the
nation e
tions, f
relativ.
Questio
recreat
then a:
month,
easier
magazin
Counter
I askec
neWSpaI
title
about.

Q1
reader:
and ne
tion
sDare

b00k I

90

Researchers (Sudman and Bradburn, 1982; Nell, 1988)
maintain that because reading is perceived as socially
desirable, individuals who report on their reading activity
would hesitate to admit that they have read little or
nothing or would exaggerate their reading activity. To
gain the students’ trust and willingness to divulge infor-
mation about their reading habits, attitudes, and motiva-
tions, I began the questionnaire with questions that are
relatively easy to answer, requiring yes and no answers.
Question 1 was intended as an ice-breaker, asking what
recreational activities the students had engaged in. I
then asked the students what they had read during the past
month, using the phrase "Did you happen to" to make it
easier for them to say "No" if they had not read any books,
magazines, and newspapers (Sudman and Bradburn, 1982). To
counter the tendency to exaggerate their reading activity,
I asked students to name titles of books, magazines, and
newspapers they had read. If they could not remember the
title of a book, they were asked to write what it was
about.

Questions 2 through 7 are questions often asked in
readership surveys. Question 2 asked what books, magazines,
and newspapers students had read in the past month. Ques-
tion 3 asked how often they read for enjoyment in their
spare time, and question 4 asked whether they had read a

book "all the way through" and, if they had, when? In

 

questior
types 0:
read :35
these q‘
of this
as dete
T
ure stt
(state1
(statem
f, g, l
readin
also a
as rea
they r
Speed
was in
tions
readi:

Currer

91

questions 5 through 7, students were asked to indicate the
types of magazines and the titles of newspapers that they
read regularly (on a daily or weekly basis) if any. I used
these questions so that I could compare the reading habits
of this sample to those of other segments of the population
as determined by other surveys.

The statements in question 8 were designed to meas-
ure students’ perceptions of the general value of reading
(statements a and 1), personal attitudes toward reading
(statements b, j, and k), reading behavior (statements d,
f, g, h, and o), and attitudes and behavior concerning book
reading (statements c, e, i, and n). The questionnaire
also asked students to indicate how they rated themselves
as readers and, compared with other peOple their age, how
they rated themselves in terms of their comprehension and
speed of reading (questions 9, 12, and 13). Question 10
was intended to measure variety and intensity of motiva-
tions for reading, and question 11 cited different types of
reading and asked students to indicate which types they
currently engaged in.

Individual items of the questionnaire were combined to
construct the different components of aliteracy. Personal
attitude toward reading was measured by adding the points
for the answers to questions BB, 8J and 8K. The answers
range from "strongly disagree," given 5 points, to "strong—
1y agree," given 1 point, and "no opinion," given 3

points. Likewise, self— erceived readin abilit was

 

 

measured
The men
measure:
for eac]
"very 1.
(indie:
mm
son’s 1
ranging
combini
ranging
Q1
student
reader
enced

Commer
Studer
perSpe
dem0g1
educai

race .

92

measured by adding the points for questions 9, 12, and 13.
The number of reasone or motivations for reading was
measured by using question 10, A through E, with 1 point
for each answer of 1 or 2 (indicating that the statement is
"very like me"). No point was given to answers 3, 4, and 5
(indicating that the statement is "very unlike me").
Intensity of motivation was measured by combining a per-
son’s responses to question 10, A through E, the score
ranging from 5 to 25. Types of texts read was measured by
combining answers to question 11, A through E, the score
ranging from 0 to 15.

Question 14 is an open-ended essay question asking
students to try to explain what had made them the kinds of
readers that they were and who or what might have influ-
enced their reading attitudes and habits. The written
comments provided a fuller picture of the nature of a
student’s aliteracy and its origins, from the student's
perspective. The final part of the questionnaire asked
demographic questions relative to sex, age, amount of
education, whether a fulltime or parttime student, and

race.
Interviews

Nine students who indicated through their question-
naire answers extremely negative attitudes toward reading

and avoidance of reading were chosen as subjects for inter-

 

viewing
intervi
enjoyme1
for enj'
or "st:
read."
A1
a fasti
library
were 4!
ized ii
an int
schedu
reques
questi
themse
anyth:
asked
the q1
Viewi]
thoug
What
thong
to as
they

woulc‘

93

viewing. For example, of the nine students who were
interviewed, eight indicated that they "never" read for
enjoyment in their spare time and two stated that they read
for enjoyment "less than one time a week." All "disagreed"
or "strongly disagreed" with the statement "I like to
read."

All of the interviews, except one (which took place at
a fastfood restaurant) were held in empty classrooms, the
library, and lounges on the KVCC campus. The interviews
were 45 minutes long on the average. I used a nonstandard-
ized interview format (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984), following
an interview guide but not adhering to a predetermined
schedule of questions. I generally started each one with a
request for additional explanations of their answers to the
questionnaire. As an opener, I asked them to describe
themselves as readers, and I allowed them to talk about
anything that related to that general question. I also
asked them to clarify specific answers they had written on

\
the questionnaire. "(One of the main thrusts of the inter—

viewing was to ask for additional explanation of why they
thought they were the type of readers that they were and
what aspects of their school and home environments they
thought might have influenced them. Another objective was
to ask them how they felt about the amount of reading that
they were doing and if they thought their reading habits

would remain the same or change in the future.

 

NY
to test
theref01
and pul
interaC'
I tried
judgmen
reading
their 1
reader
relati'
brary,
would I
atmospl
of the
record
Ed due

immedi

94

My main goal was to probe for additional information,
to test hunches, and to explore issues. As interviewer,
therefore, I did not remain uninvolved. Instead, I probed
and pursued questions as far as possible, and I encouraged
interaction between the students and me. At the same time,
I tried to maintain, verbally and non—verbally, a non-
judgmental and neutral stance toward the students' views on
reading. I wanted the students to feel free to disclose
their real thoughts about reading and about themselves as
readers. I believe that conducting the interviews in
relatively neutral areas like empty classrooms, the li-
brary, and the cafeteria rather than in my office, which
would have accentuated my role as a teacher, added to the
atmosphere of collegiality and trust. I tape recorded all
of the interviews, except two, and transcribed the taped
recorded conversations. The two that were not were record—
ed due to malfunctioning equipment I recalled in writing

immediately after the interviews.

Data Analysis

On the basis of their answers to the questionnaire,
students were assigned a score for each of the components
of aliteracy. For each component, the scores were grouped
into high (for the top third of the range), middle (for
the middle part of the range), and low (for the lowest
third of the range). Using these groups of scores, I

compared the scores of book readers on each of these compo—

 

 

 

nents t
extent I
I
person’
ments 2
survey,
tionna.
Additir
the su
the mi
from t
questi
readin
data f
arrive
concl'
Howevi
these

repree

Aisle

quest
liter
ter ]

exter

95

nents to those of non—book readers to determine to what
extent KVCC students are similar to the adult population.

I made inferences about the extent and nature of a
person’s aliteracy from his or her scores on these compo-
nents as well as from answers to other questions in the
survey, for instance those in the beginning of the ques-
tionnaire that pertain to reading habits and behavior.
Additional information given through the essay portion of
the survey was also considered. Finally, in the case of
the nine students whom I interviewed, information gained
from the interviews was added to the data supplied by the
questionnaire to form a fuller and clearer picture of their
reading attitudes, habits, and motivations. By combining
data from these different sources, I posited that one can
arrive at a profile of a person as a reader and draw some
conclusions about the extent of a person’s aliteracy.
However, judgments about a person’s aliteracy based on
these data can never be final and absolute since they

represent only a part of reality.

Answering the Research Questions

In Chapter 3, I described the answer to the first
question, "How should aliteracy be defined?" from the

literature on aliteracy and related topics. In that chap-

ter I also answered the second research question, "To what

extent are the claims about aliteracy and its seriousness

 

 

 

as a 5
reports
the Aml
questi
compar:
studen
survey
nature
I used
C
views.
and 0;
those
7 wili
tion,

0f net

96

as a societal problem accurate?" basing the answer on
reports of surveys of nationally representative samples of
the American adult population. In answering the research
question, "Does aliteracy exist among KVCC students?" I
compared the findings of the present survey relative to the
students’ reading habits to the findings of the national
surveys. To answer the research question, "What is the
nature of the aliteracy among community college students?"
I used the results of both the survey and the interviews.
Chapter 5 will contain the summaries of the inter—
views. Chapter 6 will present the findings of the closed-
and open-ended parts of the surveys and will integrate
those findings with the results of the interviews. Chapter
7 will conclude the study by answering the research ques-
tion, "What are the implications of aliteracy in the light

of new, comprehensive definitions of literacy."

 

 

Tl
of the
nity C:
with n
result
interv

T
becaus
charae
read a
enjoyr
inter‘

use p:

Profi

\

mega;
lute]
He 1

ever:

CHAPTER 5

INTERVIEWS

This chapter and Chapter 6 will present the findings
of the interviews and the survey of Kalamazoo Valley Commu-
nity College students. After summarizing the interviews
with nine students in this chapter, I will analyze the
results of the survey as well as the findings from the
interviews in the next chapter.

The following students were chosen for the interviews
because they showed through questionnaire answers aliterate
characteristics: they reported that they didn’t like to
read and that they never read for enjoyment or read for
enjoyment less than once a week. Their willingness to be
interviewed was another reason they were selected. I will

use pseudonyms in referring to these students.

Profiles of Nine Students

Bob
Although Bob, a 19-year-old student, regularly read
magazines and a newspaper, he wrote on the questionnaire,
interview, he explained that he had book reading in mind.
He liked to read about sports and got Wed

every week. He also indicated in the questionnaire that he

97

 

 

did a "I
a week
Countin
read no
these m
books.
Bc
himself
what h:
the "s:
magazi:
to rea
n’t do
A
averae
averag
hensii
head
learn
get t
stuff
ester
this
eStat

on re

98

did a "moderate amount" of newspaper reading. A few times
a week he would buy The Detroit News on the way home.
Counting magazine and newspaper reading, he said that he
read more than two times a week for enjoyment. Outside of
these materials, he said, "I never read anything else. No
books. No nothing."

Bob seemed to have a clear, unqualified image of
himself as a person who did not like to read. When asked
what he disliked, he answered that he didn’t like any of
the "school stuff like books . . . ," but he liked sports
magazines and the Reader’s Digest. He said, "If I’m told
to read for school, I probably wouldn’t mind, but I would—
n’t do it just for the heck of it."

Although in the questionnaire Bob rated himself an
average reader, average in comprehension and even above-
average in rate, he admitted he had difficulty with compre-
hension: "It’s hard for me to read and bring it in to my
head the first time around on most things when I have to
learn it." He said that he could read words, but could not
get the meaning behind them. This applied to "school
stuff" only. When he read material in which he was inter~
ested or of which he had some knowledge, he didn’t have
this problem. For instance, he wanted to go into the real
estate business so he had been reading books and pamphlets

on real estate. He had no difficulty reading them.

 

 

 

 

Bol
novels
zines.
their rl

As
did, 80
heard 1
it. 8*
future
of rea

pleasui

class.
for e1
respor
and tr
0f scl
answei
ent p
SPort
each

Subs<
usual

sOmet

99

Bob said that his mother was an avid reader of romance
novels and newspapers, and his father read sports maga-
zines. His brother and he had taken after their father in
their reading habits.

Asked how he felt about the amount of reading that he
did, Bob said, "I probably could be reading more because I
heard it’s good for you. It relaxes you. Still I don’t do
it. Still I don’t read that much.“ He said that in the
future he probably would read more but only "research type
of reading like for my job. I probably won’t read for

pleasure any more [than I do now]."

Lee

Lee was an l8-year-old student enrolled in a reading
class. In the questionnaire he answered that he never read
for enjoyment and that he didn’t like to read. He also
responded that he usually didn’t read unless he had to,
and that he thought reading was not that important outside
of school. He appeared highly aliterate from his written
answers. Talking to Lee, however, I got a slightly differ-
ent picture. He said that he subscribed to two monthly
sports magazines and that he read a couple of articles in

each issue. He occasionally read Time, which his parents

 

subscribed to. He read the local newspaper every day,
usually reading the headline story, the sports section, and

sometimes the classified ads.

 

 

Le
reading
backs 1
he had
er, hi
Usually
think,
"Most I
book h
really
he nev
er, wh
child:
refere
Arbuti
Proble
if he
Paren1
novel
below

ardim

was 1
read

by re
him t
0f h;

100

Lee also talked about paperback books he had enjoyed
reading for English classes. He said that he liked paper-
backs that are about 150 to 200 pages long. Altogether,
he had about five positive experiences with books. Howev-
er, his other encounters with books had been unsuccessful.
Usually, after a couple of chapters into a novel, he would
think, "I just don’t think I can read this." He added,
"Most books aren't that interesting to me." He recalled a

book his friends in junior high school had told him was

really good--Phantom Toll Booth. .It was very thick, and
he never finished reading it. (This novel by Norton Just-

er, which is 256 pages long in paperback, is described in a
children/s literature textbook as "heavily burdened with
references that will daunt many readers" [Sutherland and
Arbuthnot, 1991, p. 280]). Lee said that he had no
problem reading textbooks; he usually understood them, and
if he didn’t, he could ask for help from his teachers or
parents. He said that it was hard to ask someone about a
novel that he or she had not read. Lee considered himself
below average as a reader. He said that he disliked stand-
ardized achievement tests and did poorly in them.

One book that Lee recalled having read with pleasure
was The Pearl. His mother, a school teacher, got him to
read the novel when he was in the seventh or eighth grade
by reading parts of the first two chapters and encouraging
him to read the rest. Lee’s mother read to him during most

of his childhood and continued reading to him after he

 

 

 

 

 

learnet
read, '
He sai
"If sr
much a
I
mothel
mothe:
reade
exten
If it
him,

that

reap:
char:
reco
show:
one ‘
the

into
caus
trie
higr
thai

101

learned to read. She would tell him about a book she had
read, he would read the book, and they would talk about it.
He said, "I like this." He said later in the interview,
"If she didn't do that, I don’t think I'd be reading as
much as I do."

Lee was one of six students I interviewed who had
mothers who read a great deal at home. Three of these six
mothers also tried to influence their children to become
readers. Lee’s mother seemed to have succeeded to some
extent in persuading him that book reading is worthwhile.
If it hadn't been for books his mother had introduced to
him, he would not have had the positive memories of books
that he described.

However, despite those positive experiences, Lee
reSponded on the questionnaire with answers that would
characterize him as a typical aliterate. The picture I
reconstructed from those answers and from the interview
shows a person who, despite of his perception of himself as
one who doesn’t like reading and avoids it, has experienced
the pleasures of reading and is struggling to turn himself
into a reader. Lee said that he’d like to read more be—
cause reading "might make me a better person." He had
tried to read at least one book every year since junior
high school, but he said, "I wish I could find more books

that are as good as the ones I've liked."

 

 

 

 

Tc
to des
mother
read."
about
to pic
one by
liked
"I car
keeps
me ti:
read
night

just

He sa
that
that
don't
his i
you .
text]
that
reme
I do
ther

102

Tom

Tom was an 18—year-old law enforcement student. Asked
to describe himself as a reader, Tom talked about his
mother, "My mom is a teacher and she likes to push me to
read." Tom explained that in the summer she would borrow
about five young adult books from the library and ask him
to pick one that he would like to read. He would choose
one by reading the first five pages of each book. If he
liked the way it started, then he would read it. Tom said,
"I can only read a book if I can associate with it or it
keeps me lively so I can pay attention ’cause reading makes
me tired. If I want to go to sleep, I just grab a book and
read it. But some books, you know, you can stay up all
night and read. I like that, you know, if I can read books
just like that."

However, Tom said that he hated reading school books.
He said that the reason he answered in the questionnaire
that he didn’t like to read was that "most of the stuff
that I read or that I’m told to read is school stuff and I
don’t like to read it." Tom said he disliked reading all
his textbooks, except for one law enforcement book "because
you can learn information that is useful." But the other
textbooks he called "boring" and “hard to read." He said
that he had trouble concentrating on, comprehending and
remembering what he read. "When I read out of a textbook,
I don’t take it in real well. But if I read it out loud,

then I remember it. Sometimes I have to go over it and

 

 

 

over it
said th
to do,
trate a
Ir
didn’t
it does
he sai
force
but I'
look a
once 5
read 1
the e
broug

guess

more
said,

can 1

SCh01
idea
read

tion

103

over it and over it, so I can remember it," he added. He
said that if he could tell English teachers what they need
to do, he would tell them to teach students how to concen-
trate and remember what they have read.

In the beginning of the interview, Tom said that he
didn’t like the way his mother pushed him to read. ". . .
it doesn't work," he said. However, later in the interview
he said, " I don’t know what I’d be like if she didn’t
force it on me. Maybe I won't read at all. I might have,
but I’m not really sure. It helps if she’s forcing me to
look at this book, to read the first five pages, because
once she has done that, then she doesn’t have to tell me to
read the [rest of] the book because [now] I want to." At
the end of the interview, he said, "If my mother hadn't
brought me those books, I would never have read them. I
guess it was pretty good that she did."

Tom didn't think that in the future he would read
more than he did at the present. However, he may read, he
said, ". . . if I can find a good book. I don’t know how I
can find them."

Like Lee and Bob, Tom mentioned some difficulties with
school reading; Tom had trouble concentrating and retaining
ideas. What is the connection between self-perceived
reading difficulties and their reading habits? This ques—

tion cannot be answered solely on the basis of informatiOn

 

 

 

gather:

cussed

planne
KVCC.

she ne
subscr
bough1

ads.

poor

poor

She

Came

104

gathered from these interviews. However, it will be dis-

cussed more in connection with the next two students.

Sue

Sue, a 37-year—old business administration major,
planned to start her own business when she finished at
KVCC. She confirmed her answer in the questionnaire that
she never read for enjoyment by saying that she didn’t
subscribe to or read magazines, and when occasionally she
bought a newspaper, she mostly looked at the classified
ads. She said,

I don’t like reading I think in part because
sometimes there are a lot of big words, and my
spelling isn’t that good. My comprehension of
words isn’t that great. I've got to sit there
and figure out how to pronounce the words and it
just makes me think it's boring. It’s too much
trouble.

While she said she didn’t like to read because of her
poor ability to recognize words, she also said that her
poor spelling was caused by lack of reading.

I know my spelling is affected by reading. I
know my spelling is very bad, and I know that if
I was to read more, I’d pick up more. When I
came back to school in January, I was forced to
read books and stuff, and I was reading more. My
spelling was better because I was looking at the
words and remembering them. And then after I
slacked off this summer, my spelling slacked off
too. So I know reading does affect my spelling,
and I know it’s helpful, but it's just something
that I have to force myself to do.

She said that her reading ability has improved since she

came back to school. Still she said, "It’s nowhere as good

 

 

 

as I WI
it use
T
readir
"When
taught
basica
have '
and 11
she w
teach!
she s
didn'
magaz
it n!
SCho<
one-.

came

elem,
and

I co
that
exam
[he]
inte

She

105

as I would like it to be, but it's a little bit better than
it used to be."

The reason she cited for her present attitude toward
reading was that she never read as a child. She said,
"When I was a child I was never enforced, or asked to, or
taught to just read. I can read, but I don’t like to read
basically. . . . it’s just like anything else in life, you
have to make a habit of it, whether you’re young or old,
and it’s just something I never picked up." She said that
she wasn’t encouraged or discouraged by any particular
teacher. "This is a problem I’ve always had in my life,"
she said. "I did it [reading] in school just enough, but I
didn’t do any outside reading at home or free reading of
magazines [and] books. So I think that’s why I don’t like
it now because I wasn’t made to do it as a child." At
school she said, "I enjoy doing things with my hands or
one-on—one than I have reading about things, so when it
came to reading I didn’t comprehend as well as I did."

In contrast, her 17-year-old son, when he was in
elementary school "loved to read. You’d give him a book,
and he would just read, read, read. He was very smart, and
I could see that his grades reflected his reading. I know
that it’s very important to read just by watching-his
example, and I know it’s very important for the young girls
[her two younger daughters, ages 5 and 8] to read and be
interested in reading." Knowing the importance of reading,

she had tried to encourage her children by reading to them

 

 

and DU'
refer:

just c

.._1¢vro-rnnrfI—-I

She

 

readi

night

was k
"I p]
need.
more

busi

WES

Year
She

Coul

tha
joy
not

80m

 

106

and buying them a set of The World Book Encyclopedia. She
referred to the encyclopedias as "a thousand dollar set
just collecting dust." She said,

I give the kids the books and say, go look
through them, but as far as me taking the time
off to read to them stories, I know I have to
start young by reading to them in order to help
them when they get old to enjoy reading more, but
when I start reading to them and they start
fidgeting, then I just close the book and stop
reading.

She felt that she had a "tendency to discourage" their
reading because she didn’t read to them as much as they
might want or need.

Sue seemed to read only for utilitarian reasons. She
was keeping her textbooks, instead of selling them, because
"I plan on going back to them and getting the information I
need." She thought that her future would require of her
more reading of this type. She would need to read more
business-related brochures and pamphlets.

When asked if there was any time in her life when she
was interested in reading, she described an experience ten
years ago when she was a secretary and was "totally bored."
She explained, " I had nothing to do, so the only thing I
could do was to read. So I happened to pick up a book and
I got interested in it and I couldn’t put it down. And
that was one of the very few times in my life that I en-
joyed reading. Only when there's no other option, there’s

nothing else to do, so I was forced to concentrate on

something like that, then I find myself reading." She said

 

 

that t
intere:
type A
stirs

chapte
down.

respo:
leisu1
ronme1
jail,

be my

the 1
score
scale
(on a
in t
and

self
aver
rang
hair
and

fir:
dur

dau.

107

that that experience "made me think I could probably be
interested in something. I'm an impatient person myself, a
type A personality. And unless I can find something that
stirs my interest right away, if I have to read through a
chapter or two to get my interest [going], then I put it
down. So it’s got to be interesting to begin with." In
response to my question whether she would read more for
leisure in the future she said, "If I’m in a closed envi-
ronment with nothing to do, like when you get locked up in
jail, then I’ll think of a book and read, but it wouldn’t
be my first choice."

In her questionnaire answers, Sue scored low, if not
the lowest, on almost all the aliteracy components. She
scored the lowest on attitude toward reading (on a 3-15
scale, she scored 3) and on variety of motives for reading
(on a 0-5 scale, she scored 0). She had the lowest scores
in the medium range for intensity of motives for reading
and types of reading engaged in. Her highest score was in
self-perceived reading ability (she considered herself
average), where she fell in the upper part of the medium
range. It is interesting to note that in the question-
naire, Sue indicated that reading was not a useful activity
and that it was not that important outside of school. At
first these answers appeared to contradict what she said
during the interview about the importance for her young

daughters "to read and be interested in reading." However,

 

 

in the
readin:
readin]
busine
busine
E
skill
answe:
readi]
ates l
choosl
frust
prono
1y, u
langt
woul.
perce
beha‘
lead
abil
Cycl
com
in c
here
the}
to ;

108

in the interview, she did put considerable emphasis on
reading for school. For Sue it appears that the value of
reading was tied to schooling. Because she wanted to own a
business, in the future she saw the need to read more
business-related material.

Because Sue rated herself as average in reading
skills, I would have concluded from her questionnaire
answers that she had no serious problems connected with
reading and that she was one of those stereotypical aliter-
ates who Can read presumably without any difficulty but who
choose not to. However, Sue did say that she found reading
frustrating because of her poor ability to recognize and
pronounce "big words." (In the interview she spoke fluent-
ly, using a varied vocabulary, and seemed at ease with oral
language.) If she read more, her word recognition skill
would undoubtedly improve. But, again, a predominant
perception that she didn’t like to read affects her reading
behavior. It is indeed a vicious cycle of poor attitude
leading to reading avoidance leading to limited reading
ability leading to poor attitude, and so on around the
cycle. The cycle might have started with any one or any
combination of these components. But once the cycle starts
in childhood, it seems to go on into adulthood, leading the
persons concerned to think that it will never change, that
they will continue the cycle of reading only what they have

to and of avoiding reading for pleasure.

 

A
the qt
younge
for s:
[and]

consi:

 

rerea
[than
Althc
that

consi

textt

inte
Sincc
didn
ment
but

airp

beca

i
F
l

390.
ing.
at .

pap.

 

109

Ann

A 33-year-old mother of a 2-year-old boy, Ann wrote on
the questionnaire, "I never spent time reading when I was
younger, [and] didn’t often get my assigned readings done
for school. II don't remember any influence on my reading
[and] that's probably why I don’t like to read." She
considers herself below average in reading skills. Why?
"I can sit and read, and read, and read, and when I get
done there’s nothing there. . . . I find myself having to
reread. When I read, I feel that I'm reading more slowly
[than I should] and I’m getting lost in what I'm reading."
Although she didn’t have much difficulty reading a novel
that she had finished reading in the preceding month, she
considered herself a slow reader, whether she was reading
textbooks or reading a novel.

Ann wrote that she never read for enjoyment. She
interpreted reading for enjoyment as reading books, and
since, except for this novel she just finished reading, she
didn’t read books, she thought she never read for enjoy-
ment. She didn’t read magazines and newspapers regularly,
but about two years ago she subscribed to a magazine on
airplanes. (Because of her dad’s interest in flying, she
became interested in it and took flying lessons six years
ago. She wanted a career that combined flying and market-
ing, her major.) She read magazines now only when she was
at a doctor’s office; she didn’t subscribe to a news—

paper. I asked her if she considered magazine reading as

 

 

 

 

readin
ing i1
articl
throug
a few
cle,
curio
arti
chilc
nevel
since
broug
read
went
beca
were
put
be c
sad

the}4

tim
a c
ree
mot

Sht

110

reading for enjoyment. "Only if I find something interest-
ing in it," she answered, and she did find interesting
articles to read occasionally. Usually she just "flipped"
through the magazines. When she was at her sister’s house
a few days before, she saw a newspaper and found an arti-
cle, which she read "because it stirred my interest and
curiosity." She expressed surprise that she read the whole
article. Recalling reading only one book as a
child--Qharlgtte;§_fl§Q--she said she started others but
never finished them. The only other book she had read
since elementary school was a mystery novel that her mother
brought her. "It took me over half a year until I finally
read it," she said, but she read it every night before she
went to bed and finished it in two weeks. "I was amazed
because I never thought it would catch my interest. There
were nights when I was just real tired and I didn't want to
put it down, and I forced myself to stop because it would
be one o’clock in the morning. . . . It was really kind of
sad that I finished it. It was over and I was real amazed
that I had such an interest in it."

She said that her mother read mysteries in her free
time. She remembered her father reading to her when she was
a child, but she didn’t remember any of the stories he
read. She didn’t have any friends who read books. Her
mother didn't try to get her to read, until last year when

she brought her the mystery novel that she wrote in the

 

 

 

 

quest
mothe
were

stres
mothe
where

1n re

more

the 1

reme
her
her
reat
rea
why
cot
Uni
to:
tal
re:

Di:

 

 

 

111

questionnaire she had read in the past six months. Her
mother didn’t encourage reading when she and her sister
were young, but now she sends books to Ann's son and
stresses the importance of reading to him. Before her
mother was married, she had her own television program
where she read to children. With her mother’s involvement
in reading, Ann was surprised that she herself was not a
more interested in reading.

Because Ann had indicated that she had read a book in
the past six months, one would have concluded on the basis
of that answer alone that she was a book reader (following
the BISG surveys, this study designates those who have read
a book in the past six months as book readers). However,
that was the only book she had read "maybe since ghggz
lotte’s Web," and Charlotte’s Web was the only book she
remembered reading as a child. Ann repeatedly said that
her being a below-average student in school was a result of
her lack of reading. She said, "I think my feeling for
reading is what affects my reading for classes because I
really have to sit down and force myself to read. That’s
why I don't think I get much out of it." Ann was taking a
course called "Learning to Learn" at Western Michigan
University. It taught strategies for reading and studying
textbooks, and she liked it very much. She said, "I think
taking this class and learning more about another kind of
reading is going to make a difference. I hope that it

picks up my interest and my skills in reading."

 

 

 

R
intere

to ree

year-l
ing a

hopir

 

like
she i

enjoy

pape
recu
read
recc
tha1
fin
lau
chi
lea
She

not

 

 

 

 

112

Regarding her son, Ann said, "I hope he takes a better
interest in it [reading] than I do. I know it's important

to read to him everyday, but I don’t."

Ruth

Asked to describe herself as a reader, Ruth, a 30-
year-old student, said that she wasn’t interested in read-
ing and never had been. She read only for school. "I’m
hoping that while I’m in school, I’ll start learning to
like to read, maybe even love to read," she said. Although
she wrote on the questionnaire that she never read for
enjoyment, she said in the interview that she read a month-
ly magazine, Guidepost and other magazines on Christian
family living once or twice a week. She had subscribed to
Better Homes and Gardens but she did not read the news-
paper regularly. Because her husband was in the hospital
recuperating from injuries from a car accident, she started
reading a book written by Barbara Mandrell about Mandrell’s
recovery from injury incurred in a car accident. She found
that interesting, but she was frustrated that she couldn’t
find much time to read it. She read the book between
laundry loads or when her two own children and the four
children she babysat for were taking naps. Asked what she
learned about herself as a reader from reading these books,
she said that she found out that she liked true stories

more than love stories or fiction.

 

 

 

 

who c
choos
adequ.
anyth
"A 1c
call
long
she
didn'
for
"enj
remi
read
a wt
and
not

a f:
to:
me.
She
120
ree

Say

fh

 

 

 

113

Ruth appeared to fit the stereotype of the aliterate
who can read, who has no difficulties reading, but who
chooses not to. Ruth felt that her reading skills were
adequate: "I read well. I don't have any problems reading
anything. It’s just trying to find the time." She added,
"A lot of people would call me active or hyper. I don’t
call myself that, but I like to keep busy and to sit too
long drives me nuts, so I like to run around a lot." When
she answered the questionnaire, she indicated that she
didn’t like to read and that she read less than once a week
for enjoyment. For both questions, she was referring to
"enjoyment reading, I don’t do enough of that." When
reminded about the magazine reading she did, she said she
read for enjoyment, one to two times a week, "but still not
a whole lot." By "a whole lot," she meant "sitting down
and reading a book of a couple hundred pages. That’s just
not like me." Like the others I had interviewed, she had
a firm and definite image of herself as one who didn’t like
to read or didn’t read for enjoyment--"that’s just not like
me." However, the book she was reading was 400 pages long.
She had been reading it for about five days and had read
120 pages. The experience of reading this book made her
realize she liked to read non-fiction and also made her
say, "Like the book I’m reading right now, it’s just driv—
ing me nuts. I'd just love to crawl up in a couch and

finish reading. I'm interested in seeing what happened to

 

 

 

her, i

spare.

repli:

 

She

were
She

book
coui
booi
enj.

her

inf
Chi
the
en:
lea

to

 

114

her, how it all turned out. I just don’t have an hour to
spare."

Asked about what influenced her reading habits, she
replied,

I think a lot of it was my parents; they never

enforced sitting down with a book to study. We

were never made to study so therefore I never

studied. If I didn’t have to, I wasn’t going to,

so I think that might have been a lot of where it

came from and I find myself doing that with the

boys [ages 5 and 9]. I don’t have them read

enough. I don’t have enough time to sit with

them to read to them. They enjoy being read to,

but the 9-year-old has a hard time sitting down

and reading a book. I think a lot of it goes

back to your childhood-~what you saw in the home.

My parents never read a lot.

She added her parents read the newspaper but that there
weren’t a lot of books at home when she was growing up.
She remembered that they had National Geographic but not
books. Throughout her schooling, she read as little as she
could-~"just to get by." After high school, she read a
book about a Vietnam veteran, a true story, which she
enjoyed. This was the only book she could remember from
her past.

Like Sue and Ann, Ruth was concerned about how she was
influencing the reading attitudes and habits of her own
children. She feared that she was bringing up her children
the way she herself was brought up. "I’m hoping that I'd
enjoy reading because I’m back in school . . . I’d like to

learn so much, and I know that a lot of that is just going

to come from reading."

 

 

 

infor
were

inter
read"
put 6
Mandr
"And

for w

Wal

115

Ruth’s main motivation for reading seems to be to get
information. Her two positive book reading experiences
were with non-fiction books. However, at the end of the
interview, she described a friend who "used to hate to
read" but now read Danielle Steele books that she "can’t
put down." This friend had told her to finish the Barbara
Mandrell book, so she could read it, too. Ruth concluded,
"And she used to hate to read . . . . maybe there’s hope

for me."

Joe
Joe, a 19-year-old student, said,
I don’t really spend a lot of time on read~
ing. Maybe I should spend more time. I know
it's important. I have no enthusiasm to sit down
and read a book. I've never read a novel. I
just don’t. I lose interest. I think I just
don't retain it like I should. And-that bothers
me a lot of the time because I know that once I
get to college--I'm in college--it requires a lot
of reading, so it’s frightening sometimes to
think about what I’m going to do, but I guess
I’ll manage through it.
Since he was in his third semester at KVCC, I asked
Joe how he felt about the amount of reading he had been
required to do in college thus far. His reply: "About
average." I asked if it was manageable, and he answered,
"Sometimes it isn’t because I work outside and it's not the
fault of the school. It’s my fault, I guess. I feel that
the reading requirements out here are all right." Living
at home where he was helping his parents run a business, he

wanted to move to a place where the atmosphere was more

 

 

 

 

conqel
inter
him a
selli
ed il
sure
real
clas

opin

know
inst
to i
If)
abOI

qui:

thr

Se

he

116

congenial to studying. Asked if he had found a course that
interested him, he said that he didn’t know what interested
him at the present, but he planned to go into marketing or
selling. He was taking sociology, but he was not interest-
ed in it and was just content to pass the course. "I’m
sure sociology or philosophy is important, but I don’t
really have to get deep into it, so if I can pass this
class [sociology], that's all right with me. That’s my
opinion."

It appears that Joe valued reading in the abstract-~"I
know it’s important." However, he could not cite any
instance when he felt that reading was personally important
to him. His main use for reading is "getting knowledge.
If you read articles, you get knowledge." He was concerned
about his reading habits because he anticipated more re—
quired reading in his future college courses.

Joe did not subscribe to magazines, but he "browsed
through" Time and Newsweek in the dentist’s office. He
also "previewed" publications about dogs (for his parents'
business) but only to get ideas for advertising. He said
that he read the newspaper to find out what was going on.
"If you can call that reading for pleasure, I guess that's
okay. I’m doing that to gain information about what's
going on in Kalamazoo and other areas," he explained.

From his elementary school years, he remembered a
second grade teacher reading guperfudge. He liked it, but

he didn't read other books after that because he was more

 

 

 

inter
schoo
"were
quire
expla
what
scho<
alwaj
how
that
list
read

come

tiox

hen:

Ask
thi
soc
exl
f01
em

be

117

interested "in getting out in the playground." In high
school he read TQ_Hill_§_Mggkingbirg and Animal_flarm, which
"were all right." He read them "because they were re-
quired. Otherwise, I never would have read them." He
explained that he didn’t read the books entirely: "I read
what was enough to get by with the assignment." A high
school librarian once tried to get him to read books. "She
always had a book and was always reading and would tell me
how interesting it was. And we would talk about it and
that's about it. But she tried." This librarian had a
list of recommended books for people who didn't like to
read. The books were out in a special cart and "you can
come and take them any time." He never tried any of them.
Joe rated himself a below average reader in his ques-
tionnaire; he also rated himself below average in compre—
hension but average in speed. In the essay part, he wrote,
The reason I don't like to read is because I can
never understand what I’ve read the first time
through. Therefore, I have to read it again.
and that is too time consuming.
Asked what materials he was referring to when he wrote
this, he answered "textbooks," like his accounting or
sociology textbooks. He said that he could not recall any
experience when he felt interested in the material and
found it more understandable. If he had such an experi-

ence, "it probably happened so long ago that I don't remem-

ber. Like I said, I usually don’t read a lot of things."

 

 

read.

’ schoc

atti'
“jus
word
by h
plea
to r
to t
inte
pare

homw

he

can
enj
tol
pli
su;
re:

gu'

re

WI

118

It appears that Joe’s attitudes and beliefs about
reading had been based on the reading he had done for
school. School reading consisted of textbook reading. His
attitude toward required reading was that he would read
"just enough to get by with the assignment." In other
words, perhaps except for Superfudge that was read to him
by his second grade teacher, he had never experienced the
pleasure of reading a book. (I did keep trying to urge Joe
to remember other books he had been exposed to. He seemed
to have told me all that he could recall at the time of the
interview.) His home life had not nurtured reading. His
parents never read much, and with a business run from their
home, they were constantly busy.

Talking about his feelings about himself as a reader,
he said, "I don’t want to feel that I’m illiterate, that I
can't read, because I know that I can read. I just don’t
enjoy it. I just don’t know what you call that." When I
told him about the word "aliterate," he said that it ap-
plied to him. At the end of the interview, he said, "I
suppose if I spend the time, I’d probably learn to enjoy
reading. If I had time to spend, I can probably do it. I
guess practice is what you need, isn’t it? The more you

read, the better you get."

Ron
Ron, a 36-year-old part-time student in electronics,

wrote on the questionnaire that he "never" read for enjoy-

 

 

 

ment
that

aver:

so a
scri
arti
larl
0th:

ski]

tio
cou
tar
usi

pie

1y
br
We
b0

CC

119

ment and that he "strongly agreed" that "reading is not
that important outside of school." He rated himself below
average as a reader.

I am this kind of reader because I never
really enjoyed it. I always enjoyed playing
sports or doing other things other than reading.

I have learned over the years that you do have to

read your required reading in school in order to

understand and keep up with your class. For me

to relax I like to just do it, not read and

understand fantasies.

Ron clearly felt that he didn’t like to read, saying
so a few times during the interview. However, he sub-
scribed to three sports magazines, and read one to two
articles in each issue. He also read the newspaper regu-
larly, reading the sports page first, then looking at the
other pages to see if they are interesting. Sometimes he
skipped the other sections and read only the sports page.

Ron had defined "reading" when he answered the ques-
tionnaire as "novel-reading." Asked why magazine reading
could not count as reading for pleasure when done volun-
tarily, he decided that he did read for pleasure and that,
using the same argument, "everyone" read for enjoyment and
pleasure.

Ron named several persons he knew who read constant-
ly: his wife, who read romance novels, his mother, his
brother, and a friend "who reads about 3 or 4 books a
week." However, Ron had read only two books in his life,

both by Tolkien, and this took place when he first went to

college (he quit college after a year). He said that he

 

 

 

 

enjO]

the t

caus
ques
not

cons
and

he <
papa
reac
he

The:
fil
rea

as

ing
he
sci

re<

sa
bo
Ch
he

ta

120

enjoyed these books, but he never read the third book in
the trilogy. He had not read another novel since.

He considered himself below average as a reader be-
cause he did not read as much as other people. In the
questionnaire he also "strongly agreed" that "reading is
not that important outside of school." This answer appears
consistent with his statement that he didn’t like to read
and that he read only what he had to for school. However,
he completely ignored the reading of magazines and news-
papers, which he obviously did regularly. When asked about
reading at work, at first he said that he read nothing, but
he later acknowledged that he read computer writing.
Therefore, Ron actually read more than he thought when he
filled out the questionnaire. He realized that he actually
read for pleasure several times a week, instead of "never,"
as he answered in the questionnaire.

Ron's reading habits seem consistent with his upbring-
ing, which stressed reading for information. He said that
he didn’t recall anyone ever reading to him at home or in
school and didn’t remember any children’s books. He did
recall having magazines, newspapers, and The Encyclopedia
Britannica around the house when he was growing up. He
said that he felt "only a little guilty" about his-non—
book reading, and he didn’t expect his reading habits to
change.- He expected to get most of the information he
needed from newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and

talking to people.

 

 

abou
elec
answ
indi

alsc

the)
sam]

skii

int
of
War

sa:

th.

th

in

fi

121

Keith

While the other interviewees expressed misgivings
about how little they read, Keith, a 31-year-old student in
electronics, seemed to flaunt his non-reading habits. His
answers in the questionnaire caught my attention because he
indicated not only that he never read for enjoyment, but
also that he never read magazines, newspapers, and books.
(He was among the 1.4 percent "non-readers"--those who said
they didn’t read books, magazines, and newspapers--in this
sample.) Yet he rated himself above average in reading
skills. He wrote the following in the questionnaire:

Reading is definitely not a priority with

me. Reading is very time consuming as compared

to other forms of information, such as televi-

sion. I believe my reading skills are above many

people who read all the time, but reading is not
efficient so I don’t do it!

Television or video programs designed to
take the place of reading is a far better source

of information and knowledge.

When I first called Keith’s house to ask if I could
interview him, his wife answered. I told her the purpose
of my call and the topic of my project. When she heard I
wanted to talk to her husband about his reading habits, she

said that she and he always talked about his reading be-

cause he never read and she thought it was important for

 

the sake of the children that he read.

Keith told me that he was just named vice president of

 

the engineering company that his father owned. When he was

in high school, he never took a book home, yet he graduated

 

 

 

with
foun
rinq
teac
tic]
dec;
away
tr01
ic.
row
the
he
whe
ste
was
ex1
db
ha

in
He

re

fi

with almost a 3.5 average. When he started college, he

122

found his courses easier than high school courses. Refer-
ring to the students in the class, he said, “It was like
teaching kindergarteners." There was far too much repeti-
tion, and he himself needed to be told only once. He
decided then that college was not for him. Having been
away for 12 years, he was back in college taking an elec-
tronics course. In this course, his attendance was errat-
ic. But although he had just missed three classes in a
row, he said that when he got back, "I’ll know exactly what
they’re talking about." He was taking this class so that
he would learn to work with people he employed; “. . .
when they’re doing something a certain way, I would under-
stand." He didn't expect to pass the course because he
was not trying to. To pass the course, he had to put in
extra time to meet the laboratory requirements, and he .pa

didn’t have the time. Although he bought the textbook, he
had never opened it.

Keith said, "I’ve never read a book in my life. That
includes textbooks. I learn from watching and listening."
He only read if "it’s definitely required that I read." He
read technical information that he had to know. Now that

he was vice president, he has to learn how to be a manager,

 

instead of being solely an engineer, so he had been

reading articles and booklets about management. "If I find

 

 

 

 

 

an a1

what

read.
actu
bein
watc
acti

for

on
in
to

We

123

an article, like in the Reader’s Digest, that is exactly
what I want to read, then I read that."

According to Keith, there was no place for pleasure
reading in his life. He said, "I think it’s a big joke to
actually read for enjoyment. . . . I can't imagine that
being fun." He liked to watch movies, but he did not
watch much television. He didn’t consider himself a very
active person. He liked to sit on his work bench and work
for hours.

‘I call [it] playing around with a circuit.

And I just want to see how it works, how it

reacts to certain conditions. I am alone then»

I want to work from seven at night to two in the

morning, so that I can do that without interrup-

tion. And that’s how I get the most work done.

When he was about twelve years old he started working
for his father. "He started me fixing some tape recorders
and things like that when I was growing up." He described
his father as someone who went to college and did the same
thing he did. He thought it was a waste of time and
didn’t finish. But, according to Keith, his father is
"very good" and used to consult for Sony and RCA. "He is
one of the t0p people in the video industry." Keith’s main
interest is in toys. "After we sell this company, I want
to design and build toys. Really neat ones. I've always
wanted to do that." He had worked for two other companies
as an "engineer." While he was employed by one company

for two and a half years, he worked on about 20 projects.

Two years after that when he went back and introduced

 

 

 

 

 

himse
find

his 1

just
degr
ever
gett
was

elec
had

answ

yea

EV
SC
Wa

fa

124

himself to the men working there, they were surprised to
find out that he was so young. They thought that, because
his name was on many projects, he was in his sixties.

Keith didn’t believe a person can become an engineer
just by attending college. He would have had a college
degree if he thought it helped. But he said, "I knew
everything they were teaching me, and all I was doing was
getting the grade." He mentioned a friend’s daughter who
was going to Michigan Technological University to become an
electronics engineer. He asked his friend if his daughter
had ever taken apart a tape recorder or fixed it. The
answer was no. Keith felt that when she got out in four
years, this person would not be a true engineer:

She’s going to know whatever was in a book writ-

ten by someone who read whatever was in his

books. It doesn’t make any sense. I think

that's probably why I excel in what I do because

I don’t rely on what I read in a book. I’m

learning all the time. I'm still learning.

Keith said about his three children: "Fortunately, for
them, in this world, they need to not be like me
[laughter]." The oldest is 14 years old and is a "straight
A student." Keith told his son, who worked for four hours
every night on his homework, "If you graduate from high
school with a 4.0 average, I’ll get you a Porsche." Keith
wanted him to go to Harvard to become a lawyer, perhaps the
family business lawyer.

I asked him how his reading skills could develop

without practice. "I don’t know," he replied. He thought

 

 

 

 

that
when
book:
of t
be h
sion
to '
more

woul

int]
be
nor
lis
adx
Itl
res
hi:
ab
be
to
as

at

125

that he read faster than his wife, who was a salutatorian
when she graduated from high school and who always read
books. He had written instruction manuals and other types
of technical material. He said his spelling was good and
he had been complimented for being able to write "profes-
sionally." His boss at Humphrey Products used to ask him
to "rewrite" the boss’s reports "so that they would sound
more professional, with the big words. And I did. So you
wouldn’t think I’d be able to do that."

Keith is indeed very different from the others I
interviewed. His reasons for not reading did not appear to
be related to his reading ability. They seemed to have
more to do with his preferred learning style: learning by
listening and watching. In his field, he had been able to
advance to the position he was in through that method.
It’s interesting to note that with Keith taking on new
responsibilities as vice president of his father's company,
his reading interests had expanded. Now he wanted to learn
about "new concepts in management." One could say that
before this point, Keith felt no need to learn about other
topics because he was narrowly focused on electronics. I
asked him how he got information about politics and world
affairs. "From TV," he replied. But he said that he
didn’t watch the news regularly. "Like I said, I’m just
lucky. I just happen to turn on the TV and there it is.

The next five minutes if I watch it, I catch up on the

 

 

126

whole Iraqi situation." He said he also listened to the
car radio, going to and from work. Keith appeared satis-
fied with whatever he could pick up from brief periods of
television watching and didn’t feel the need to learn more.

Like the other nine students, for Keith reading was
for getting information. However, while the other stu-
dents indicated that the value of reading is largely tied
to college, Keith had no use for college. So having no use
for college, he had no use for reading. Unlike most of the
other students who had enjoyed reading some books, Keith
seemed to have never had an enjoyable experience reading a
book. He said that the idea of reading for enjoyment was
"ridiculous" and "a big joke."

Most of the students expressed ambivalence toward
reading: they didn’t like it, but they "knew" it's impor-
tant. They felt frustrated by it, but they wished they
could read more. Those with children wanted them to enjoy
reading more and to read more than they did. The only hint
of ambivalence Keith showed concerned his children’s read-
ing. "Fortunately," he said slowly, as though choosing
his words very carefully, "for them, in this world, they
need to not be like me." And he appeared proud of his son
who spent four hours doing his homework every night. He
wanted to reward and reinforce the very behavior that he

himself had said had no use for.

 

 

 

 

view
ics

coll
opti
plat
sys
stul

mat

co:
th

al

a1

ic'

 

127

I believe that Keith had such adamant and extreme
views about reading partly because he was in the electron-
ics field. His company made video systems for schools and
colleges. A system his company had developed used fiber
Optics and ran 40 video cassette recorders and laser disk
players. Keith explained that an instructor could have a
system like this under his or her disposal. He said that
studies have shown that children, who already are "accli-
mated to learning from TV anyway" learn from this. One can
conclude that Keith’s beliefs about reading reflect his

knowledge of and faith in modern electronic technology.

Discussion

These interviews provided information that helped me
correctly interpret the questionnaire answers. Some of
the information gained from the interviews significantly
altered the reading profile that I had gotten from the
questionnaires. Listed below are notions on the nature of
aliteracy‘that I have derived from these interviews. These

ideas will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 6.

students’ Perceptions of Themselves as Readers
All of these students had a strong perception of
themselves as people who did not like to read and who read
only what they had to. Actually, they read more than they

realized or indicated on the questionnaire. Their tendency

 

 

 

 

 

128

to underestimate their actual reading seemed to be a result

of their belief that they didn’t like to read.

Students’ Views of Book Reading

For most of these students, the perception that they
did not like to read is rooted in their book reading expe-
riences. They had defined "reading" as "book reading“ and,
in some cases, as textbook reading. Although many of them
had had a few pleasurable experiences with book reading,
the experiences seemed to have been too few and far between
to have made a mark on their thinking. The negative,
frustrating experiences, mostly with textbooks, had made a

stronger impression on them.

School Reading
School reading appeared to have had a strong hold on
the attitudes these students have toward reading. The
belief that book reading is dull, frustrating, time consum-
ing--and that it is work--seemed to dominate their think-
ing. This belief seemed to have blotted out the more

pleasant experiences they have had with reading.

Home Environment
Many of these students appeared to be following the

reading patterns set at home. Some mentioned the lack of

 

 

 

 

 

129

parental encouragement when they were children as the
reason why they didn’t learn to like reading. Some re-
ferred to the absence of books and the presence of informa-
tive materials, such as newspapers, magazines, and encyclo-
pedias. The types of reading materials they had in the
home while they were growing up might explain why they
mainly read for information. Some mentioned that their
mothers read books, but their fathers read newspapers and
magazines. In these instances, the children seemed to have
been influenced by the fathers’ reading habits. Two
students had mothers who tried to help them become inter-
ested in book reading, and these admitted that if it hadn’t
been for their mothers, they would not have read the books
they read. However, the mothers’ influence on their read-
ing was limited and did not turn them into avid readers.
Other factors appeared to have affected their reading

attitudes and habits.

Reading Ability

While these students reported that they didn’t like to
read and never or rarely read for enjoyment, only half of
them rated themselves below average or poor as readers.
The other half considered themselves average, except for
one (Keith) who rated himself above average. However,
again except for Keith, all mentioned a "problem" in read-
ing or difficulties in reading textbooks. Among the prob—

lems mentioned are inability to concentrate and comprehend,

 

130

_ poor retention, and poor spelling. In addition to a misun-
derstanding of the reading process implied by citing "poor
spelling" as a reading problem, these problems may not be
real reading problems. They may be normal difficulties
associated with having to read material that is poorly
written or that is uninteresting and unfamiliar to the
reader. In other words, the problem might lie mostly in

the text and not as much in the reader.

Reasons for Reading
When they read, these students read for information.
They did not see themselves as readers for pleasure.
Hence, even those who read magazines and/or newspapers at
least once a week, reported that they never read for

enjoyment.

Students’ Attitudes Toward Their Reading Habits

Most of the students reported that their reading
habits and attitudes had a negative impact on their lives.
They said that their school work and grades have suffered
because they didn’t like to read their textbooks. All,
except for one, stated that they believed reading is impor-
tant and that it is important to read. Hence, they ex—
pressed various degrees of discomfort about their percep-
tion that they didn’t like to read. The wished that they
read more, wished that they liked reading more, and wished
that they were better readers. They also felt that they

would be better readers if they read more. Those who had

 

 

131

children said that they wished their children would like
reading more and would be better readers than they. .

When asked if they expected their reading patterns to
change in the future, almost all said that they would like
to read more. "Would they read more for pleasure?" I
asked. Those who had enjoyed reading a few novels or non-
fiction books said that they would like to find more inter-
esting books to read or to read more for enjoyment. Howev-
er, most said that they didn’t expect to engage in pleasure
reading. Because they have learned to entertain themselves
in other ways (through sports or television watching),
starting recreational reading seemed alien to them. Al-
though they might wish they read more or they might like
reading more, the kind of reading they could imagine doing
more of was the kind of reading they were used to--informa-

tional reading.

 

 

CHAPTER 6

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

This chapter will consist of two parts. The first
part will answer the question, "Does aliteracy exist among
community college students?" The answer will be based on
the findings of the closed-ended portion of the survey. In
the second part, I will attempt to answer the question,
"What are the extent and the nature of the aliteracy among
Kalamazoo Valley Community College students?" using the
results of both the closed- and open-ended portions of the
survey. The findings of the interviews, which I summarized

in Chapter 5, will be incorporated in the discussion.

Aliteracy in American Society

In Chapter 3, Review of the Literature, I offered
answers to the research question, "To what extent are
claims about the extent of aliteracy as a problem in this
society accurate?" II reviewed reports on small- and
large-scale surveys of the reading habits of many segments
of the American population, from elementary-age children to
adults. I based my conclusion about the extent of alitera-
cy in the United States primarily on the reports on surveys

of nationally representative samples of school-age and

132

 

 

133

adult populations. Among these are surveys of the Book
Industry Study Group (BISG) and the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). I also used the findings of
other major surveys, such as those by Sharon (1973-74), by
Mikulecky et al. (1979) and by Anderson et al. (1988).

I concluded from the findings of these surveys that
there are bright and dark areas in the picture, borrowing a
metaphor from Lehr (1985). One’s interpretation of the
extent of aliteracy in this country would depend on where
one’s eyes are focused. Those who have chosen to look at
the bright areas have concluded, as Sharon has, that read-
ing is a "ubiquitous activity" in American life. After
all, 96 percent of the public read books, magazines, 9;
newspapers (Boorstin, 1984), and the average person spends
an hour and forty minutes reading on a typical day, with 76
minutes of that time devoted to non-job-related reading
(Sharon, 1973-74). Also more than half (56 percent) of the
adult population are book readers, according to the BISG
surveys.

Trends, especially concerning the reading attitudes
and habits of students, represent the dark areas of the
picture. For example, according to NAEP findings, children
report that they like reading less as they grow older and
that almost half of the 17-year—olds chose reading a book
as their least favorite form of recreation. And the study
by Anderson, et al. revealed that the typical American

fifth grader reads "maybe as little as 8-12 minutes per day

 

 

 

 

134

when all types of reading material are counted and maybe as
little as 4-5 minutes a day when only books are counted"
(p. 299). If one were to focus on these trends, one has
reason for saying that aliteracy is a problem in this
society.

Likewise, one could focus on the almost half of the
adult population who are not book readers, according to the
BISG surveys, and conclude that, because, compared to book
reading, non-book reading tends to be accompanied by a
lower amount of reading, more negative attitude toward
reading, fewer types of texts read, fewer reasons for
reading, lower intensity of motivations for reading, and
poorer reading ability, this large a percentage represents
a serious problem.

There are murky areas in the picture as well. In
separate investigations of whether or not reading activity
has declined over several decades, Mikulecky et al. (1979)
and Robinson (1980) have drawn contradictory conclusions.
Mikulecky et al. report "an increase in adults’ total
reading time" (p. 32). In his analysis of daily reading
habits of Americans, Robinson, on the other hand, concludes
that reading appears "to be a less prominent feature of
daily life for all ages" (p. 141).

In brief, aliteracy is or isn"t a problem depending

on which studies one examines.

 

 

 

 

135

Aligeracy among Kelamezoo Valley Community College Students

To ascertain if aliteracy exists among community
college students, I will compare the results of a portion
of the present survey to the survey findings cited above.
In answering whether aliteracy exists in the American adult
population, I had primarily used figures that relate to
reading habits and to types of texts read because the
reports of nationally representative surveys have no fig-
ures available on the other components of aliteracy.
Consequently, I will use the findings in this study rela-
tive to those two components in determining whether alit-

eracy exists among KVCC students.

Reading Habits

The results of the KVCC survey show that KVCC stu-
dents’ reading habits are similar to those of the American
adult population. In the BISG survey 55 percent had read
at least one book in the last six months (they were re-
ferred to as book readers). In the KVCC survey, 53.2
percent read at least one book not required for courses in
the past month, and 54.3 percent had completed reading at
least one book within the last six months (these two very
similar figures represent the "book readers" in this.sam-
ple). In the BISG survey, 39 percent read only magazines
or newspapers in the past six months; in the present survey

45.4 percent read only magazines or newspapers in the past

136

Percentages

60

 

 

560%

I 1983 BISG

I chc

 

 

Book Readers of Non-
Readers Newspapers Readers
and/or
Magazines
Only

 

 

1983 BISG = based on the numbers of respondents who
reported reading books, newspapers and/or magazines
only, or none of these materials in the previous six
monthe. KVCC = based on the numbers of respondents
who reported reading books, newspapers and/or maga—
zines only, or none of these materials in the preyiogs
heath. (N=219)

Figure 1 Comparison of BISG and KVCC Results

 

137

month. The 1983 BISG survey showed that 96 percent of
American adults were readers of books, magazines er news-
papers in the last six months; the present survey shows
98.6 percent of the students surveyed are readers of books,
magazines, er newspapers in the past month. Hence, in the
BISG survey, 4 percent were non-readers of books, maga—
zines, e; newspapers, compared to the 1.4 percent who are
non-readers of these materials in the present survey.
Figure 1 shows a comparison of the results of the 1983 BISG
survey and of the present survey.

While the number of readers of books, magazines, or
newspapers among KVCC students seems very high, it must be
noted that a portion of these readers are occasional read-
ers rather than regular readers. The numbers are lower
when we count only those who read magazines and newspapers
regularly (on a daily or weekly basis). In this survey,
62.1 percent say they read magazines regularly, compared
with 88 percent who say they have read magazines in the
past month. Similarly, 82 percent say that they read
newspapers regularly compared with 92 percent who say that

they have read newspapers in the past month.

Non—Book Reading
Although the percentage of non-readers of books,
magazines, or newspapers in the K.V.C.C. sample is a mere
1.4 percent, the percentage of non-book readers is 45.4

percent. As shown in the literature review, non-book

 

138

reading is important indicator of aliteracy in that it
usually implies the following characteristics: lower amount_
of reading, more negative attitude toward reading, fewer
types of texts read, fewer reasons for reading, lower
intensity of motivations for reading, and lower reading
ability. We can expect, therefore, that 45.4 percent
(slightly less than half) of the K.V.C.C. sample, who
indicated that they were non-book readers, would tend to
have the characteristics listed above. Figures 2 through 6
show that this expectation is correct.

Figure 2 shows that book readers in the sample tended
to have more positive attitudes toward reading than non-
book readers. Figure 3 shows that book readers tended to
read more types of texts (books, magazines, and newspapers)
than non-book readers. We see in Figure 4 that book read-
ers tended to have a greater variety of motivations for
reading than non-book readers, and in Figure 5 that book
readers tended to have a higher intensity of motivations
for reading than non-book readers. Figure 6 shows that
book readers tended to View themselves as better readers

than non-book readers.

The Netupe ef Alitemacy Among KVCQ Smggemts

In the following section, I will discuss important
findings from both the survey and the interviews concerning

the nature of aliteracy among KVCC students.

 

139

Percentages

8O

 

 

‘650%

I Book Readers

Non-Book Readers

 

 

High Medium Low

Favorablllty’ of Attitude

 

Book readers are those who said they read a book
all the way through in the previous six months.
High attitude means a scale score of 11-15; medium
attitude means a scale score of 6-10; low attitude
means a scale score of 0—5. The difference between
book readers and non-book readers produced a Chi
square with p<.01. (K.V.C.C. sample, n=219)

Figure 2 Attitude toward Reading

 

 

 

 

140

 

  
 

Percentages
so
' 64.9%
so -
I BookReaders
40 _ 37.8% I Non-Book Readers

20-

 

 

High Medium Low

Number of Types

 

Book readers are those who said they read a book
all the way through in the previous six months.
High number of types means a scale score of
11—15; medium number of types means a scale score
of 6-10; low number of types means a scale score
of 0-5. The difference between book readers and
non-book readers produced a Chi Square with p<.01.
(K.V.C.C. sample, n—219)

Figure 3 Types of Texts Read

141

Percentages

 

60
53.7%

. Book Readers

Non-Book Readers

 

 

 

High Medium Low

Number of Motivations

 

Book readers are those who said they read a book
all the way through in the previous six months.
High variety means a scale score of 4-5; medium
variety means a scale score of 2-3; low variety
means a scale score of 0-1. The difference between
book readers and non-book readers produced a Chi
Square with p<.01. (K.V.C.C. sample, n-219)

Figure 4 Variety of Motivations

142

Percentages
80

 

62.1%

I Book Readers

Non-Book Readers

 

 

 

High Medium Low

intensity

 

Book readers are those who said they read a book

all the way through in the previous six months.

High intensity means a scale score of 19-25; medium
intensity means a scale score of 12-18; low intensity
means a scale score of 5-11. The difference between
book readers and non-book readers produced a Chi
Square with p<.01. (K.V.C.C. sample, n=219)

Figure 5 Intensity of Motivations

 

 

 

T———(

143

Percentages

100

 

80"

I Book Readers
60-
Non-Book Readers

40‘

20"

4.2% 3_1%

 

 

 

High Medium Low

Ability

 

Book readers are those who said they read a book
all the way through in the previous six months.
High ability means a scale score of 12—15; medium
ability means a scale score of 7-11; low ability
means a scale score of 3-6. The difference between
book readers and non—book readers produced a Chi
Square with p<.01. (K.V.C.C. sample, n=219)

Figure 6 Self—Perceived Reading Ability

 

 

 

T_____f

144

In the essay portion of the questionnaire, the stu-
dents were asked to respond in writing to one question:
"Why do you think you are the kind of reader that you are
today? What or who might have influenced your reading
attitudes and habits? For example, can you recall past
experiences, whether they occurred at home or at school,
that might explain why you feel the way you do about read-
ing?" Of the 219 participants in the study, 10 (4.6 per-
cent) did not answer the essay question. Those who did
wrote answers that range in length from a few words or a
phrase to several sentences. students’ answers to the essay
question in the questionnaire will be summarized and incor-

porated in the following discussion of significant findings

 

that have emerged from the total data.

Student’s Perceptione of the Inflmemees on Their Reading

Although this study is not primarily concerned with
identifying the reasons why students read or don’t read,

the essay question that dealt with that subject (question

 

14 of the questionnaire, a copy of which is in the Appen-
dix) produced interesting and potentially significant

findings. Not all the students answered the question, and

 

not all the answers were pertinent to the question asked.
Neither can the answers be taken as complete explanations.
The following discussion focuses on the students’ percep-

tions of what or who had influenced them as readers.

 

 

145

The "reasons" or "influences" cited by the students
can be categorized as extrinsic or environmental and in-
trinsic or personal. Home- and school-related influences
fall under extrinsic or environmental. Reading skills and
personal traits, such as a sense of curiosity or having
learned to read early, belong to the intrinsic or personal
category. These categories are used purely for descriptive
purposes. By grouping the influences in this manner, I do
not intend to imply that they are mutually exclusive;
evidence points to an interaction among the different types
of influences. In other words, a person might have learned
to read early because of parents who read to him and pro-
vided him with books to read. Some responses written by
the students list just one type of influence while others
list more than one. More often than not, a combination of
reasons or influences are implied by the comments. Whenev-
er I cite students’ responses in the discussion that fol-
lows, I cite them in full, so that the reader may see the
complete response given to the question.

Table 1 presents extrinsic and intrinsic reasons,
showing that extrinsic reasons were cited five times more
often than intrinsic reasons.

The students’ comments may also be categorized into
positive and negative comments (see Table 2). The vast
majority of comments are positive, attesting to the will-
ingness of those who have favorable attitudes toward read-

ing and/or who read a considerable amount to share their

 

146

 

Table 1 Reasons for Reading

Parent(s) 84
Teachers and teaching methods 36
Grandparents and other relatives 10
Friends 9
Boring textbooks 9
Lack of interesting reading materials 3
Liereriaps 2
Total 153

Intpinsic or Personal Reasons

Problems or difficulties with reading 18
Learning to read at an early age 5
Preference for sports and active pasttimes 4
3

Pmeference for television and movies
Total 30

 

views about why they liked to read or why they read as much
as they did. The majority of the positive comments concern
the home environment and the contributions of parents and
other family members toward the formation of an interest in
reading. Generally, when one or both parents are mentioned
as a positive influence, at least one other factor is
mentioned as woll--for example, the availability of books

or an encouraging teacher.

Home Environment
Almost all of the written answers to the essay ques-
tion (question 14) show a combination of factors that
encourage a person to like to read and to become a reader.
For example, in addition to regularly reading to the child,

a parent might also buy books for her or take her to the

 

 

 

147

Table 2 Positive and Negative Influences
on Reading Behavior

 

Poeitive Influences Timee Cited
Parent(s) 65
Teachers and teaching methods 26
Grandparents and other relatives 16
Friends 10
Reading a lot as a child 9
Learning to read at an early age 5
Librarians ' 2
Total 133
Negative Influences

Lack of parental support 19
Personal problems or difficulties with reading '
(e.g., dyslexia, poor concentration and
concentration, slow reading, poor vision) 18
Poor teachers and teaching methods 10

Boring and ineffectual textbooks
and reading materials
Not reading as a child
Preference for sports and active pasttimes
Preference for television and movies
Lack of interesting reading materials
Parentsgpushinglreading,
Total

 

 

 

 

148,

library. Of course, parents are more likely to do this if
they themselves are readers. Seeing their parents read
has encouraged these students to read as well. For some
students, encouragement has also come from friends and
from extended family members, like aunts and grandparents.
Their comments suggest that these readers lived in an
environment that supported reading.

I’m the kind of reader that I am today
because of the encouragement I received as a
child. I can remember being read to by my mom,
seeing her read, and of course going to buy
books. I also remember fondly one reading teach-
er whom I really loved. The teachers in middle
school who read aloud to classes always im—
pressed me.

***

I think one of the reasons I enjoy reading
is because I grew up being read to. My parents
read books a lot to me, my teachers, and other
relatives. I also saw my mom read almost every
night and she still does! She taught me that
reading relaxes you and can be very enjoyable!

***

My parents valued the ability to read. When
I was young, regardless of how badly I had be-
haved, my mother could always find an excuse to
buy a book for me when I wanted one and encour-
aged me to read for school assignments and per-

sonal enjoyment.

***

I think I was influenced by my parents.
Since I was very young my mother spent a lot of
time reading to me. As I grew older they would
buy me books and take me to the library and help
me find the type of book I was interested in. I
was always encouraged and sometimes rewarded for

finishing a book.

 

149

Like some of the students I interviewed who cited lack

of parental support, some respondents described homes in

which reading was not encouraged.

I wasn't pushed as a child to develop my
interest in reading. It was always easier to
turn on the television. My parents rarely read
to us and there wasn’t much of a reading selec-
tion in the house while I was growing up.

***

I do not like to read very much. I am
trying to read a book right now for pleasure. I
think I missed that in my childhood. My mother
hates to read and my father never does. I want
to read more because I am lacking in that area.
I like to read once I get started. I always feel
I don’t have the time.

Likewise, as in the interviews, mothers who read a lot and

father who didn’t were cited. In the cases below, the

father's influence prevailed:

I am an average reader. My mother reads a
lot, my father doesn’t read much. I don’t
either because I do too many things.

***

Books just never interested me. I always
found something else to do: Playing sports and
some other kind of activity. I’m not sure who
influenced me the way I’m about reading today.
Possibly my father because he couldn’t read very
well, and at a young age everyone likes to be
like their father. I’ve just always read what I
had to get by. But now I find it more important

to read.

Compared to the number of references to home environ-
ment as a source of influence on reading interests and
habits, the number of references to not following parental
or home influence is small (about 10 citations compared to

over a hundred citations on both the positive and negative

150

influences of the home on the students’ reading interests
and habits). The following student wrote that even though
her parents were not readers, she became interested in
reading. However, she didn’t say how she became an avid

reader.

I enjoy reading for relaxation. Most of the
time reading text books is not very relaxing.
Once I start reading a novel I have a hard time
putting it down. My family has never been the
type that everyone reads books-—in fact I’ve
never seen my parents pick up a book but both are

very successful people with no time to read. So
I guess I’m the black sheep. They never stressed
the importance of reading. I just do it for
enjoyment.

On the other hand, although the following respondent
had parents and friends who read, she didn’t develop a
"passion" for reading:

I’m not sure why my feelings for reading are

so poor. My mother and father read and many

friends also do. I just do not have a passion

for reading. My reading skills are good, like I

said there just isn’t a passion there for read-

ing.

A few responses suggest that some parents might have
used methods that discouraged reading. For instance, the
parents might have "pushed" reading too hard so that a
child rebelled or might have forced on children materials
they were not interested in. This respondent cited her
speech impediment combined with being forced to read aloud
to her mother as the reasons why she hated to read.

Maybe because when I was young, I was forced
to read aloud to my mom. I always hated it, and

I was slow in reading and pronouncing the words.
I had to have 3 years of speech class to learn

151

how to speak, and I’ve always felt self conscious

of the way I talk. [This person indicated in

other parts of the questionnaire that she didn’t

like to read and never read for enjoyment.]

School Environment

Next to parental or home influence, schooling was
cited as a second major source of influence. Respondents
cited the positive influences of teachers and schooling
both generally and specifically. An example of a general,
rather vague, comment is "My teachers back in grade school
made us read a lot, so I think it carried over all the
years of my years in school." Then there are comments that
state exactly what a teacher did. In the following in—
stance, the respondent was influenced by specific books
that his teacher read to his class:

The books that my fourth grade teacher read

to my class inspired me to read the same type of

book. Most of the time she would read the first

book in the series, i.e., "tales of the 4th grade

nothing, 7 chronicles of Narnia, the house with a

clock in its walls."
The following respondent wrote that having been given the
freedom to choose books she could read increased her inter-
est in reading.

I think I’ve always liked to read but I

remember that in a fifth of sixth grade class we

were allowed to choose the books we wanted to

read and I was very excited about it. I liked

most novels that we were required to read [for]

Classes but not as much as the ones I chose.

Some students wrote comments that reveal disappoint-

ment or disenchantment with their educational experience

both in general and specific ways.

 

152

I believe my reading habits were influenced
by my education through high school. I disliked
the educational process and desired to learn what
was of interest to me through other channels

(i.e. personal reading).

***

I believe if my past English teacher would
have taken the time to show the enjoyment of
reading instead of showing the job it takes to
get reading done I might be a better reader.

The following respondents identified themselves as

"poor readers" in school who suffered from such school

practices as constant skills testing and lack of free

choice in reading:

I used to be a very poor reader. We were
always tested for skills in grammar in junior
high school. I felt very pressured and could not
read fast enough. Consequently, I disliked
reading and never did so on my own.

After I married, I began reading a few
novels for entertainment while my husband was out
of town. I really began to enjoy it when I could
do so at my own pace. Now I read all the time
and love it. Plus my speed has greatly improved.

***

I was a poor reader in elementary school--so
I hated reading. I was forced to read certain
books for school. I did not enjoy reading until
I got out of high school, when I had a lot of
time on my hands and found material that inter-
ested me.
Interestingly, for many students, reading interest was

sparked by an opportunity to read what they wanted.'With
the free reading came enjoyment because they found material
they were interested in.

Many respondents who did not enjoy reading while they

where reading for pleasure was not

were in school,

 

153

stressed, learned to enjoy it at a later age. Having
discovered leisure reading on their own, they are able to
separate what they didn’t enjoy from what they did. Re-
spondents who enjoyed reading pointed out the difference
between school-required reading and self-chosen reading:
I’m not especially fond of reading textbooks
because they are boring a lot of times. However,
I do read them and try to understand what I’ve
read. If only started reading for pleasure two
years ago. It is enjoyable and relaxing. When I

was in elementary school, reading for fun was not
encouraged.

***
Probably because we as students are always

required to read textbooks throughout a class and
that’s not much fun. Reading what you want to
Egad is a lot more fun than reading what you neye
On the other hand, students who didn’t enjoy reading
appeared to consider reading as a monolithic activity and
were unable to distinguish pypee of reading. For instance,
some of the students I interviewed made blanket statements
about reading such as "I don’t like to read" or "I don’t
enjoy reading." Only when given the chance to talk about
what they liked or didn’t like were they able to identify
the materials they did enjoy reading, such as magazine
articles.
Perhaps, as Weaver (1989) and Neilson (1989, p. 70)
have suggested, students have internalized the definition
of reading implied by their classes. They have learned to

define "reading" in terms of school reading, the reading

of textbooks and other school materials. As one of the

 

 

 

154

persons I interviewed (Tom) explained, he answered the
questionnaire the way he did (saying that he didn’t like to
read and never read for his own enjoyment) because "most of
the stuff that I read or that I’m told to read is school
stuff and I don’t like to read it." In the following
written comment, a respondent explains her negative atti-
tude toward reading in terms of what she did for school.
I never really wanted to read. For classes

I would read the questions the teacher gave us,

skim and find the answer. I would never obtain

any information from the reading.
Perhaps, given the chance to explain this answer, the
student would be able to say more about reading she did
enjoy. Nevertheless, from the answers of those "lucky
souls" who were able to discover pleasure reading largely
on their own, educators, such as Chambers (1969), Fader
(1976), and Smith (1983, 1986), are justified in their
criticisms of the schools. Such criticisms, as explained
in Chapter 2, are directed against the overuse of text—
books, the overemphasis on utilitarian reading and the
corresponding neglect of pleasure reading, the forcing of

"good books" on students, and the constant testing for

discrete skills.

Reading Aptitudes

Like the students surveyed by the National Assessment

of Educational Progress (NAEP, 1981), KVCC students believe

 

 

155

that reading is important in the abstract. Reading is
highly rated by the students: 94 percent agreed or strongly

agreed with the statement that "reading is a useful activi-

ty." However, asked to respond to the statement "I like to
read," only 80.4 percent agree/strongly agreed with the
statement, 14.1 percent disagree/strongly disagreed, and

4.1 percent had no opinion. When asked how many times

they read for enjoyment in their spare time, 13.7 percent
said "never," and 21 percent said "less than once a week."
As Table 3 shows, "liking to read" is significantly
associated with "reading for enjoyment." Those who report—
ed that they liked to read also tended to read more fre-
quently than those who say they didn’t like to read.
However, liking to read is not synonymous with choos-

ing to read for enjoyment. Some students answered that

Table 3 Liking to Read vs. Reading for Enjoyment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I Like to Read"
Reading for Disagree or Strongly Agree
Enjoyment Neutral or Agree Total
Less than
once a 34 42 76
week 79.1% 23.9% 34.7%
Once a
week or 9 134 143
more 20.9% 76.1% 65.3%
Total 43 176 N=219
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

156

they never read for enjoyment or read for enjoyment less
than once a week even though they reported that they liked
to read. They represent 19.2 percent of the sample.
Considering that the respondents are students, one can say
that the amount of reading required of students might have
affected the amount of recreational reading that they

engaged in.

Gende; as a Predictor of Aliterecy

Many studies have found gender to be a strong predic-
tor of reading habits and attitudes. That finding is
confirmed by the present study. As Figure 7 shows, females
reported reading more books than males: 67.7 percent of
the females said they had read a book, wholly or partly, in
the past month, compared to only 39 percent of the males.
However, slightly more males than females regularly read
magazines, and slightly more males than females regularly
read newspapers.

Further, females reported more positive attitudes
toward reading than males, as Figure 8 shows.

Mothers appear to be more influential than fathers on
students’ reading attitudes and habits, judging from the
answers to the essay question. Mothers were cited as a

positive influence 22 times and as a negative influence 2

 

 

157

Percentages
um

 

860%

I Male

I Female

 

 

 

Book Magazine Newspaper
Readers Readers Readers

 

The difference between males and females for book
reading produced a Chi Square with p<.01. The
differences between males and females for magazine
and newspaper reading were not statistically
significant. (K.V.C.C. sample, n=219)

Figure 7 Gender and Reading Behavior

 

Percentages
60—

 

50

40

I Male

I)!

I F emaie

 

20-

 

 

High Medium Low

Favorabilitg of Attitude

 

The difference between males and females produced
a Chi Square with p<.01. (K.V.C.C. sample, n=219)

Figure 8 Gender and Attitude Toward Reading

 

159

times. Fathers, on the other hand, were cited only 6 times
as a positive influence and 5 times as a negative influ-
ence. Having had mothers read to them was an often cited
reason for students becoming interested in reading.
Occasionally, students mentioned that their mothers read a
lot, but their fathers read little, if any.

Among the 9 interview subjects, 5 stated that their
mothers were avid readers, some of whom tried to interest
their sons and daughters in the reading of fiction. Fa-
thers were mentioned 3 times mainly as readers of news-
papers and magazines. These findings are consistent with
the figures from the survey showing that females read more
books, and males read slightly more newspapers and maga-

zines.

Reasons for Reading

Among the indicators of aliteracy discussed in Chap-
ter 3 is the tendency to read for only one reason rather
than for several purposes. Students who are avid readers
show an awareness of different purposes for reading. Note,
for instance, the variety of purposes for reading and types
of reading material (fiction and non-fiction) implied in
the following written responses from obviously avid read-
ers:

As a young child I always read a lot of

books. I had a wild imagination and needed to
read to satisfy this. My Grandmother encouraged
me. She would.always buy me new books, new

 

 

160

stories. When I got older, I still had the need
or drive to read. I need a variety of books, a
need to learn about lots of different things or
different areas of knowledge.

***
I enjoy reading. I like to know what’s
going on. I read for pleasure and educational
purposes. My parents, high school teachers,

influenced my reading habits.

Students who didn’t like to read tended to be less
aware that there is more than one type of reading or more
than one purpose for reading. They tended to make blanket
statements like "I don’t like to read." or "I never read
for enjoyment." However, when I asked some of the in-
terviewees what they did read, they mentioned materials,
such as articles relating to their hobbies and interests,
which they said they enjoyed reading. Students who report-
ed that they didn’t like to read and that they avoided
reading appeared less capable of making distinctions be-
tween types of reading.

Among the students I interviewed, reading for informa-
tion seemed to be the most prevalent, if not the sole,
reason for reading. The said that they read primarily for
school, and because school reading stresses reading for
information, their reason for reading is usually to get
information. However, most of them read magazine articles
on their own, and these students said that they enjoyed
reading these articles. Perhaps they viewed magazine

reading as purely reading for information and did not

 

 

 

 

161

consider the pleasurable elements in the reading experi-
ence. Again, because they perceived themselves as individ-
uals who did not like reading, they were not able to see
the distinctions among reading experiences. Inn contrast,
a respondent, who wrote that he liked to read but preferred
informational materials, also wrote that reading for infor-
mation and reading for pleasure could overlap. His answer
implies he was aware that there are different reasons for
reading and that he realized that because he derived pleas-
ure from reading informative materials, the distinctions
commonly made between reading for pleasure and reading for
information are artificial. (Reading theorists would
describe his awareness and ability as metacognition [Weav-
er, 1988, p. 23].)

Some of the interviewees, like Sue, did not see a
place for recreational reading in their future. Sue said
that she would read a book if it happened to be the only
option available to her, such as if she were put in jail,
"but it wouldn’t be my first choice." She would not read
for pleasure because she preferred other ways of entertain-
ing herself. Still, she wished that she read more, but
more of the same type of reading, informational or utili-
tarian reading. But if she disliked this kind of reading
and had developed a habit of avoiding it, what is the
likelihood that she would read more? It seems that the
prospects for change are nil for these students. Perhaps

some will develop new interests, as Keith did, when he

 

 

 

 

 

IF"

162

became vice president of his father’s company and started
to read articles on management. And perhaps some will
continue to read articles in magazines and/or newspapers on
tOpics that interest them end continue to avoid books.

Some of the interview subjects had experienced pleas-
ure reading a few times and spoke about their reactions to
these experiences. Three who could recall one book that
they enjoyed reading as adults expressed surprise at how
interested and involved they were in their reading. They
indicated that they didn’t experience any of the problems
they usually had when they read textbooks. Among these
problems were not keeping their minds on what they are
reading and not understanding new words. Most of those
who had had pleasurable experiences with books expressed
the wish that they could find more interesting books to
read.

Some respondents wrote comments indicating that they
had learned to read for pleasure on their own. As one
student wrote, "High school and college have forced me into
the habit of reading what I have to. I’m still working on
improving my reading for fun or just for pleasure." Com-
ments such as this show that a pattern of reading only what
one has to or reading only for school can be broken.
However, for those who have a strong perception that they

do not like to read, the pattern may be harder to break.

 

W—E *5“

Typee ef Texpe Read

Some users of the word "aliterate" have used it to
refer to non-book readers. Non-book reading by itself
cannot be equated with aliteracy because to do so is to
deny the importance of other types of text and to minimize
the role of other components, such as attitude. Some
people who like to read may not be book readers. For
example, 5 students who answered the essay question cited
a preference for magazines and/or newspapers, indicating
that they liked to read, but they liked to read magazines
and/or newspapers, not books. The following student wrote
that he liked to read, but his reading difficulties had
caused him to limit his current reading to magazines:

As I was growing up I was a slow reader and
hated to read, especially out loud during class.

I took reading classes that did help. In college

I read books (text) every day and the more I read

the faster I get. Reading takes practice. Maybe

someday I’ll enjoy reading books but now I’ll

stick to magazines.

In Chapter 5, I stated that many of the interviewees
who reported that they didn’t like to read and that they
never or rarely engaged in pleasure reading based those
answers on their feelings about book reading. In the sur-
vey, 30 students (13.7 percent of the sample) said that
they never read for enjoyment; of the 30, 12 students (36.7

percent of those who never read for enjoyment) indicated

that they regularly read both magazines and newspapers.

 

Only 2 students (6.7 percent) of those who never read for

 

 

 

 

164

enjoyment did not read magazines em newspapers. Why didn’t
some of these students consider magazine or newspaper
reading as reading for enjoyment? In interviewing 9 of
these 30 students, I learned that 7 of the 9 had book
reading in mind when they answered the question. In fact,
they did read newspapers and/or magazines regularly.
However, they disliked book reading, a dislike which
colored their perception of reading in general. On the
basis of these finding, one might infer that some students
read-more than they thought and that they liked to read

more than they thought.
Reeding Ability

As I explained in Chapter 6, reading ability has
generally not received enough attention as a component of
aliteracy. It has been assumed that aliterates are people
who are not hampered by poor reading skills. This percep-
tion partly comes from the common definition of aliterame
as a person who has the ability to read but doesn’t or
won’t read and the dichotomous meaning given to "ability to
read" (i.e., a person either gen read or cannem). There-
fore, since almost all people "can read," it follows that
those who don’t read much don’t read because they prefer
not to. Little attention has been given to the role of
reading ability in a person’s lack of desire to read. Many

studies have shown that a positive relationship exists

 

 

 

 

165

between reading ability (as measured by standardized tests)
and reading volume; the more peeple read, the higher their
scores in achievement tests. Book readers, who tend to
read more than non-book readers, generally receive higher
test scores than non-book readers.

In the present study, students’ reading ability was
self-rated rather than measured by tests. Students rated
themselves as readers .on a continuum from "poor" to
"excellent"; they rated their reading comprehension and
speed in the same way. The findings of this survey support
other surveys that have found that reading ability and
reading volume go hand in hand. In this study, as Figure 6
shows, those who read more tend to regard themselves as
better readers than those who don’t read as much.

Reading difficulties constitute a major group of
intrinsic reasons the students gave for not reading. Of
those who answered the essay question, 9 percent wrote that
they experienced reading difficulties such as poor vision,
dyslexia, Attention Deficit Disorder, slow speed, poor
comprehension, and limited vocabulary. Roughly a third of
these students report that despite their difficulties they
like reading. Some wrote that they tried to read more to
overcome their reading problems. About two-thirds of
those who cited reading difficulties indicated that their
difficulties caused them to dislike or avoid reading. The

student who wrote the following comment said that he liked

 

 

 

 

 

 

166

to read despite his reading difficulties. waever, obvi-
ously his reading difficulties limited or hampered his
reading.
I like to read but because I don’t read very
well, it makes it hard to keep reading or even to

get the reading done. The problem comes from

grade school. I never learned to read very well

or spell.

Among the students I interviewed, four considered
themselves below average or poor readers, four thought of
themselves as average readers, and one indicated he was an
above average reader. However, most of the students I
interviewed, including some who considered themselves
“average," mentioned a problem or difficulty with reading.
They described such difficulties as poor word recognition,
difficulty in keeping their minds on what they are reading,
and slow rate of reading. These students said that their
difficulties resulted from lack of reading and/or caused
them to find reading unpleasant and to read less.

As Winkle (1988) explains, while poor reading ability
may not by itself cause aliteracy, it may discourage a
person from reading. The less a person reads, the less
likely he will develop his skills. Most of the students I
interviewed seemed to realize this. They thought that
their dislike of reading had negatively affected their
reading ability and their school work. The National Acade-
my of Education Commission on Reading (1985) says,

Predictably poor readers have unfavorable atti-

tudes toward reading. What is not so predictable
is whether lack of proficiency in reading stems

 

 

 

 

 

 

167

from unfavorable attitudes or whether it is the

other way around. Probably the truth can lie in

either direction. (p. 15)

To understand a person’s aliteracy, therefore, it is
important to consider the role that reading ability plays
in his or her reading. Although by itself it cannot/6e
considered a cause of aliteracy, poor reading ability can
start the cycle of disliking reading and avoiding it,
leading to further deterioration of reading skills.

It is important to note that most of the interviewees'
difficulties applied to textbook reading. Some stated that
they didn’t have as much difficulty when they read material
that interested them. One of these students, for instance,
had been reading pamphlets and books about real estate
because he wanted to be a realtor. He said that he had no
problem reading these materials because he had some idea
what they were about. In other words, some of these diffi-
culties might have resulted from having to read material
that was poorly written (as many textbooks are) and materi-
al that is unfamiliar and uninteresting to them. Every
reader, regardless of how fluent, competent, or experi-
enced, has experienced similar difficulties when reading
material that is not well written or material with which he
or she is not familiar or knowledgeable. We have reason to
conclude that some of the problems described by these
students might have resulted from school practices such as

the use of uninteresting, poorly written textbooks. Fur-

thermore, they might have been caused by simply lack of

 

 

 

 

168

reading-~resulting in limited exposure to certain types of
reading material and in insufficient background knowledge
and schemata to understand these materials (Weaver, 1988,
p. 17).

The real danger may lie in the attitudes and beliefs
that students who are daunted and frustrated by school
reading acquire about reading and about themselves as
readers. The students I interviewed considered themselves
people who didn't like reading. The more they didn’t like
to read, the more they avoided reading. Although most of
them actually read more than they thought (and perhaps
liked reading more than they thought), their reading was
limited and they felt inadequate as readers and as stu-

dents.

Multi-dimensional Natume of Aliteracy

Intrinsic reasons, such as a personal preference for
learning by doing rather than by reading and other idio-
syncrasies, are often cited with extrinsic reasons for not
reading. For example, the following students wrote that
their inclination to be active (intrinsic) may be the
result of their "lifestyle" or home environment
(extrinsic).

I don’t care to read. For a lot of times I

think it’s boring. Reading makes me tired. I

think my lifestyle has a lot to do with it,

because I like to always be active. I learn
better by doing things than by reading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

169

***

Reading was never a big interest in my life.
When I was growing up I enjoyed being with my
family and friends most of the time. When I was
reading I was alone and small things would dis—
tract me. I always wanted to "do" things not
just sit around reading. Reading was boring to

me. Maybe I never found anything to read that
interested me.

In most of these responses, a number of "reasons" or
"influences" are cited, and it’s difficult, if not impossi-
ble, to separate them. When different "reasons" are cited,
I believe it is reasonable to assume that they are to be
interpreted as multiple, not as single, isolated reasons.
For instance, Sue, a student I interviewed, said that she]
thought that the biggest influence on her reading attitudes;
and habits was that she was not encouraged to read on her.
own at home or at school when she was growing up. Howev-
er, she also said, "I enjoy doing things with my hands or
one-on-one than I have reading about things, so when it
came to reading I didn’t comprehend as well." These influ-
ences--lack of encouragement and modeling of reading,
preference for learning by doing rather than by reading,
and poor comprehension--seem inextricably linked. It is
impossible to separate them and to say which had a stronger
effect.

Sometimes contradictory answers are given, making the
analysis even more complicated. Hence, additional informa-
tion offered in other parts of the questionnaire should be

considered. It is only when we take into account all the

 

 

 

 

 

170

information available that we can have confidence that the
picture or profile we are trying to reconstruct is an
accurate one. Any part of the questionnaire responses
interpreted by itself may lead to inaccurate conclusions.
Furthermore, the questionnaire answers often do not provide
a complete or clear picture. The following response com-
bined with other information taken from the questionnaire,
illustrates the different components of aliteracy interact-
ing in a person’s life:

'When I was little I really didn’t read very
much so I never got in the habit to read very
fast. Also when I read I can’t comprehend what I
have read because I am easily distracted. My
parents might have influenced my reading habits.

I guess the reason I don’t like reading is be-
cause my teachers at school would give me home-
work to read and it would be about 20 or more
pages. Plus I would have other homework on top

of that. I just couldn’t comprehend all of the
reading so I thought it was a waste of time.

Here we can see meeglng_neneylem (reading little when
young), reading ability (slow speed and poor
comprehension), and emmlmnde_me_meeding (negative--"it was
waste of time") interacting to produce a configuration that
might make us conclude the person is "aliterate." We might
expect this student to dislike reading and to avoid read-
ing, especially book reading. However, the picture isn’t
that simple. Her other answers in the questionnaire said
that she liked to read (this seems to contradict what she
wrote in the paragraph above) and that she had read a book
in the past six months (she is a "book reader," in this

study). She also said she read two newspapers regularly.

 

 

 

171

However, she rated herself below average as a reader; she
rated her comprehension also as below average and her speed
of reading as poor. Despite her difficulties with school
reading, she said she read for enjoyment one-to-two times
a week. The picture or profile of this student resists
categorization. It is easier to say that it is unique to
this individual.

Aliteracy is a result of the interactions of the
different components. We can compare readers and point out
similarities and differences, but at the end we have to
acknowledge that each reader is unique. The push and pull
of any number of elements can result in a reading configu-
ration that probably only that particular reader has.
Hence, Taylor’s comment (1990, p. 4) that a person’s
literacy may be as unique as his or her fingerprints ap-
pears to be Valid.

Finally, the answer to the question "Is this person
aliterate?" is not a simple one. Assessment of a person’s
literacy or aliteracy entails looking at different compo—
nents, judging the degree to which each component operates,
and analyzing the various ways in which they interact and
influence each other. It entails familiarity with people’s
lives--knowing the person well enough that one’s interpre-
tation of their answers is based on an adequate under-

standing of their experiences and perspectives on reading.

 

 

 

172

It is possible to determine the extent of a person's alit-

eracy, but we must explain and qualify our answer.

 

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS AND SPECULATIONS

Much of the literature on aliteracy and reading reluc-
tance has focused on giving practical advice and recommen-
dations on how to alleviate aliteracy among young people.
Additionally, most educators and social commentators who
have written about aliteracy have relied largely on common
knowledge or anecdotal material about aliteracy. Without
defining aliteracy or explaining with some precision what
they mean by it, they have made pronouncements and recom-
mendations about the "problem" of aliteracy. Furthermore,
many have bemoaned the "decline" of reading, and the
"sWelling ranks of aliterates," without offering conclu-
sive evidence that aliteracy (whatever it is) does exist
and to what extent it does.

In this study, I have attempted to answer important
questions about aliteracy, using theoretical and empirical
methods. Partly because the term is too new to be in the
dictionary, there was a need to define "aliteracy" precise-
ly. To know how aliteracy should be defined, I broadened
the scope of the study by reviewing the literature on the
history of literacy and literacy instruction. I derived an
operational definition of aliteracy from the literature on

aliteracy and related topics. I also conducted a survey

173

 

 

 

174

of community college students using questionnaires, and I
interviewed nine students who showed aliterate characteris-
tics.

My goals in this chapter are to discuss the meanings
and implications of the findings presented in Chapter 6 and
to answer the research question, "In the light of new,
comprehensive definitions of literacy, what are the impli-
cations of aliteracy?" To accomplish these goals, I will
compare popular beliefs and assumptions about aliteracy
with the findings, conclusions and implications that have
emerged from the review of the literature on literacy and
aliteracy and from the survey and interviews. I will
conclude by recommending some approaches that educators can
take to reduce aliteracy and by suggesting some topics for

future investigation.

Eopular Beliefs abont Aliteracy yensus Einginge ef the
may

Those who complain about aliteracy generally represent
the views of readers or people who have vested interests in
reading--they are in publishing or in education. They
usually cite the "decline" of reading activity or the
"rise" of aliteracy in society, implying that there was a
time in this country’s history when people read more, wrote
more, knew more and participated enthusiastically in liter-
ate activities. Tchudi (1980) explains that no "golden

age" of literacy ever existed. Rather, as I have shown in

 

 

 

175

Chapter 2, a look at the history of literacy has revealed
that definitions of literacy have changed and eXpectations
for literacy have increased since the 18005.

Further, it is not unusual to encounter the remark
that aliterates abound at all levels of society. For in—
stance, in the aliteracy conference sponsored by the Ameri-
can Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Wilson
referred to the "multitudes of people who read nothing.
They do not buy newspapers, they do not read newspapers,
they do not buy books, they do not read books. They are
reading nothing . . . ." (Thimmesch, 1984, p. 18). Gener-
alizations such as these need to be challenged. While it
is true that there are people in this society who read
nothing or almoep nothing, they represent a tiny fraction
of the population--4 percent, according to the Book Indus-
try Study Group survey (this survey measures only the
reading of books, magazines, and newspapers). Researchers
who have tried to measure how much time people spend read-
ing have concluded that reading is a "ubiquitous activity"
in American life (Sharon, 1973-74). They have found that
people did read something-~if not books, then magazines,
newspapers, documents, advertisements, signs, computer
printouts, and other job-related materials. Sharon even
concludes that the average adult spends an hour and 46
minutes reading in a typical day. Out of that time 76

minutes are spent on non—job-related reading. One might

 

 

176

conclude from these figures that complaints about aliteracy
are unwarranted. As I have concluded in Chapter 3, the
results of readership surveys are contradictory. The
decision as to the extent of aliteracy depends in part on
where one looks, at the bright spots or at the dark spots
in the literacy picture. The fact that about 96 percent of
American adults and about 98 percent of the students in the
KVCC sample said that they read newspapers, magazines, 9;
books is a bright spot. However, like the American adult
pOpulation, almost half of the KVCC sample did not read
books and tended to show aliterate characteristics. In
brief, we need to base our conclusions on the extent of
the problem of aliteracy, not just on quantifiable survey
figures but also on a fuller understanding of literacy and
aliteracy. We need, furthermore, to base our decisions on
aliteracy on a thorough understanding of the lives and
perspectives of the individuals whom we would label aliter-
ate.

Many educators and commentators lament the effects of
television and see television as the villain in the "rise"
of aliteracy. As Chapter 3-has shown, no significant
relationship has been found between television watching and
amount of time spent in reading. Likewise, the view that
people who don’t read are simply too busy to read, implying
that those who read are not busy, has not been borne out by
research. Book readers tend to participate more in leisure

and community activities than non-readers and non-book

 

 

 

177

 

readers. This heavier involvement in other activities has
been found among both adult and school-age book readers.
Misconceptions about literacy have influenced popular
notions of aliteracy. Literacy experts now stress that
literacy is a complex, multi-dimensional concept, not a
dichotomy as our society has come to view it. Partly
because of the vast number of people who are "literate"
(popular meaning: have the basic ability to read), the
number of those who appear unwilling to use their skill
seems large. In effect, we have created another word to
separate, this time those "who gen and de read" from those

"who can but don’t or won’g" read. Just as the meaning of

 

litenate has been simplified to a dichotomy, so has the
meaning of aliterate. When we say that an aliterate can
read, we imply that there is a standard separating those
who can from those who cannot. And when we say, that an
aliterate does not or will not read, we imply that there is
a level of reading activity or willingness to read that we
can all accept. What those levels are or should be no one
has ascertained.' "Who deserves such a label?" and "Are we
using it too loosely?" are good questions as well.

As a result of the dichotomous meanings given to
aliteracy, it has been assumed that aliterates have the
ability to read, that their enly problem is that they don’t
or won’t. In Chapter 3, I cited studies that proved that

reading ability and reading volume or time spent in reading

 

 

 

 

178

are significantly related. This suggests that reading
ability does play a more significant role in aliteracy than'
we have assumed.

The comprehensive definition of aliteracy used in this
study includes six components: reading attitude, reading
behavior, types of texts read, range of reasons for read-
ing, intensity-of motivations for reading, and reading
ability. These components interact with each other in
multiple ways. Figure 9 shows these components as circles
which overlap. When only two circles overlap or only two
components are present, then aliteracy is slight. However,
when all the components are present as shown in the middle,
where all the circles touch, aliteracy is extreme. Each of
these components is a continuum, interacting-with the
others to form a configuration that may be highly individu-
al. For example, a person who reads nothing but romance
novels may be considered partly aliterate even though she
reads voraciously. Why? In terms of the components of
aliteracy, she reads only one type of material, she reads
only for one type of reason, her motivation for reading may
not be strong, and her reading ability may not be adequate
for other types of reading.

In her book Tne_meklng_ef_a_3eader (1984), Cochran-
Smith stresses the complex and multi-dimensional nature of
literacy. To study literacy, she suggests, a researcher
has to examine "many layers of context"--"both a larger

educational context and an almost limitless number of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9

179

KVCC STUDENT POPULATION

 

 
     
     
 

Negative Attitude
Toward Reading

 

Low Reading
Ability

 

Overlapping Components of Aliteracy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180

 

social contexts" (p. 256). It is important to recognize
that although in the present study I have stressed the
multiple components of aliteracy, what the survey and the
interviews have revealed about students as readers is
probably only a partial representation of what is there.
There is a great deal more to the reading experience and to
being a reader than the survey and interviews covered. For
example, in terms of types of texts read, I only asked
about the reading of books, newspapers, and magazines. I
did not inquire about other materials read such as docu-
ments related to jobs, hobbies, church, and other personal
and community activities the students may participate in.
I did not inquire about the actual time spent in reading or
the number of pages read, although I did ask how often
students read books, newspapers and magazines. I asked
students how many types of texts—-books, magazines, news-
papers and others—-they read, but I didn’t ask what types
of books and what types of newspapers they read. I did not
inquire about the nature of involvement in the reading,
whether superficial (such as the scanning of a newspaper)
or deep (such as the emotional, intellectual, analytical,
and aesthetic involvement required in the reading of cer-
tain fiction or non-fiction books). In other words, there
is an almost infinite variety of reading experiences, which

no study, no matter how in-depth, can fully explore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

181

Bleich (1988) says that literacy is as individual as
religion, and Denny Taylor (1990) reasons that it is as
unique as one’s fingerprints. One develops different lit
eracies in different contexts, consonant with the roles one
plays in society-~for example, as a voter, student, consum-
er, member of the city planning committee; or according to
one’s personal goals and needs--for example, as a moviego-
er, television-viewer, hobbyist, or fiction-reader. In the
pilot study I conducted prior to the main study, I talked
to a female student who reported that she "hated to read."
When asked if she read anything, she told me that she read
the Bible regularly for a Bible—discussion class at her
church. She actually read more than she revealed in the
questionnaire, and the Bible is at least one text that she
liked to read. Just as scholars today are arguing that
there are multiple literacies, we can conclude that there
are multiple aliteracies.

Furthermore, just as literacy is a dynamic procese
that never stands still and is impossible to capture in its
totality, so is aliteracy. Cochran-Smith writes about the
process of "documenting children in_the_nrooess of becoming
literate: we can see their emerging and developing literacy
as it occurs in everyday situations" (p. 256). The same
process could be observed in the lives of the students as
well, a process that did not reveal itself in the survey
but in the interviews. During one of the interviews, Ann,

a mother of a young child, talked about her desire to see

 

 

 

 

182

her child grow up to like reading more than she does.
Because I am a children’s literature teacher, I told her
that a course in children’s literature could expose her to
variety of books she could read to her child. She said
that she was interested in taking the course, and the next
semester she enrolled in one of my children’s literature
classes. Now she is reading more books than she has ever
read before. She reports to me from time to time verbally
and in her response journal that she is interested in and
enjoying the reading children’s books. However, she was
behind in reading the children’s literature textbook--at
first because it was "harder" to read but later because she
found herself so interested in the material that she had to
read slowly to absorb it. My discussion with her during
the interview about her reading habits and attitudes might
have made her aware of what kind of a reader she was and
led her to find ways of becoming a better, more willing
reader. And the process of becoming more or less literate
(or more or less aliterate) continues for her, just as it
does for the other students involved in the study. The
study I have conducted is finite; the students’ lives as
readers are not. What a study can capture is only a frac-
tion of reality.

One of the major findings of the present study is that
aliterates view themselves as individuals who do me; like

to read and who avoid reading. This self—perception is

 

 

 

183

critical in aliteracy, a self-perception that is based on
dichotomous meanings for "reader" (one either is a reader
or is not). Many of the students who reported that they
never read for enjoyment in reality read newspapers and/or
magazines on their own. Yet, because they had viewed them
selves as people who did nee read and did neg like to read,
they failed to acknowledge the ways in which they did me
seme degree like to read or read for enjoyment. For in-
stance, Ruth said in the beginning of the interview,
"sitting down and reading a book of a couple of hundred
pages. That just not like me." Yet, at the time of the
interview, she was engrossed in a book that was 400 pages
long and feeling frustrated that she was not finding time
to read it. And, like the other interviewees, she had
completely ignored the magazines that she regularly read
and did not consider this type of reading as pleasure
reading. We can conclude that in reality those who are
viewed as aliterates do like reading more than they report
and do read more than they report. It would be more accu-
rate, however, to say: they do not like to read as much, do
not read as much, do not read as wide a range of texts, do
not have as many different reasons for reading, are not as
deeply motivated to read, and/or are not as adept in read-
ing as those who are more avid readers.

These students had not given themselves enough credit
for what they did read and for the extent to which they did

read for pleasure. One could say that they had a poor

 

 

 

184

image of themselves as readers. Those who had indicated
through their questionnaire answers that they valued read-
ing as an activity (as most people in this society do) felt
uncomfortable about the discrepancy between their belief
about reading and their perception of themselves as read-
ers. Furthermore, as pointed out in Chapter 6, students in
this survey who didn’t like to read tended to rate them-
selves as poorer readers than those who liked to read.
Those whom I interviewed tended to believe that their
reading habits and attitudes had affected their schooling,
had led to lower grades, and had made them less competent
students. One student remarked that if he read more per-
haps he would be a "better person." Feelings of guilt and
insecurity also tend to be associated with their low per—
ception of their reading ability.

How did these low perceptions of themselves as readers
come about? One explanation lies in the way they defined
"reading" and in what they thought a "good reader" or a
"poor reader" is. Purves (1984) and Heath (1980) have
written about the differences between reading as taught in
the schools and reading as practiced in real life (see a
more detailed treatment of this topic in Chapter 2).
Purves contends, for instance that school reading demands
a series of complex activities (such as answering oral or
written questions about the text) before and after reading

while reading outside of school may simply consist of

 

 

 

 

185

choosing a book one likes, reading as much of it as one
likes to, and maybe telling a friend, the book is worth
reading. Rasinski (1989) writes that among students a
"good reader“ tends to be defined in terms of reading
proficiency as measured by tests and later in their school-
ing in terms of ability to read textbooks in various
school subjects. This definition contrasts with the defi-
nition of a "good reader" in adulthood: one who reads
constantly and perhaps talks about what he or she reads
with others.

It seems that the students who thought of themSelves
as relatively poor readers judged themselves in terms of
school reading standards. The frequent testing of stu-
dents’s reading ability throughout their schooling may have
contributed to the belief that they are deficient readers.
According to some educators who have written on reading
reluctance or aliteracy, children who do not read at the
grade level "appropriate" for their age are treated in ways
that make them feel anxious, frustrated, and discouraged
about reading. For instance, they are asked to read aloud
and their mistakes corrected in front of other students;
they are labeled as "slow" or "remedial" and put'in reading
groups, where they become self-fulfilling failures. This
study’s findings appear to support the contention that

school reading goals, such as the emphasis on teaching

 

 

 

186

discrete reading skills and frequent monitoring of stu-
dents’ reading proficiency using standardized tests, are
misguided and have unfortunate results.

These students also seemed to compare themselves with
those who are "good readers," whom they defined as people
who read books all the time, people who can sit for hours
at a time and devour whole books. Some of the interviewees
compared themselves to the most avid readers they knew and
assumed that because they didn’t read three or four books a
week, they did not like to read or were not good readers.
In a sense, their definition of a "good reader" is an
idealized one; a "gOod reader" to them is a person who is
competent in all types of reading, perhaps a person who
reads a continuous text in a linear fashion, reading every
word, and a person who can read textbooks with good compre-
hension and retention.

Rosenblatt (1978) defines two types of reading--effer-
ent and aesthetic. The purpose of efferent reading is
practical, to get information or knowledge from the text,
while the purpose of aesthetic reading is enjoyment of the
experience of reading. The belief that reading is only for
the gaining of knowledge seems to be associated with alit-
eracy. Furthermore, because schools stress reading for
knowledge (efferent reading) more than reading for pleasure
(aesthetic reading), many people think that reading is
something only done for school purposes and not for its

inherent value. In visit to an optometrist’s office over

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

187

spring break, my eight-year-old son went through the rou-
tine vision tests involving the reading of letters of the
alphabet projected on a wall across the room. The optome-
trist quipped, "You don’t have to read. You’re not in
school!" The remark amused me and also made me think: I
wondered how many children and students take it seriously
and actually apply it. Children learn from what they hear
and from what they are taught. As many educators I cited
in Chapter 3 have contended, our schools tend to stress
reading to meet school requirements such as passing tests
and receiving grades and deemphasize the personal uses and
values of reading.

Because of the prominent roles that attitude toward
reading and reading ability seem to play in aliteracy, I
have developed a model that shows the relationship between
two components and other components of aliteracy (see
Figure 10). Poor reading ability can be the cause or the
effect of a negative reading attitude, just as reading
attitude can be the cause or the effect of poor reading
ability. In this model, reading ability and attitude
toward reading have more prominent positions than the
other components because they seem to start the cycle of
aliteracy. Both low reading ability and negative attitude
toward reading may result in few motivations for reading,

low intensity of motivations for reading, low amount of

 

 

 

 

 

 

188

 

 

 

 

homuouwud ocm summons: «0 mucucomfioo . 0H ousmflm
Amodha bosom uo\o:m Anumxe bosom uo\o:m
ucsofid nommoav liiil xufimcuucH nozoqv
\ i .V Hogwaom A: .V pace on mi/
\\ assumes no: sodom>nnoz so: I,

\ /

\.
Kw MWMVANNHMHLUanHAN [I

#
sou i\. W 304
. lliiilii‘llllilillliiiii 956mm“
.
32:: Beach.
. ‘I' I‘ll! I -
. \u \l \i I“
:3: b. \\ a3:
NUQHBHQ 3
a \
/ \
Ammo»? duo: uo\o:m Anomae ouoz uo\ocm .\.\
//.II acnoEm Hocmflzv reflmQOucm umnmwmv .L‘
I. w notifier Al. .I. I... .W floor 09

ocfiomwm saw: :Oflum>fluoz £0“:

 

 

 

189

reading and few types of texts read. These other compo-
nents, in turn, influence reading ability and attitude.

The model also shows the flip side of aliteracy, which
might be called, for want of a better word, literacy.
However, I must point out that, technically, aliteracy
represents only an aspect of literacy. It applies only to
pmlnm. Literacy, as I have explained in Chapter 2 is a
broader concept that goes beyond the technology of reading

and writing to include a way of thinking and behaving. We

can say that aliteracy is a way ef gninking end behaving
teward pninp.

Aliteracy is a contextual phenomenon. People’s read—
ing habits and interests are affected by differentcircum-
stances such as time, place, people they are with, and
events they take part in. The time (whether or not it is

vacation, for example) in which a survey is conducted can

affect the answers given. Is aliteracy a short-term or a
long-term condition? In yelees_ef_3eedere (1988), Carlsen

and Sherrill distinguished between students who stopped
reading temporarily as a result of activities and students
who had not been reading or had not been interested in
reading for a long period. Lampert and Saunders (1976) de
scribe a similar group of high school students, who per-
ceived themselves as "non-readers" and as people who did
not like to read (although 30 percent of them did read

newspapers, magazines, and occasionally novels). The

 

 

 

 

190

findings of the present study suggest that it is a leng;
pemm (more or less) condition and a definite mindset about
reading. The students I interviewed, who viewed themselves
as individuals who did not like to read and who did not
read for enjoyment, reported that they had that attitude
and behavior since childhood. All of them could HQ: recall
a time when they were interested in reading or when they
read more than they read today.

Aliteracy may reflect a negative attitude toward
literacy; specifically toward literate thought and behav-
ior. It may reflect a tendency to avoid information and
may be a part of a general pattern of information avoid-
ance. Studies in newspaper readership (Fedler and Taylor,
1978; Poindexter, 1979; Sobal and Jackson-Beeck, 1981) have
identified the characteristics of non-newspaper readers.
They tend to come from low socioeconomic and educational
backgrounds and to consider themselves members of the
lower class. They tend to be very young or very old and
"to be less active and less involved with their neighbors"
(Fedler and Taylor, 1978, p. 303). They have also been
found to be less involved politically because they are less
likely to have voted (Sobal and Jackson-Beeck, 1981, p.
13). They have been described as "information-poor"
(Scherer, 1989, p. 184). Because of the characteristics
that cluster around these non-newspaper readers they tend
to be considered truly disadvantaged. Mass communication

research has also found evidence to support the theory that

 

 

 

 

191

a relationship exists between uses of the media: "Heavy
users of one medium are likely to be heavy users of anoth-
er" (Scherer, 1989, p. 184). Some studies have found that
many people tended to read newspaper accounts of events
that they have already heard on radio or television. Other
studies have shown that with growing dependence on televi-
sion for information, there is less intermedia usage except
for usage of newspapers and magazines (i.e., newspaper
readers also tend to be magazine-readers).

In Chapter 3, I cited studies that show that book
readers tend to be readers of magazines and newspapers; in
fact they tend to read slightly more magazines and news-
papers than those who only read magazines and newspapers.
Book readers also tend to be active in other recreational
and community activities. All these findings suggest that
aliteracy, if accompanied by these conditions, is a real
cause for concern. If a person’s lack of interest in and
avoidance of reading is part of a general pattern of
information avoidance and uninvolvement with other people,
then aliteracy is probably detrimental to that person and
to society.

Mass communication research lends support to the
arguments eXpressed by Baroody (Thimmesch, 1984) in the
following statement:

Literacy has two critical functions in a
pluralistic society. First, it knits a people

together, giving them a common culture. Of equal
importance, literacy provides people with the

 

 

 

 

192

intellectual tools used to question, challenge,

understand, disagree, and arrive at consensus.

In short, it allows peOple to participate in an

exchange of ideas. A democratic institution is

weakened when fewer and fewer citizens can par-
ticipate in such an exchange. Aliteracy leads
inexorably to a two tiered society: the knowl-
edgeable elite and the masses. It makes a common
culture illusory or impossible; it erodes the
basis for effective decision making and partici-

pation in the democratic process. (p. ix)

Additional studies (Sobal and Jackson-Beeck, 1981, p.
10) have also revealed that an atypical group of non-news-
paper readers exist, and they differ in characteristics
from the typical group. They tend to be middle-aged and
to belong to the middle to upper socioeconomic groups.
They also tend to have more education. They report lack of
time and lack of interest in reading the content of news-
papers as the reasons for not reading newspapers. This
group I would designate as partly aliterate, but whether
their aliteracy is part of a general pattern of informa-
tion-avoidance and social uninvolvement is not explored in
the studies. Perhaps they are similar to the students in
the present study who reported that did not like to read
and did not read on their own. Perhaps they are future
versions of these students.

Not enough information is available on the use of
other media and involvement in other activities on the-part
of the participants of the present study, so I cannot draw
any definite conclusion on the extent to which K.V.C.C.

students’ aliteracy signifies information avoidance or

social uninvolvement. However, during the interviews, I

 

 

 

 

193

did not get the impression that the interviewees spent a
lot of time watching television. Perhaps, because of all
the negative opinion expressed in the mass media about
excessive television watching, they did not want to admit
that they watched much television. Research suggests that
people tend to underreport television watching (as they
tend to overreport reading). Keith, the non-reader, who
said that he didn’t read books, magazines or newspapers,
said that he didn’t watch much television either. When
asked how he found out about what was going in the world,
he said that he was "lucky" in that he could catch news
headlines on occasions when he did watch television brief-
ly. It is doubtful that Keith is able to gain much infor-
mation through such means. One might ask if his tendency
to avoid print might put him in the category of "informa-
tion-poor."

At the 1982 aliteracy conference in Washington D.C.,
questions were raised that the educational experts and
representatives of the publishing business present did not
or could not answer in a conclusive way. Among these ques
tions are: "What is the value of reading? What are we
losing if we are not reading? What happens if we do not
have a reading population?" (Thimmesch, 1984, p. 18). The
research cited above offers partial answers to these
questions by suggesting that those with aliterate charac-

teristics tend to be "information-poor" and tend to avoid

 

 

 

194

political and social involvements. Another question raised
by a member of the audience was "What does reading give us
that is of some social advantage that cannot be obtained
through other media?" (p. 22). There is social prestige
attached to reading, as shown in people’s tendency to
overreport their reading activities. One answer suggested
by the research in newspaper readership is that those who
do not read also tend not to use other media and that they
become social isolates. Their avoidance of reading and
other sources of information may imply that they tend to
avoid literate thinking. Hence, in some people, aliteracy
may truly be the opposite of literacy.

What is the future for victims of aliteracy? Can a
person’s attitude toward reading change? How hard or easy
is it to change? Some people who have aliterate character-
istics may not want to change their reading attitudes
and/or habits. From the perspective of aliterates, alit-
eracy may be not as serious as those who read and support
reading imply. Some students of children’s literature who
read the editorial on illiteracy and aliteracy (which I
referred to in Chapter 1) remarked that they considered
aliteracy not as bad a problem as illiteracy. They con-
tended that aliteracy is a matter of choice, and if one
satisfies one's informational and recreational needs
through means other than reading, what’s wrong with that?
Keith, one of the students I interviewed, argued that his

needs for recreation and information were being satisfied

 

 

 

 

 

 

195

by movies, radio, and television. To him the idea of
reading a book was "ridiculous" and "a big joke." He was
proud of his lack of interest in reading and found no need
or reason to change. The other interviewees, who consid-
ered themselves deficient as readers because of their lack
of inclination to read, showed varying degrees of interest
in changing their attitudes and habits. Despite their wish
that they read more, some were realistic enough to say that
they probably would not read for enjoyment more than they
did. If the need and opportunity for reading arose they
would read more. But they would read for information. For
instance, one student would "need" to read more about how
to run a business and another student would read more about
real estate. And even Keith, whose interests had widened
because of his new position in his father’s company, men-
tioned reading a Reader’s Digest article on management.
Two students who, through their mothers’ intervention, had
read novels with enjoyment, said that they wished they
could find other books equally interesting. However, their
motivation to find these books for themselves seemed low.
A belief that they didn’t like to read and that reading is
work (probably because of lack of skills, which in turn is
affected by lack of reading) would take a combination of
forces to overcome.

A negative reading attitude plus relatively weak

reading skills lead to a self-concept about reading that is

 

 

 

 

 

 

196

tenacious and hard to change. The results of the present
survey have enabled me to understand better the findings of
a study that I did in a class a few years ago. After a few
semesters of teaching children’s literature, I sensed that
students who reported negative reading attitudes in the
beginning of the course seemed to become more positive in
their view of reading toward the end of the course. Conse-
quently, I conducted a study in which I tried to compare
students’ reading attitudes at the end of the term to their
attitudes in the beginning, using a Likert-type question-
naire. Despite the behavioral and attitudinal changes that
I had observed among many students, the results of the
survey showed a disappointingly low improvement in atti-
tude. One reason for the low improvement may be that, in
the beginning of the term, the students might have exagger—
ated their reading activity and reported reading attitudes
that were more positive than they actually were. The
findings of the present study offer another explanation:
negative attitudes reinforced by the other components of
aliteracy, especially weak reading skills, are not easily
reversible. It probably takes repeated and prolonged
positive experiences with reading (one semester of a course
cannot do it) in addition to self-motivation, a desire to

change and a host of other forces to effect a measurable

change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

197

Some of the answers students gave to the question of
what influenced their reading attitudes and behavior re-
vealed that these students, who didn’t like to read or
didn’t read for enjoyment when they were younger, had
learned to like reading and to read more as they grew
older. Some wrote that they discovered pleasure reading
for themselves after they left school. Some blamed teach-
ing practices used in the schools for their lack of incli-
nation to read. The most revealing answers have come from
those who have developed more positive attitudes toward
reading; they appeared to have more to say and to be more
willing to discuss the influences on their reading habits
and attitudes than those whose attitudes toward reading
were more negative. (The latter might be more reticent
because, viewing reading as a socially desirable activity,
they were embarassed about their habits and beliefs about
reading. They might also lack metacognition or understand-

ing of their reading processes and experiences.)

Recemmendatlone for Educapons and Implications fog
Classroom Teacnlng

On the basis of the findings I have presented, I would
like to recommend some approaches that may lead to a change
or reversal in attitudes toward reading. Since my study
involves community college students, these approaches tend
to be more appropriate for older students than younger

ones .

 

 

 

 

198

1. We need to encourage students to examine their beliefs
and assumptions about reading. We need to help them idene
tify misconceptions about reading or misunderstandings
about the reading process. Because they tend to think that
reading is a monolithic activity, with no differences from
one reading to the next, we should stress the different
types and purposes of reading. We also should help them
understand the real nature of their reading problems. (One
of the interviewees described her problems in reading in
terms of oral reading--she could not pronounce words--and
in terms of writing-~she could not spell words.) They need
to consider the possibility that their problems with read-
ing textbooks may be a result of the features of the text,
and not of their reading ability. Their idealized view of
the "good reader" as someone who is proficient in all types
of reading should be challenged. They need to be aware of
the false dichotomies in their thinking of reading: that
readers are either "good" or "bad," that people either
"love" or "hate" reading, or that reading for information
is in opposition to reading for pleasure (some pleasure-
readers prefer non-fiction to fiction). They need to
disabuse themselves of the notion that reading for pleasure
only applies to book reading; certainly reading covers a
multitude of texts, including magazines and newspapers and
a multitude of reasons and purposes (as Heath [1980] and

Taylor [1990] have demonstrated in their research).

 

 

199

2. We need to educate people about aliteracy. Since it is
not yet in the dictionary, most people are not familiar
with the term. As a term and concept, however, it desig-
nates a condition that most peOple seem to be aware of,
either in themselves or in other people. Writing about his
life as a college student, Trimmer (1990) says, "I was 18
and illiterate, or more precisely aliterate. I could read
but preferred not to" (p. 157). When people find out what
I am writing about in this dissertation, many of them (they
tend to be women) say that they have family members who are
aliterate (they tend to be men). As a label for individu-
als, "aliterate" may heighten people’s anxiety about their
literacy level and about their status in society. Readers
are prone to lumping aliterates with illiterates and to
assuming that they are socially inferior. As a label,
"aliterate" needs to be used with extreme care and not
applied loosely. As the present study has shown, aliteracy
is a complex, multi-dimensional, and contextual phenomenon,
which has different meanings and implications for different
people. If used as an adjective for people, it must be
used with qualifications and explanations. ‘
However, as a label, "aliterate" does not seem to have
the stigma "illiterate" carries. My students, for example,
appear willing to use the term to describe themselves.
Pattison (1982) claims that it is llllmemeey that people

in this society are nervous and embarrassed about. At the

 

 

 

 

200

very least, the existence of the term "aliteracy", if used
accurately, might help educators and the public understand
the exact nature of the literacy problems this society
faces. By telling people about aliteracy as a concept, we
give them the means to identify a condition or problem that
they know exists and perhaps lead them to find solutions to
it.

Currently we find Mrs. Barbara Bush waging a campaign
to erase illiteracy, despite evidence that true illiteracy
has been almost totally eliminated in this country and that
probably the "real enemy" is aliteracy. Eeeple magazine
recently described the First Lady’s pet cause as "studious-
ly uncontroversial" (1990, p. 88). Certainly, no one in
this society would disapprove of the elimination of illit-
eracy. Would the public support as enthusiastically a
campaign to reduce aliteracy? If we share Pattison’s as
sumption that the culture does not value full and compre-
hensive literacy, we will argue that they would not. The
schools (and the public) may be satisfied with basic lit—
eracy because it is politically safer; to foster full
literacy encouraged by wide reading may lead to the kind of
"student unorthodoxy" that schools of the 18005 feared
(Graff, 1987) and create citizens who think critically and
who question the status quo. In other words, aliteracy has
political implications, which may not be fully acceptable
to society, especially to those who hold authority and

power. For this reason, a campaign to eliminate alitegacy

 

 

 

 

201

may not garner the kind of support that Mrs. Bush’s illit-

eracy project has received.

3. We need to help students become aware of the conse-
quences of aliteracy, one of which is the deterioration of
reading skills from lack of use. Because the respondents
in the present study are students who are forced to read
for their classes, the deterioration may not happen as long
as they are reading. However, once out of school, their
reading competence will tend to decline, if they continue
the pattern of reading avoidance. Most of the intervie-
wees reported having difficulties with reading comprehen-
sion. Their comments support research findings indicating
that students lack higher comprehension or literacy skills
(e.g., National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1985).
According to the socio-psycholinguistic or transactional
theory of reading, these students lack the schemas needed
to understand the content and structure of various texts
(Weaver, 1988). The research findings are conclusive: the
more people read, the better they read (and the more they
understand.) Reading proficiency is significantly related
to reading lume. Knowing that aliteracy leads to a
deterioration of reading ability, people might be compelled

to read more.

4. We need to stress that members of the next generation

may be influenced by today’s aliterates. According to the

 

 

 

 

 

202

research on the role of the home environment in reading,
the children of aliterates are likely to be affected by
their parents’ reading habits. Parental or sibling model-
ing has a strong influence on children’s reading. Smith,
Smith, and Mikulecky et al. (1978; found in Mikulecky et
al., 1979, p. 12) suggest that poor modeling of reading at
home starts a "vicious circle." The children are influ-
enced not to read and to dislike reading; consequently,
their reading ability does not develop from lack of read-
ing. At school they get help in improving their skills,
but the poor reading habits remain. They pass their class-
es, but the lesson they learn is that reading is mainly for
school. Once out of school, they abandon reading, and the
cycle continues. Their model is reproduced below (Miku-

lecky et al., 1979, p. 12). (See Figure 11.)

5. In stressing the influence of aliteracy on future
generations, we should at the same time persuade parents
to use proven methods of breaking the cycle of aliteracy.
One of these is reading aloud to children using children’s
literature. The benefits to children of parents reading
aloud to them have been documented by many studies (see
Trelease, 1989 and Kimmel and Segel, 1983). However; the
benefits to parents have not been stressed or researched as
much. When parents read to their children, they are bound
to improve their reading skills at the same time that they

help their children become better readers. Because of the

 

 

 

 

 

 

203

 

Poor Reading Medel—
(Rarely Reads--
Dislikes Reading)

Abandons Reading Influences Children
Once Out of School and Younger Siblings

 
  

_‘_ ____

Student "Passes" But estudent with Poor
Learns That Reading Reading Ability
Is Mainly for School Results

Ԥ\\\\\\\\\~ Receives Extra
Skills Training

But Poor Reading
Habits Remain

 

 

Figure 11 "A Vicious Circle: NOnreaders produce non—
readers" (Mikulecky, et al., 1979)

 

 

 

 

204

length, accessibility, and appeal (of illustrations and
text) of children’s books, they make great reading for
parents. A mother taking children’s literature recently
told a class I was teaching that her own reading ability
and interest in reading increased as a result of reading
aloud to her son. We need to emphasize that reading aloud
to children may not only increase reading skills but may
also bring about more favorable attitudes toward reading.
Many children’s books are attractive, lively, and engaging:
it is easy to get hooked once one starts reading them.
Because reading attitude and reading ability are inter-
twined, reading aloud to children by parents may be a
powerful force in reducing aliteracy. .It benefits two

generations of readers.

6. As educators, we should find effective methods of
increasing interest in reading enmslge_e:_eeneel. An ap-
proach that I would put at the head of a list of recommend—
ed methods is the use of independent reading programs,
which allow students to choose what they want to read from
available materials. In Chapter 6, I quoted answers writ-
ten by students who learned to enjoy reading on their own
after they left school. These comments reveal the impor-
tance of being able to choose what one wants to read and
the positive effects of choice of reading materials on
attitudes toward reading. In pioneering research conducted

at Ohio State University, independent reading programs were

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

205

found highly successful (Schatz et al., 1960). Likewise, in
Heeked en Beoks (1976), Fader documents his success in
using an independent reading program at a school for delin-
quent boys. Teachers from primary schools through college
who have allowed students to choose the books they want to
read have reported marked improvement in attitudes toward
reading. As a teacher of children’s literature, a course
in which I allow students to choose books they want to
read, I have found the following statements to be true of
college students as well:

When children are free to choose their own
material and free to read, they set goals for
themselves that surprise most adults. They read
for a purpose and for different purposes. Read-
ing is important to them. Their enthusiasm is
genuine. They have a real desire to improve
their ability to read and comprehend material of
increasing difficulty. (Schatz et al., 1960, p.

69)
7. We need to discuss with students, other educators, and
the public what we know about the origins of aliteracy.
It is important to attend to students’ explanations of the
origins of their reading attitudes and habits. As I have
explained in Chapter 6, their answers coincide with educa-
tors’ explanations about the possible causes of aliteracy.
As educators, we should be concerned about the evidence
that points to aliterates as "hidden failures of education"
(Cullinan, 1989, p. 6) and to aliteracy as a by-product of

our teaching practices. We defeat our own purposes if'as

we teach children to read, we also teach them to dislike

 

 

 

206

reading. Aliteracy, in other words, is a result of educa-
tion that "disables" rather than "ables" (terms used by
sociologist Robert Bellah [1989] in a speech on higher
education). At the same time, I believe that it is useful
for educators to be aware of the cultural forces that have
helped shape literacy instruction as we know it today.
This knowledge will help us better understand some root
causes of our literacy problems and perhaps keep us from
unnecessarily castigating ourselves for our "failures." A
knowledge of history will also help us identify the weak-
nesses and flaws in our goals and methods and lead us to

seek solutions.

8. Teaching practices that have been known to turn stu-
dents away from reading should be abandoned and replaced by
approaches that encourage reading. One approach that has
been repeatedly criticized by students who take classes in
children’s literature is the excessive and misguided use of
critical analysis in high school English classes. Students
talk about excruciatingly boring and "meaningless" hours of
class time devoted to "dissecting" a Shakespeare play or a
Dickens novel. Furthermore, the teachers who use this
approach tend to assume there is one correct reading of a
text. They do not give enough consideration to the stu-
dents’ idiosyncratic interpretations, a sure method to
silence students and to make them read passively and with

little personal involvement. Many more junior high, high

 

 

 

 

207

school, and college English teachers should be exposed to
the reader response or transactional approach to reading
(Rosenblatt, 1978, 1983). This view of reading validates
the students’ personal and spontanous responses to a text.
A host of teachers who have used reader response strategies
have observed and documented improvements in students’
reading attitude and interest in literature (see Corcoran

and Evans, 1979).

9. School authorities and others responsible for choosing
textbooks and materials for the classroom need to be aware
the effects of these books and materials on students. This
study has demonstrated the harmful effects of dull, poorly
written textbooks on students’ attitudes toward reading.
Not only do students lose interest in reading as a result
of having to read dull textbooks year after year, but they
also tend to bdame themselves for their lack of interest.
They tend to think that the inadequacy lies in them rather
than in the textbooks. They develop a self-concept that
they do not like to read and that they are not "readers."
This self-concept leads to low skills because they avoid
reading, and the cycle goes on. Because books are our main
vehicle for teaching, we must make it our primary consider-
ation for choosing books whether or not they would appeal

to our students. Our textbooks and materials must promote

literacy, not discourage it.

 

 

 

 

 

208

10. As teachers of English, we need to view ourselves more
as teachers of reading, with the primary responsibility of
helping students become better, more interested readers,
than as teachers of "literature." I agree with Brown
(1987) who writes that the main aim of a literature teacher
shduld be "to develop . . . [students] as readers and
responders to literature" and "to encourage those who do
read to read more and those who don’t read to begin read—

ing" (p. 97).

11. A major criterion for evaluating the success of
reading and literature programs should be how much students
are reading on their own in school and out of school (see
Smith, 1986, p. 263). As stated in Chapter 1, Guthrie and
Seifert (1984) stress that ". . . an underrated, poten-
tially fruitful criterion of education is readership."

Having attended an institution in which learning

to read is the central mission, do students

continue reading for useful purposes afterwards?

A standard for teaching is that graduates will

not only acquire the capability to read, but they

will choose to read for psychological, political,

occupational or domestic purposes. (p. 57)
Furthermore, reading avidly is the prevalent standard in
determining in out—of—school settings who good readers are.
Adopting this standard in our reading and literature class-

es will make school reading more congruent with real life

reading and give more credibility to our programs.

12. As educators, we need to base our teaching aims and

methods on a comprehensive definition of literacy-"mot as

 

 

209

the mechanical skills of reading and writing but as a
life-long process of learning to read and write different
kinds of texts for different purposes. Neilsen (1989)
defines literacy as "the process of learning to participate
in necessary and personally important social, intellectual,
and political contexts" and as "a life-long process of
learning to read and create contextual signs in print and
in society" (p. 10). Knowing that people do not read texts

unless they are necessary or personally meaningful, we

 

should stress the personal and social uses of literacy.

We must remind ourselves and others that as new needs
and situations arise, people may find reasons for reading.
For instance, a person starting a new hobby may be com-
pelled to find information in books or magazines. Or real
izing that he or she is somewhat aliterate may make a
person read more. At my college, one of my colleagues who

found out the subject of my dissertation made a point of

 

telling me a few weeks later that he was trying to watch
television less and to read more. People who realize that
they are aliterate or verging on being aliterate can change
if they need to and if they want to. They are not doomed
to a life of reading avoidance. ‘Understanding that litera-
cy is a complex, life-long complex of learning to read and
write different texts allows and encourages people to

personally take control of their own literacy, to redirect

 

 

210

their energies and time into areas they want to explore,

learn about, and experience through reading.

13. Educators should be literate role models for students.
I recently read in a student’s journal that a male math
teacher in a school where her father teaches "bragged"
about not having read a book since he finished college. As
a teacher, he has the capacity to influence hundreds of
students--toward reading or away from reading. We must, as
educators, examine our beliefs and assumptions about
literacy so that we ourselves can better understand why we
have the reading habits and attitudes that we have. We
need to learn about how we can influence and guide our

students to become more literate.

14. Ultimately, educators have to take the lead: in rede-
fining literacy to include its broad uses and functions, in
persuading the public to share this definition, and in
initiating changes, not only in our own classrooms and
schools, but throughout the educational system-~from pre-
school through graduate school. Our primary aim should be
promoting literacy at all levels to ensure that aliteracy
does not have a chance to take root. Understanding alit-
eracy from a historical perspective, reviewing the litera-
ture on aliteracy and related topics, and analyzing the
findings of the present study have led to the unavoidable
conclusion that crucial changes in school goals and prac-

tices need to be made. A decade ago, Tchudi (1980) wrote

 

 

 

 

211

about Johnny and Jane, the "fictional anti-heroes of every
newspaper and magazine article on literacy," who can read
and write but who would rather not. "After their last
diploma, their bout with literacy will be over . . . " (p.
75), Tchudi says, expressing concern about the condition
of aliteracy without using the term. Calling for sweeping
changes in education, he writes in Angs_ef_Literaey (1980):
"Literacy instruction cannot be improved without a major
overhaul of both its aims and its methods and without a
drastic alterations of teaching conditions" (p. xiii). And
he added, "The time is right for dramatic changes in lit—
eracy instruction" (p. xiv). The time is right for all of
us in education to make these demands again--on behalf of

present and future victims of aliteracy.

Futune Research

The combined use of quantitative and qualitative
methods in the present study has proved to be particularly
appropriate and productive. Quantitative tools enabled me
to compare my survey findings with those of similar sur-
veys. They make possible future comparisons of the results
of this study with the findings of similar studies. The
similarities in the findings help demonstrate the validity
of the methods used in the surveys being compared. Like—
wise, the interview results provided the means and direc-
tions for interpreting the findings and drawing appropriate

conclusions, adding to the validity of the quantitative

 

 

 

 

212

measures. The data the interviews produced also led to a
more thorough understanding of aliteracy. Because of what
the interviews contributed to the study, more follow-up
interviews of the respondents might have been fruitful. I'
believe that a methodology that combines quantitative and
qualitative tools is appropriate for investigating other
questions on aliteracy and literacy.

' This study has raised questions about different as—
pects of aliteracy and literacy for future research. The
following is a partial list of questions that need further

investigation:

1. How do people with aliterate tendencies conceptualize
the reading process? Their definitions of reading and
their approaches to reading different texts can be further

examined and understood.

2. How do avid readers differ from people with aliterate
tendencies? The areas that need exploration include: their
definitions of reading, their conceptualizations of the
reading process, and their approaches to reading different

texts.

3. What can we learn from people who disliked reading'when
they were in school but learned to like it on their own or
after they left school? (They seem to have a greater
awareness of their conceptualizations of reading and to be

more willing to give information than those who are showing

 

 

 

 

 

 

213

more aliterate characteristics.) Approaches and methods
they have used that have brought about a change in their

attitudes toward reading can be identified and explored.

4. Why do the males in our society lag behind the females
in reading? Why do more males exhibit aliterate character-

istics than females?

5. To what extent do people who exhibit various degrees of
aliteracy use other media for recreation, information, and
intellectual stimulation? More specifically, if people
dislike reading and generally avoid reading as a source of
information, to what extent can they be categorized as

"information-poor"?

6. Is there a counterpart for aliteracy in the area of
writing? What is the relationship between aliteracy and

its writing counterpart?

7. When parents read aloud to children, what are the

effects on parents’ reading skills and attitudes?

8. What are the effects of various reading assessment
methods on aliteracy? For example, what is the relation-
ship between standardized testing and aliteracy? What are

the relationships between different criteria for assessment

and aliteracy?

 

 

 

 

 

214

9. What definitions of reading are implied in our goals and

approaches to English and reading instruction?

10. What is the relationship between aliteracy and the
use of such approaches to literature as critical analysis

and reader response?

Finding answers to these questions will enhance our
understanding of literacy and aliteracy. In this study I
have attempted to demonstrate the extent, nature, and
implications of the problem of aliteracy among community
college students in this country. In addition, we need to
know about aliteracies among other groups and compare them
with what we have discovered about aliteracy among communi-
ty college students.

Answers to these questions need to be shared with the
public, for whom literacy, if not aliteracy, seems to be a
major concern. Through understanding the problem, par-
ents, educators, and the public can work together to make

aliteracy a less disabling force in individual lives and in

society.

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A: THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Students:

I am asking you to answer questions about the reading that
you do at school and at home. Your participation in this
study will add to our understanding of the reading habits
and attitudes of community college students.

As you complete this questionnaire, please remember that
there are me right and wrong answers. As long as you are
responding to the questions honestly, your answers are

correct.

Your answers and your participation in this study will not
affect your grade in this class. If you do not wish to
participate, please tell your teacher now. If you wish to
participate, please sign your name on the bottom part of
this sheet. After you have completed this questionnaire,
you may be asked, at a future date, to respond to addition-
al questions. Your answers will be kept confidential.

Thank you for your help!

Raelyn Joyce
KVCC Instructor

I have chosen to complete the questionnaire.

Name

Course Title __,

 

 

Instructor _,

215

 

216

1. First, I'd like to get a general idea about the specific kinds
of things you do for recreation or to relax. I have a list of

activities people sometimes do. Please think over the past month
since

 

As you read each activity, please circle "yes" if you have done
it this past month and "no" if you haven't. Did you

 

a. Go to a movie? Yes No
b. Dine at a restaurant for pleasure? Yes No
c. Engage in a sport like bowling or fishing? Yes No
d. Read for pleasure? Yes No
e. Go for a walk or hike? Yes No
f. Watch television? Yes No
Go to a theater or concert? Yes No
h. Go window shopping? Yes No
2. Now I have some questions about reading for pleasure. Many
people have reported that their schedules are too busy for them
to find time to read for pleasure. Please think over the past
month since
a. Did you happen to read any magazines? Yes No
b. Did you happen to read any newspapers? Yes No

c. Did you happen to read any book, either
hardcover or paperpack (not including required
reading for courses)? If you have started but
not finished a book, that counts too. Yes No

If you have read or started to read a book, what was it about?

 

What was the title, if you can remember?

 

 

If you have read other books, please list their titles or what
they were about:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

217

3. How often do you read for enjoyment in your spare time?
(Put a check before the right answer.)

Never

Less than 1 time a week
1-2 times a week

More than 2 times a week

||l

 

4. When, as nearly as you can recall, did you last read any kind
of book (n: a paperback (not required reading for courses)--all
theggay through?

Write the month and year:

 

What was the book about?

 

 

What was the title, if you can remember?

 

 

5. Do you read magazines regularly-- -
on a daily or weekly basis? Yes No

(If no, please skip question #6. Go on to question #7.)

6. If you read magazines regularly, which of the following types
of magazines do you read regularly--on a daily or weekly basis?

Newsmagazines, such as Newsweek or Time Yes No

Household or family magazines, such as People,
Good Housekeeping, Reader's Digest Yes No

Sports publications, such as Sports Illustrated Yes No

Personal health, self-improvement, or fashion

magazines Yes No
Hobby magazines Yes No
Religious or church magazines Yes No
Business or trade magazines Yes No
Others:

 

7. Do you read at least one newspaper regularly
(on a daily or weekly basis)? Yes No

Please write the titles of newspapers that you
read regularly:

 

 

 

 

 

8.

 

218

Please indicate how you feel about each of the following
statements bY indicating whether you--strongly agree
diSIQree. strongly disagree, or have no opinion.

agree ,

 

Reading is a useful activity. i

 

 

 

I like to read. 1

 

My friends would be surprised to see me 1
buying or borrowing a book that is not 5
required for class.

 

While waiting in a doctor's office, or
in an airport, or in a supermarket,

I find myself leafing through magazines
or paperback books.

 

 

I think reading books takes too much time
and concentration.

 

Even though I'm a very busy person, I
always somehow find time for reading.

 

 

One of my first impulses is "to look it up"
whenever there is something that I don't
know or whenever I'm about to start a new
task, activity, or project.

 

I usually don't read unless I have to.

 

I find myself giving special books to
friends and relatives as gifts.

m-' ———~ Jame—g . -l

 

I choose to read non-required books and
articles fairly regularly (a few times a week).

 

Sometimes I find myself so excited about a
book or an article or a story, I try to get
friends to read it.

 

 

 

._ ~—--———— —. _ _--_.. ____. .-

 

Reading is not that important outside of school)

 

When I was young, I read a great deal about ;
certain topics. i

 

»_._.~— __

 

When I find an author I really like, I
sometimes try to read the other books
written by that author.

 

I usually do all the required reading
for courses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

219

9. As a reader, I consider myself:
(Please put a check above the right answer.)

 

Poor Below Average Average Above Average

10. Now. please rate from "Very Unlike Me" to "Very
a scale from 1 to 5, your reasons for reading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EkEETTent

Like Me", on

a. I read-~to find out how to get something done.
Very Like Me Very Unlike Me
«a l 2 3 4 S
b. I read--to keep up with what's going on.
Very Like Me . Very Unlike Me
1 2 3 4 5
c. I read--to discuss what I have read with friends.
Very Like Me Very Unlike Me
1 2 3 4 S
d. I read—~for relaxation and personal enjoyment.
Very Like Me Very Unlike Me
1 2 3 4 5
e. I read--to study for personal and occupational advancement.
Very Like Me . Very Unlike Me
1 2 3 4 5

11.. How much of the following types of reading do you do these

'days? (Put a check above the right answer.)

a. Job-related reading

b. Textbook-reading

 

 

 

A lot A moderate amount A little None

 

A lot A moderate amount A little None

 

c. Light book reading

 

 

 

A lot A moderate amount A little None

d. Magazines

 

 

 

 

A lot A moderate amount A little None

e. Newspapers

 

 

 

 

A lot A moderate amount A little None

f. Others (Please specify.):

 

 

 

 

A lot A moderate amount A little None

 

 

220

12. Compared to other people my age, my understanding or
comprehension of things I read is--

 

 

 

 

Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent

13. Compared to other people my age, my rate or speed of
reading is--

 

 

Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent

14. Why do you think you are the kind of reader that you are
today? What or who might have influenced your reading attitudes
and habits? For example, can you recall past experiences, wheth-
er they occurred at home or at school, that might explain why you
feel the way you do about reading? (Please don't worry about
spelling, grammar, or nwchanics when you write. Just write as
though you were talking to another person.)

 

22]

15. So that I can see how your opinions compare with those
of other people, I would like a few facts about you.

a. What is your sex? Male Female

 

b. In what year were you born?

 

c. What is-the highest level of education you obtained?

Elementary school or less
Some high school

High school graduate
Some college

College graduate

Post graduate degree

d. Are you presently
a full-time student

a part-time student

e. Are you

____ White/Caucasian
Black/African-American
Oriental

Hispanic

Native American

Other:

 

 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!

APPENDIX B: APPROVAL FOR HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

 

UNIVHSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN 0 «824-1!!!
HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCIIHS)

206 BERKEY HALL

(5”) 333-973.

April l7, l990 IRB# 90-151

Raelyn A. Joyce
l920 Hillsdale
Kalamazoo, MI 49007

Dear Ms. Joyce:

RE: "A STUDY OF ALITERACY AMONG COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS
IRB# 90-151“

The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol
has been reviewed by another committee member. The rights and welfare of human
subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research.

You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to
continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate

UCRIHS approval one month prior to April l7, l99l.

Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior
to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems
(unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of

the work.

Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please
do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

J n K. Hudzik, PhD.
Chair, UCRIHS

JKH/sar
cc: 8. Tchudi

ZZZ

MSU a an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institutio-

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alexander, J. E. and Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes
and reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading
Association.

Anders, P. and Cardell, D. (1977). Self-perceptions
and reading habits of adolescents, college students,
and adolescents. (ERIC Report No. ED 149 324)

Anderson, R., Fielding, L., and Wilson, P. (1988).
Growth in reading and how children spend their time

outside of school. Reading Reaearcn Quarterly, 23,

285-303.

Anzalone, S. J. and McLaughlin, S. D. (1983). Making
literacy york: the literagy approach. Amherst, MA:
Center for International Education, University of
Massachusets. ‘

Applebee, A. (1962). Tragirign and reform in rne taagning

or English. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of
Teachers of English. ~

Barker, R. and Escarpit, R. (Eds.). (1973). T e book
hunger. Paris: UNESCO.

Barmore, J. M. and Morse, P. S. (1979). Developing
lifelong readers in the middle schools. In J. L.

Thomas and R. M. Loring (Eds.) Mgtivating children
and yonng adnlra tg read (pp. 75-83). Phoenix:

Oryx Press.

Bleich, D. (1988). Tne double perspectiva; langnage,
literagy, and §ocia1 relatigna. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Book Industry Study Group, Inc., The (1978). The l97§
5 ch d n ' and Bo
Purchaaing: a stngy inquiring inrg rna narnra gr
raading ang bggk haying habits of fine Anerican nablig.
Darien, Connecticut: Prepared by Yankelovich, Skelly
and White for the The Book Industry Study Group.

223

224

Book industry study finds U.S. still is a nation of

readers. (1978). Library Jgnrnai 10;, 2466.

Boorstin, D. J. (1984). Books in our future. Washington
D.C.: Library of Congress.

Brown, L. (1987). Rendering literature accessible. In

B. Corcoran and E. Evans (Eds.) Reagers, Texre, ang
Teachers (pp. 93-118). Upper Montclair, New Jersey:
Boynton Cook.

Carlsen, R. G. and Sherrill, A. (1988). Voices gf readere:
how we cgne to iove books. Urbana, Illinois: National

Council of Teachers of English.

Casteel, C. A. (1989). Motivating reluctant readers to
become mature readers. Reading Improyement 26, 98-102.

Chambers, A. (1969). The reluctant reader. Oxford:
'Pergamon Press.

Chambers, A. (1983). Introducing bogke no children. Boston:

The Horn Book Incorporated.

Ciani, A. J. (1981). Motivaring reluctanr'readers. Newark,

Delaware: International Reading Association.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader.
Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company.

Cole, John Y. and Gold, Carol 5. (1978). Reading in
America. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress.

Corcoran, B. and Evans E. (Eds.). (1987). Readers, tents,
and teachers. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton
Cook.

Cullinan, B. E. (1989). Literature and the cnil . 2nd ed.

New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.

Decker, B. C. (1985). Aliteracy: What teachers can do to

keep Johnny reading." Journal gf Teagher Education,
a1, 55-58. '

Dixon, J. (1967). Growth through English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Faas, P. S. .(1989). Ontside in; Minorities ang rhe
tranefgrmation of American egngation. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

 

225

Faar, B. (1981). Building language experiences for
reluctant readers. In A. J. Ciani (Ed.), Mariyaring

IleQL§n£_readere. (1981) Newark, Delaware:

International Reading Association.

Fader, D. (1976). e ne 00 d b . New York:
Berkeley Publishing Company.

Fedler, F. and Taylor, P. (1978). Broadcasting’s impact on
selection of news stories by readers. Jo i

Qnarterly, 55, 301-305, 333.

Galtung, J. (1981). Literacy, education and schooling--for

what? In H. J. Graff (Ed.), Literagy and social
development in the Weep: a reddgg (PP. 271-276).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

. Goetz, J. P. and LeCompte, M. G. (1984). Ethnography and
gualitative design in edugational research. New York:

Academic Press.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A lace c 1 ed 5 0 ° S cts o
the rnture. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Graff, G. (1979). The literacy myth; Lireracy and egcial
tructure ' the n' et en -c ur c't . New York:
Academics Press.

Graff, G. (1987). Professing literatnre: an institntignal
history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Graff, H. J. (1987). The legacies gf liheragy; Conrinuiry
and gontradigrione in geetern gnltnre and sggiety.

Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.

Greaney, V. (1980). Factors related to amount and type of

leisure reading, Beading_3esearch_guarterlxi_I§. 337-
357.

Guthrie, J. T. (1980). Reading in New Zealand:
achievement of volume. Reading Research Quarrerly. l7,
6-27.

Guthrie, J. T. and Seifert, M. (1983). Profiles
of reading activity in a community. Jgprnal of

Reading. 2d, 498-508
Guthrie, J. T. and Seifert, M. (1984). Meaauring

readership: rationale and rechnigne. Paris: UNESCO.
Harman, D. (1987). Illiteragyz a national dilenn . New

York: Cambridge Book Company.

226

Harste, J. C. and Mikulecky, L. J. (1984). The context of
literacy in our society. In A. C. Purves and O.Niles

(Eds.). Becoming readers in a gompler society.

Eighty-third yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press .

. Heath, S. Brice. (1985). Being literate in America: a
sociohistorical perspective. In J. A. Niles and R.

V. Lalik (Eds.). Issues in literacy: a reeearch

perspective (pp. 1—18). Rochester, New York.
Heath, S. B. (1980). The functions and uses of literacy.

Journal gf Communicationl 30, 123-133.

Heather, P. (1982.). Young people's reading:
the leisure reading of 13-15 year olds.

No. ED 225 130)

_ Hillerich, R. L. (1976). Toward an assessable definition of
literacy. The English Jgurnall 65, 50-55. -

(1982). ERIC/RC8 report: Motivating

Holbrook, H. T.
reluctant readers: A gentle push. Language ArtsI 59,

385-88.

a study of
(ERIC Report

Howell, J. F. and Sylvester, T. A. (1983). Improving
reading motivation. (ERIC Report No. ED 227 454).

International Reading Association and National Council of
Teachers of— English. (1989). Cases in literacy: an

agenda for discussion. Newark, Delaware: International

Reading Association.
In the eye of the storm (1990, October) People. pp. 86-88.

Jacobs, H. C. (1985). Readers--an endangered species? Vital

Speeches of the Day, 51, 446-448.

(1978). Motivating reluctant readers. Journal

I Johns, J. L.
of Research and Development in Educationl l1, 69-74.

Joseph, S. and Wittig, D. L. M. eds. (1980). Reading
remedies for involving the reluctant reader. (ERIC

Report No. ED 192 276)

Kaestle, C. F. (1988). The history of literacy and the
history of readers. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll and

M. Rose (Eds.) Perspectives on Literacy. Carbondale,

Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 95-126.

227

Kantor, K. G., Kirby, D. R., & Goetz, J. P.

(1981).
Research in context: Ethnographic research in English
education.

Rese C 0 S
293- 309.

I

Kazemek, F. E.

(1988). Necessary changes: professional
involvement in adult literacy programs. Harvard
Educational Reyiew, 53, 464-83.

Kimmel, M. M. and Segel, E. (1988). F0

New York:

r reading out loud!
Delacorte.

Kirsch, I. S. and Yungeblut, A

(1986). iteragy: profile
of America’s ygung adults.

Princeton, New Jersey:
Educational Testing Service.

Kozol, J. (1980).

Pr 'sone s o s' e t e nds
of adult illiteragy in rhe unired Sheree. New York:
Continuum Publishing Corporation.

Kozol, J. (1985). illiterate America. Garden City, New

Jersey: Anchor Press.

Lehr, F. (1985).

A portrait of the American as reader.
dournal of Reading, , 170-173.

 

Levine, K. (1982).

Functional literacy: fond illusions and
false economics. a vard c t'on v' w. 52, 249-
66.

Lampert, K. and Saunders, E. (1976)

. Readers and non-
readers: What's the difference? Englieh Jonrnal, 65,
34-38.
Langer, J. A. (1984).L1teracy instruction in American
schools: problems and perspectives. American Jgnrnal
of Educarign. 9;, 107- 32.
. Langer, J. A. (1987). A sociocognitive perspective on
literacy. In J. A. Langer (Ed.). Langnage, lireraey,
t re: 'ssues o '
20).

and sc 0 lin (pp. 1-
Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.

Maxwell, J. (1977). R

r e f 1 ° a
u ve o a tainment nd e ch' ractices i
Scotlan . UK:
Research.

National Foundation for Educational

MCEvoy, G. F. and Vincent, C. S. (1980). Who reads and
why? JOurnal pf Communication, 39 134-140.

 

 

 

228

Mikulecky, L. (1978). Aliteracy and a changing view of
reading goals. (ERIC Report No. Ed 157 052)

Mikulecky, L. J., Shanklin, N. L. and Caverley, D. C.
(1979). dult re din 'ts att'tude
mgtivations: a crges-segtional stndy. Monograph in
Language and Reading Studies. Bloomington, Indiana:
School of Education, Indiana University.

National Academy on Education Commission on Reading.
(1985). Beco in a n t' o r rs: e re ort of

the Commissign on Reading. Washington D. C.: The
National Institute of Education.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1981).
ea 'n T i k’n and Writ n R su ts fro the
1979-80 N tional Ass ssm nt of. d n n
ite re (Report No. 11-L-01). Denver, Colorado:
Education Commission of the States.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1985). The

readi re ort d: P es ow d e ce nce ' o
echgole. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing
Service.

Neilson, L. (1989). Lit rac liv' t lit at

lives of three adulr . Portsmouth, New  Hampshire:

Heinemann Educational Books.

Nell, V. (1988). st ' a ook° th s h l f r 'n
for pleaeure. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Noland, R. G. and Craft, L. H. (1976). Methods to motivate
the reluctant reader. Journal of Reading, l9, 387—392.

Ohmann, R. (1985). Literacy, technology, and monopoly.
Wiser—9.. 675-89-

Oxenham, J. (1980). Liter ‘ ' a 'n n soci l
grganiaarign. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Paris, S. and Wixson, K. (1987). The development of
literacy: Access, Acquisition, and Instruction. In D.

Bloome (Ed.). Literagy and eghggling. (pp. 35-54).
Norwood, NJ.

. Pattison, R. (1982). On literacy; the pglitigs pf rhe word
from hemer to rhe age of rank. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Poindexter, P. M. (1979). Daily newspaper non-readers: why

they don’t read. dgnrnalism Qnarherly, 56, 764-770.

 

 

 

 

 

229

Purves, A. C. (1984). The potential and real achievement of

U.S. students in school reading. hmerigan_dgnrnal_gr
EQEQéEiQni_2;= 82-106-

Ravitch, D. and Finn, C E., Jr. (1987).17-
l ow? na ‘0 l
assesement of hietgry ando lireratu ure. New York: Harper
and Row.

Resnick, D. P. and Resnick, L. B. (1977). The nature of
literacy; a historical exploration. Harvard

Edncational Review, 47, 370-85.

Rist, R. C. (1977). On the relations among educational
research paradigms: From disdain to detente.

Anrhrgpology and Edugation Qnarterly. 8, 42-49. _

.Robinson, Jay. (1985). Literacy in the department of
English. College EnglishII 47, 482-98.

Robinson, Jay. (1990). sa io on e ' t n :
W Portsmouth Hew
Hampshire: Boynton-Cook.

Robinson, John. (1980). The changing reading habits of the

American public. doprnal pf gommunigatign, 39, 141-
152.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the LQES. the pgem.
Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University
Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (1983). Lite u e s e at' (4th ed.).

New York: Modern Language Association of America.

Schatz, E. E., Utterback, R., Wilsberg, M. E., and Frazier,

A. (1960). I de e R t
Primary gradee. r(Study of Independent Reading

Bulletin No. 2). Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Scherer, C. L. (1989). The videocassette recorder and
information inequity. J ic t‘ 39,
94-103.

Scribner, S. and Cole, M. (1981). The psycholggy gfi
literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Scribner, S. (1988). Literacy in three metaphors. In
E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, and M. Rose. (Eds.).
Pe e ' ' . (pp. 71-91). Carbondale,
Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

'—

 

 

 

230

Sharon, A. (1973-74). What do adults read? Reading_Re§eareh
QQ§r§§£l¥i_2. 148-169-

Sloan, G. Davis. (1984). The childa ae grit ig, Te eaching
W New York:

Teachers College Press.

Smith, F. (1983). Essays intg litera y. Portsmouth, New

Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books.

Smith, F. (1986). sul t ' te ' ence° t u ea
inv aeign of gur schools. Portsmouth, New Hampshire:

Heinemann Educational Books.

Sobol, J. and Jackson-Beeck, M., Newspaper nonreaders: a

national profile. Journalism Qparrerly, 58, 9-13, 28.

Sudman, S. and Bradburn, N. M. (1983). ASKiEg_QQ§§§iQE§L
MW San

Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.

- Sullivan, J. L. (1985). An antidote for aliteracy--people
who can read but won’t. (ERIC Report No. ED 255 934)

Sutherland, Z. Monson, D. L. and Arbuthnot, M. L. (1991).
thldren and Books. (8th ed.). New York:

Harper Collins.

Szwed, J.F. (1981). The ethnography of literacy. In E.
R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, and M. Rose. (Eds.).
Pe s 'ves o 'tera . (pp. 71-99). Carbondale,
Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Taylor, D. and Dorsey-Gaines, C. .(1988). Growing

Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational
Books.

Taylor, D. (1990). Teaching without testing: Assessing the
complexity of children’ s literacy training. Englieh

EQEQ§_iQni_22, 4 74.

Taylor, M. (1978). Are college students reading? Wisconein
§LflLQ_A§§Q§i§£iQB_QQQLQ§l1__§p 11-15.

Tchudi, S. (1980). The the of literaey; a guide fer
parents_and_edngargr§. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

‘ Thimmesch, N. (Ed.). (1984). ' c '
w ’t. Washington: American Enterprise Institute
for Public Policy Research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

231

Thomas, J. L. and Loring, R. M. (Eds. L (1979). Mehiyehing
c e n on adu s to ea Phoenix: Oryx
Press.

Thompson, M. E. (1987). What happens when readers do
not read? The problem of reluctant readers. (ERIC
Report No. ED 286 165)

Tanner, R. (1987). Teaching Freshmen Non-readers, the
A-literate Majority. (ERIC Report No. ED 280 076)

Trelease, J. (1989). The new read-aleng handbook. New York:

Penguin Books.

Trimmer, J. (1990). Telling stories about stories. Teeehing

 

n ish ' wo-Year Col e e 7, 157-164.

,Tuman, M. C. )1987). Pr a t 'te ° ' ' ' to
pedagogy. preetiee, and nrggress. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press.

Van Allan, R. (1965).Atrituge§ end the Art ef Teaehing Reed

ing. Washington D.C.: National Education Association.

 

Venezky, R. L. Kaestle, C.F. and Sum, A.M. The_§nhrie
da : ef ecti ns 0 the lite c ' ' i o

Anerieen young adults. Princeton, NJ: Center for the

Assessment of Educational Progress.

Walberg, H. and Shiowling T. (1984). Reading achievement
and diminishing returns to time. Jou na of

W 442- 451.
Weaver, C. (1988). Reading process and preerieez from
' - ' ' ' t w e . Portsmouth,

New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

Weaver, C. (1989). Basals and Reading Instruction: Do

they promote or thwart literacy? highigen__3ngiieh
WI 3'9 0

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism end Literetnre. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

 

Willinsky, J. (1991). e Ne 't ° d
eng writing in the scheols. London: Routledge.

Wilson, M. (1988). Testing and literacy: a contradiction in
terms?" In J. D. Beard and S. E. McNabb (Eds. ),
~s ' . f: t:- no_i 1 . .g..- ._ s' 1;-
ehneee. (pp. 12- -16). Rochester, Michigan: Michigan
Council of Teachers of English.

 

 

 

232

Winkle, A. W. (1988). Research on aliteracy: why Johnny
doesn’t read. Ohie Begging Teaeher. 22, 40-47.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. LIBRQRIES

l.

willlllllm

11"»)..7

7T1..)..n-:-I~n-x.4

Al'.lll~l',41|...‘III‘:<I.:-.

I-I'JVF‘H>IIIIIIII,I