Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of how reading for pleasure is promoted in primary schools.

Janin El Khatib

BA (Hons) Primary Teaching Studies 5-11 with recommendations for QTS.

Abstract

This research project investigated teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of how reading for pleasure is promoted in primary schools. The target populations were British primary school teachers and pupils and the focus on their views meant that a mixed methods approach was used. An online questionnaire was distributed to primary school teachers, which received 136 responses. The primary school teachers mentioned many different reading for pleasure strategies they had used, with reading aloud appearing as the most effective reading for pleasure strategy amongst the participants. Time, resources and money were the most frequently selected barriers that teachers faced when implementing reading for pleasure, giving insight into the challenges of promoting reading for pleasure. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 children, from three different primary schools in Nottinghamshire. The findings of this study suggest most children like reading and associate it with positive feelings. The majority of the participants implied they liked the way reading for pleasure was promoted within their school, but mentioned they felt the range of books in classrooms was not sufficient. These findings provide insight into children’s reading preferences and can have implications for teachers when promoting reading for pleasure.

Introduction

Burnett and Merchant (2018) mention that reading for pleasure [RfP] is a complex idea which has different definitions in various contexts. Throughout this research project, the definition of RfP utilised was reading which an individual chooses to do in their spare time, due to feelings of enjoyment and interest (Clark & Rumbold, 2006; Cremin et al., 2023b; Nell, 1988).

Whilst on placement in various primary schools within Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, I saw teachers promoting RfP using various strategies. However, I questioned the effectiveness of these strategies and if children’s preferences were being considered. O’Reilly and Dogra (2016) mention the importance of considering children’s views on matters which affect them. Merga (2017) further explains research into children’s perspectives of RfP can improve practice within schools. Research indicates a decline of reading enjoyment in recent years, which has reached a critical stage (Clark et al., 2023). The World Literacy Foundation (2022) reported that around 400,000 children in the United Kingdom (UK) do not have access to books at home and Clark et al. (2023) mention around 20% of children do not have a quiet space at home for reading. This links to the ‘Matthew Effect’ in reading, which is the concept that children who engage in more frequent reading, improve their reading skills, which enables them to engage in more reading (Stanovich, 2009). Thus, children who lack reading experiences are less likely to gain the necessary reading skills to encourage RfP. Therefore, as mentioned in statutory frameworks for education, schools have an integral role in promoting RfP (Afflerbach & Harrison, 2017; Department for Education [DfE], 2013, 2023; Ofsted, 2022).

My experiences, existing literature and government policy resulted in the project’s title ‘Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of how RfP is promoted in primary schools’. This was partly investigated using a survey methodology, as a large population was being researched, which was primary school teachers and pupils (Bell & Waters, 2018; Odoh & Chinedum, 2014). An online questionnaire gathered the responses of 136 primary school teachers, which allowed teachers to share their opinions about the effectiveness of RfP strategies. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with 17 children, ranging from Y1 to Y6, in three different primary schools, where the children commented on RfP strategies they had experienced. The use of multiple methods allowed for triangulation, as data was collected on both teachers’ and children’s viewpoints, and provided a more comprehensive understanding of the promotion of RfP in primary schools.

Literature review

RfP is referred to multiple times within the National Curriculum (DfE, 2013), suggesting its value in schools. This is reflected in Ofsted’s (2024) English report, which found most school leaders understand the importance of reading and aim to create a school culture that prioritises it. Despite the general appreciation for RfP within schools, there are barriers which prevent teachers from promoting it successfully (Cremin, 2020; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017; Ofsted, 2024). This literature review explores the benefits of RfP, strategies to implement it and barriers that can prevent it from being promoted.

Benefits and enjoyment of RfP

Research highlights many benefits of RfP, such as how children with positive attitudes of reading have better wellbeing, compared to children with negative attitudes of reading (Clark & Teravainen-Goff, 2018). Public Health England (2014) explore this further and suggest a possible connection between RfP and academic achievement. Some research identifies a relationship between increased engagement of RfP and better reading skills, such as vocabulary acquisition (Clark & Teravainen, 2017; Jennifer & Ponniah, 2015; Parry & Taylor, 2018; Sullivan & Brown, 2015; Torppa et al., 2020). Additionally, Whitten et al. (2016) discovered pupils who read for pleasure achieved higher scores in core subjects, however, participants in this study were aged 15-17. Therefore, these findings may lack relevance to this project but can provide insight into the impacts of RfP beyond primary school. RfP can also support children’s emotional and personal development as it allows children to discover their identity and improve their ability to empathise (Kidd & Castano, 2013; Robinson et al., 2019). Pieper and Beadle (2016) mention children who struggle with reading may feel isolated in everyday life, therefore supporting children to enjoy reading is important. Benefits of RfP therefore encompass academic, personal and emotional aspects.

Although research emphasises the importance of RfP, not all children find enjoyment in reading. A report by Cole et al. (2022) based on the responses of over 70,000 children, found 47% enjoy reading. This large sample size suggests the findings are generalisable and therefore more representative of children’s thoughts across the UK. Similarly, Clark et al. (2023) conducted research a year later and discovered 43% of children and young people enjoyed reading. However, this research was conducted with participants aged 8-18, meaning younger primary school children’s views were not considered. Clark et al. (2023) also mention a decline in reading enjoyment for children, which means children may lose out on the benefits of RfP. Such studies therefore highlight the need for teachers to promote RfP in schools through different strategies.

RfP Strategies

There has been emphasis placed on creating a school culture which encompasses RfP, from the moment a child enters a school, as this encourages children to become lifelong readers (Ofsted, 2022; Scottish Library & Information Council, 2018). The importance of creating lifelong readers is in studies like Whitten et al.’s (2016) where 71% of participants aged between 15-17, did not value reading (Clark & Teravainen, 2017; Scholastic, 2022). This is further reflected in Ofsted’s (2024) report which mentions that pupils who leave primary school without positive reading habits typically do not pick up these habits later in life. Teachers therefore need to promote RfP using various strategies, some of which are outlined below.

Reading aloud is a RfP strategy commonly used in schools due to its benefits for children. Kalb and Van Ours (2014) propose a link between children’s enjoyment of reading aloud and reading skills, which is mentioned in the context of parents reading aloud to their children. However as previously mentioned, not all children have supportive reading environments at home, highlighting the need for reading aloud in schools. Merga and Ledger (2018) investigated reading aloud and found Australian teachers felt this allowed them to share their reading enjoyment with their pupils. Despite this study being conducted with Australian teachers, their education system does have some similarities to the UK’s, with RfP also being mentioned in the Australian national curriculum. (ACARA, n.d.). Oxley and McGeown (2023) found many children enjoy hearing books being read aloud, further highlighting the necessity of reading aloud. Despite the benefits of reading aloud to children, sometimes teachers may struggle to find the time for it. Hempel-Jorgensen et al. (2018) discovered teachers do not always utilise opportunities to build reading communities and rarely read books aloud for the purpose of RfP. This is supported by Merga (2017) and Ofsted (2024) who found story time regularly occurs in reception and key stage 1 (KS1), however it is neglected in key stage 2 (KS2), due to limited time in a school day. However, reading at school should be prioritised so the benefits of a reading community can be gained (Boyask et al., 2022; Hoffman et al., 1993; Ofsted 2022).

Shared reading experiences can also be created by using book talk. Brandt et al.’s (2021) study found teachers felt book talk allowed for shared excitement about books which encourages even reluctant readers to read. Similarly, Leon and Biddle (2023) mention book talk motivates reading, as children can discuss books and offer recommendations. Kucirkova and Cremin (2017) mention that talking to children about books is important as it gives children the opportunity to share their personal experiences, which enables reading communities to be created. Additionally, Cremin (2019) highlights the importance of giving book talk sufficient time in the school day, which can be an issue as there is usually limited time allocated to RfP (Ofsted, 2024).

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivators (academic compliance and rewards) can both have a role in motivating children to read (Salikin et al., 2017). Oxley and McGeown (2023) researched primary school-aged children and found rewards were typically ineffective motivators, with Willingham (2016) mentioning how rewards are only effective in the short-term. Lepper et al. (1973) concluded rewards are not only ineffective, but they can also reduce a child’s intrinsic motivation. However, Lepper et al.’s (1973) study was conducted nearly 50 years ago, thus meaning the temporal validity of the findings can be questioned. More recently, Brandt et al. (2021) explain that using rewards related to reading, such as extra reading time, encourage the development of intrinsic motivation and motivate pupils to read.

Intrinsic motivation can be feelings of curiosity and enjoyment of reading (Clark & Rumbold, 2006; Cremin et al., 2023b). McGeown et al.’s (2020) study found most pupils considered emotions as motivational factors towards reading. Despite this study only utilising the views of 33 pupils, thus lacking generalisability, it provides insight into which factors may influence children to read. Smith et al. (2016) reported similar findings, with children commenting they read due to feelings of connection to book characters. Literature highlights the importance of intrinsic motivation, suggesting this motivation encourages children to become life-long readers (Kohn, 1993; Schiefele et al., 2012). Children who understand the importance of reading are twice as likely to engage in daily reading (Merga & Roni, 2018). Clark et al. (2023) found that 59% of children read to relax and 55% of children read to increase their knowledge of words, whereas only 12% of children read so they can spend quality time with others. This review of reading motivation suggests there are many reasons children engage in RfP, but mainly these reasons are intrinsic.

Pupil choice

When promoting RfP, it is important to look at pupils’ reading preferences. Loh et al. (2022) found that across 761 participants in a primary school, children preferred fiction books. There were 269 books mentioned as pupils’ favourite books, showing the diversity of children’s interests and suggesting how this should be reflected in the books available in schools (Gamble, 2013; Griffin, 2016; Schleicher, 2019). Loh et al.’s study however investigated an international primary school in Singapore, thus making it less generalisable to schools in the UK. Giving children greater choice surrounding reading is shown to increase reading motivation and therefore increase reading engagement (Erickson et al., 2020; Fisher & Frey, 2018). Afflerbach and Harrison (2017) indicate that when children are given books they deem boring, it decreases their reading motivation and engagement. This is supported by Ofsted (2024) who imply that books based on reading levels restrict children’s exposure to a range of books and can make reading feel like a school requirement, rather than an enjoyable hobby.

Not only do children have certain book preferences, but they also have preferences for reading location. Reedy and De Carvalho (2019) investigated Y5 pupils’ views of RfP and discovered they typically preferred reading at home, as noise at school made it difficult to concentrate. These pupils also mentioned they would appreciate a wider range of texts in school and increased freedom when choosing their own books (Gagen-Spriggs, 2021; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017). On the other hand, more recent research by Clark et al. (2023) found an equal number of children preferred reading at home and at school, however there was no explanation given for this, unlike Reedy and De Carvalho’s (2019) study. Clark and Picton (2020) explain that some pupils prefer reading at school due to receiving support from teachers. Overall, this suggests children have different preferences for their location of reading, further emphasising the diversity within children’s choices surrounding reading.

Role of the teacher

When teachers are seen as readers they can create a positive environment within a classroom where reading experiences can be shared (Cremin et al., 2014; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017). Merga (2016) investigated whether children saw their teachers as readers. Teachers were perceived as readers if they gave book recommendations, read aloud and engaged in discussions about books. This relates to research which suggests the perception of teachers as reading role models encourages more RfP in pupils (Cremin et al., 2023a; Ofsted, 2022; Schleicher, 2019). The OECD (2021) found on average girls spend more time RfP than boys, with similar studies reporting fewer boys enjoy reading (Clark et al., 2023; Clark & Teravainen, 2017). Loveless (2015) suggests that stereotypes label reading as feminine, which may explain the gender differences in RfP and suggests a need for more male reading role models. Teachers should be able to provide children with book recommendations and around 40% of children mention recommendations encouraging reading (Clark et al., 2023; Cremin et al., 2008). Alexander and Jarman (2018) found only 16% of children read science books often and most find these books boring. After children participated in a project promoting science books, 97% of the children found science books interesting. These findings show that when teachers actively promote less popular genres of books, it can encourage pupils to broaden the range of books they read.

Cremin et al. (2008) gathered 1,200 responses from teachers about their reading habits and found most teachers were readers. The sample size suggests greater generalisability of the findings. Similarly, a study by Clark and Teravainen (2015) utilised 2,326 teachers and found almost 90% of teachers enjoyed reading. Despite this study’s large sample size, only 160 of the participants worked in primary schools, meaning the findings may have limited generalisability for primary school teachers. Kucirkova and Cremin (2017) mention that teachers having a love for reading can allow authentic RfP conversations to take place, which can demonstrate teachers are genuine reading role models.

RfP barriers

Research shows that despite teachers attempting to promote RfP, there are barriers that prevent this from being done effectively. Time can be a barrier faced by teachers (Cremin, 2020; Ofsted, 2024). Reedy and De Carvalho (2019) found pupils expressed that too little time was allocated to reading in schools. This could be due to teachers feeling they need to prioritise assessment content from the curriculum. Children are not assessed on RfP, but they are assessed on reading skills, therefore RfP may become sidelined (Cremin, 2020; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017). Hempel-Jorgensen et al. (2018) investigated reading in four English primary schools. They found that teachers did not utilise opportunities to build reading communities, and used independent reading time to carry out tasks, like marking, to catch up on their workload. This suggests workload may also be a barrier when promoting RfP.

Farrar (2021) investigated trainee teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and found they lacked knowledge, particularly about poetry and picture books. However, this is not restricted to trainee teachers alone, as Cremin et al. (2008) also found that qualified teachers have limited knowledge of poets, which creates challenges when striving to promote diversity of literature. The limited knowledge of children’s literature means that teachers may find it difficult to recommend books to their pupils (Cremin et al., 2008; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017). Giving children book recommendations is important, but it may be tough if schools have limited resources and budgets for RfP (Merga & Mason, 2019). The Centre for Library in Primary Education (CLPE) (2022, p.4) found that ‘more than 60% of classrooms have no access to a budget for new books’, suggesting that teachers may struggle to provide children with a wide range of books in their classroom, creating another barrier when promoting RfP.

The range of literature in this review therefore demonstrates the need for RfP to be positively promoted within schools, with careful consideration of pupils’ views and preferences. Within existing literature there is a gap in exploring both teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of RfP, hence the researcher wanted to investigate this to get a selection of perspectives about RfP.

Methodology

The target population was primary school teachers and pupils from the UK, and multiple methods were utilised which allowed for the collection of qualitative and quantitative data (Biesta, 2021; Johnson & Christensen, 2017), giving a deeper understanding into RfP. These methods were semi-structured interviews [SSI] and an online questionnaire, which meant triangulation could be carried out, thus increasing the validity of the conclusions drawn (Denscombe, 2021; Evans, 2017; Kay & Wainwright, 2018).

Ethics

When conducting research, researchers have a responsibility to prevent harm and follow the appropriate ethics policies, taking additional measures when research involves children (Denscombe, 2021; Stutchbury, 2017). Therefore, the Bishop Grosseteste University [BGU] (2022) and the British Educational Research Association [BERA] (2018) ethical guidelines were closely followed, to ensure research was conducted in an appropriate manner. As this research involved children the researcher had a DBS to allow them to conduct the semi-structured interviews (BGU, 2022; Hope, 2016)

The participants and guardians received an information sheet with all the necessary information regarding what participation would involve and they were given the opportunity to ask questions (BERA, 2018; McNiff, 2016). There were no incentives given to participants to aid them to participate (BERA, 2018). Fully informed consent from the participants and the participants’ guardians was received before data collection, as this research involved no deception (BERA, 2018; BGU, 2022; Cohen et al., 2018; Stutchbury, 2017). The children were made aware that participation was their choice and then consent was collected from them (Burton et al., 2014; BGU, 2022; BERA, 2018; O’Reilly & Dogra, 2016; Seidman, 2019).

All the data was anonymised, meaning the participants cannot be identified (Bells & Waters, 2018; BERA, 2018; Hope, 2016; Johnson & Christensen, 2017). The interview participants were given pseudonyms, whereas the online questionnaire participants were asked to provide a memorable word and number. This meant all data could be distinguished for withdrawal if necessary (Data Protection Act, 2018). All participants and guardians were made aware of the right to withdraw at any given moment, including after data collection (BERA, 2018; BGU, 2022; Nayak & Narayan, 2019; O’Reilly & Dogra, 2016).  All data was securely stored on encrypted and password protected OneDrive, meaning confidentiality was maintained (BERA, 2018; BGU, 2022; Data Protection Act, 2018). All data collected was destroyed after July 2024 in line with ethical guidelines (BERA, 2018; BGU, 2022).

Methods

Questionnaires are used to ask participants questions and can collect quantitative and qualitative data (Denscombe, 2021; Johnson & Christensen, 2017). Specifically, an online questionnaire was utilised due to it being economical, environmentally friendly and time efficient (Cohen et al., 2018; Denscombe, 2021; Parrish, 2023). Online questionnaires are also easily replicable, therefore increasing the method’s reliability (Cohen et al., 2018).

The target population for the online questionnaire was primary school teachers. Firstly, convenience sampling was utilised, as the questionnaire was posted into a Facebook group for primary school teachers, and it was sent to primary school teachers the researcher had access to (Dewis, 2018; Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Parrish, 2023). This may have meant the sample lacked population validity and generalisability (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Denscombe, 2021; Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Winterbottom, 2017). It is also important to consider that not all teachers have an online presence, so the questionnaire was not accessible to all the target population (Cohen et al., 2018; Dewis, 2018). However, participants then passed the questionnaire onto other primary teachers, leading to snowball sampling (Denscombe, 2021; Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Parker et al., 2019). This resulted in 136 responses from primary school teachers in the UK. This number of participants meant trends in the data were more notable which increased the reliability of conclusions made. Within research there is variation in what is defined as a good sample size, but typically it depends on the size of population (Burton et al., 2014; Johnson & Christensen, 2017). It cannot be determined whether the use of snowball sampling increased the generalisability of the sample, as information about participants’ personal characteristics was not collected.

The questionnaire mainly used closed questions, as long questionnaires with complex questions can cause questionnaire fatigue (Cohen et al., 2018; Denscombe, 2021; Newby, 2014). Primary school teachers typically have a large workload, therefore the questionnaire did not aim to exceedingly impact their workload (BERA, 2018; Parrish, 2023). A potential limitation of closed questions is that participants’ answers are based on the options the researcher has predetermined (Denscombe, 2021). Therefore, where possible, an ‘other’ option was included so participants were able to add additional answers. Open questions were also utilised, which allowed the participants to use their own words to talk about RfP (Denscombe, 2021; Newby, 2014). Additionally, a Likert scale was used to gather data about teachers’ confidence in implementing RfP (Tymms, 2021). A limitation of Likert scales is that participants typically choose the midpoint, as it is central (Denscombe, 2021). Parrish (2023) mentions that an ‘unsure’ option should be provided, but this was not included. This may have meant participants were forced to choose an answer they did not believe, therefore compromising the reliability of the Likert question.

An advantage of online questionnaires is the anonymity, meaning social desirability is less likely to occur and thus participants are more honest with their answers (Cohen et al., 2018; Dewis, 2018; Kay & Wainwright, 2018; Nayak & Narayan, 2019). However, Patten (2016) mentions that social desirability can still occur despite questionnaires being anonymous. RfP is important within schools, therefore when the participants were asked about their own reading habits, they may have answered in a way they assumed was desirable, which is that they enjoy reading (Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Ofsted, 2024). Another benefit of using online questionnaires is that they can reach many people in a short time period, which is shown as 100 responses were received after one day (Tymms, 2021). However, a limitation of using an online questionnaire is that researchers cannot clarify their questions, so participants may not understand what they are being asked (Nayak & Narayan, 2019). To reduce this issue, the questionnaire was piloted beforehand, which allowed any necessary amendments to be made (Bell & Waters, 2018; Denscombe, 2021; Shaikh, 2023). Piloting the questionnaire also meant that any leading questions could be changed and therefore helped reduce any bias (Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Seidman, 2019). Overall, online questionnaires are effective data collection tools due to their convenience and ability to collect both qualitative and quantitative data (Denscombe, 2021; Johnson & Christensen, 2017). The standardisation of questions allows for easier comparisons to be made, making analysis more straightforward and increasing the internal reliability (Cohen et al., 2018; Patten, 2016).

Interviews are used by researchers to gain a better understanding of their research topic from the viewpoint of their target audience (Brinkmann, 2020; Cohen et al., 2018). Specifically, SSIs were chosen as rich data can be produced and the SSIs can be adapted for their target audience (Bell & Waters, 2018). The sample for the SSIs were primary school pupils, as it is important to give children the chance to voice their opinions on matters that affect them, such as RfP (O’Reilly & Dogra, 2016). Children can provide unique perspectives that give researchers valuable insight into a child’s world (Punch & Oancra, 2014; Warwick & Chaplain, 2017). O’Reilly and Dogra (2016) mention the importance of an interviewer building rapport with their child interviewees (Cobb, 2016; Seidman, 2019). Therefore, a convenience sample was utilised and the interviews were only conducted with pupils known to the researcher, to allow the children to feel more comfortable when being interviewed (BERA, 2018; Cohen et al., 2018; Warwick & Chaplain, 2017). In total 17 SSIs were conducted with children ranging from Y1-Y6. The children were from three different primary schools in Nottinghamshire, which does suggest a lack of population validity. This means the SSIs results may not have universality, as the findings do not reflect the perceptions of primary aged children from across the UK.

The use of SSIs meant there could be variation between the interviews, which enable follow up questions to be asked and more in-depth data to be collected (Adams, 2015; Brinkmann, 2020; Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Kay & Wainwright, 2018; O’Reilly & Dogra, 2016; Punch & Oancra, 2014; Shaikh, 2023). Warwick and Chaplain (2017) mention that SSIs are most appropriate for interviewing children as there is structure but also flexibility to the interview (O’Reilly & Dogra, 2016). Interviews can cause children to feel anxious, therefore the interviews were conducted in a familiar environment, this either being the child’s classroom or their local community centre, to allow participants to feel at ease (Cobb, 2016; Cohen et al., 2018; O’Reilly & Dogra, 2016; Punch & Oancra, 2014; Shaikh, 2023). The interviews were intentionally conducted in an informal manner, and age-appropriate language was used so the questions could be easily understood (O’Reilly & Dogra, 2016; Seidman, 2019; Stutchbury, 2017; Warwick & Chaplain, 2017). However, despite the careful planning, there were still some issues that were not considered. For example, when being asked about libraries, one child did not know what a library was. Subsequent interviews therefore first asked child participants if they knew what a library was.

A challenge of conducting interviews is that it can be difficult to obtain consent to audio record participants, and the transcription of interviews can be time consuming (Bell & Waters, 2018; Kay & Wainwright, 2018). Therefore, before the interviews, a pilot interview was conducted to practice note taking (Punch & Oancra, 2014; Seidman, 2019). This meant during the interviews, notes were taken using a laptop, which was overall more time efficient than utilising audio recordings (Cohen et al., 2018). As no audio recording was used, it may also have allowed the children to feel more relaxed and therefore truthful with their answers (Seidman, 2019). However, some children seemed hyperaware of the notetaking, which may have led to the Hawthorne Effect, where participants alter their answers when being observed (Cohen et al., 2018). A limitation of note taking is that notes were only made on the points deemed relevant, meaning important information may have been missed and there is the potential for the findings to be subjective and biased (Bell & Waters, 2018; Burton et al., 2014; Seidman, 2019). Overall, SSIs allow for rich, meaningful data to be gathered and give participants the chance to voice their views (Bell & Waters, 2018; O’Reilly & Dogra, 2016; Punch & Oancra, 2014). The variation between interviews however may mean exact replication cannot be achieved, thus limiting their validity (Evans, 2017).

Analysis

The qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis [TA], which firstly required the data to be carefully read so coding could be completed (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Dewis & Kay, 2018; Shaikh, 2023). A deductive approach was mainly taken, which involved the data being sorted into predetermined themes linked to the literature review (Sheyadi, 2023). Colour coding was used to label the different themes present, which meant that patterns between responses were easily visible (Bell & Waters, 2018; Dewis & Kay, 2018; Howells & Gregory, 2016; Seidman, 2019; Shaikh, 2023). When exploring the data, some inductive TA took place, as new subthemes emerged from the data (Seidman, 2019; Sheyadi, 2023). For example, the theme of ‘pupil choice’ was split into the subthemes of ‘reading preferences’ and ‘location preferences’. The data was reread several times to ensure information was not overlooked (Dewis & Kay, 2018; Howells & Gregory, 2016; Seidman, 2019).

The concluding themes and subthemes are presented below:

Table 1: Themes and subthemes from the qualitative data

The data was coded solely by the researcher, meaning the interpretations may be biased (Bell & Waters, 2018; Burton et al., 2014; Howells & Gregory, 2016; Sheyadi, 2023). But as mentioned by Creswell and Guetterman (2019) and Sheyadi (2023) bias can be minimised if researchers acknowledge their own assumptions. An advantage of using some inductive TA is that new themes could be created, meaning the data was not restricted to the predetermined themes (Riger & Sigurvinsdottir, 2016; Thomas, 2023a).

To analyse the quantitative data, percentages were calculated for the answers to each question to allow for comparison (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Dewis & Kay, 2018; Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Parrish, 2023). The use of an online questionnaire meant the data could be exported into a spreadsheet and figures could be created to present the data (Burton et al., 2014). Bar charts and pie charts were used which allows trends and patterns to be easily seen in the data (Cobb, 2016; Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Howells & Gregory, 2016).

Overall, the use of the online questionnaire and SSIs meant RfP could be investigated from the perspectives of both primary school teachers and children, allowing for triangulation and increasing the validity of results (Denscombe, 2021; Evans, 2017; Hope, 2016). Using TA alongside percentages and figures also permitted a more holistic exploration of RfP (Dewis & Kay, 2018).

Findings and discussion

The following discussion of the research findings is organised using the themes identified from thematic analysis of the data to address the research’s focus on teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of how RfP is promoted in primary schools.

Enjoyment of RfP

Reading enjoyment and reasons for this were collected from the child participants and 88% (n=15) of children said they like reading, which differs from research that found less than half of children say they enjoy reading (Clark et al., 2023; Cole et al., 2022). The high percentage of reading enjoyment amongst the participants could be due to the Hawthorne Effect, meaning the children said they like reading due to the researcher’s presence in their interview (Cohen et al., 2018).

Figure 1: Child participants’ answer to the question ‘Why do you enjoy reading?’

Figure 1 suggests there are different reasons children enjoy reading, most commonly to increase knowledge and because they enjoy the activity, which aligns with research (Clark et al., 2023; McGeown et al., 2020). Charlie said, ‘we get to talk about lots of stories’ and Naomi said, ‘I like to share it with my parents and sister’. The social aspect of reading was only mentioned by 11% (n=2) of the children. Similarly, Clark et al. (2023) found only 12% of children read for social reasons. This suggests that although some children enjoy the social element of reading, it is not a common reason for engaging in the act.

However, 2 out of 17 children mentioned they do not like reading. Alexis said, ‘it’s boring and I prefer watching stuff instead’, which relates to Afflerbach and Harrison (2017) who mention that children’s reading motivation may decrease if they are given books they perceive as boring. Therefore, perhaps Alexis is not exposed to books they are interested in, which is later supported when they describe the books at school as ‘childish’. Maddison said reading is ‘too long and I don’t like the long words’, suggesting they do not find the process of reading enjoyable, perhaps associating it with negative feelings. Alternatively, it may indicate the books available to Maddison are too challenging, causing them to view reading as difficult. Pieper and Beadle (2016) mention that having difficulties in reading can be isolating for children, suggesting the need for teachers to support children with reading. Overall, data suggests most of the children interviewed like reading, but they have differing reasons for this enjoyment.

RfP strategies

Reading aloud emerged as a common strategy for promoting RfP in the data. All the children said their teachers read aloud to their class and 85% (n=116) of the teachers mentioned using reading aloud as a RfP strategy which contrasts with Merga’s (2017) research that reading aloud is not prioritised within schools. However, data was not collected about the frequency with which reading aloud occurred, meaning it is difficult to fully compare the findings to Merga’s (2017) research. Three out of 17 children commented that reading aloud only occurred for lessons and never for the purpose of RfP. This relates to Hempel-Jorgensen et al.’s (2018) findings that teachers rarely read books aloud specifically for RfP. Bailey commented ‘I wish they did it just for fun’, implying that they would like to have more pleasure-centred reading aloud. Interestingly, these three children were all in KS2, matching Ofsted’s (2024) findings that story time is more typically neglected in KS2. The 14 children who mentioned their teachers read aloud for pleasure were all in year one, which similarly aligns with Ofsted’s (2024) findings that story time regularly occurs in KS1. Maddison, who previously mentioned disliking reading, said their teacher ‘reads books to us at home time. I like it because I like books’. This indicates that maybe some children may dislike the process of decoding but enjoy hearing stories. This is similar to Oxley and McGeown’s (2023) research, where children expressed enjoyment when their teachers read aloud. These results suggest that story time is utilised and enjoyed in KS1, however the lack of story time in KS2 means children may miss out on the benefits of it.

Teachers mentioned the importance of reading aloud, with 22% (n=30) of them commenting that reading aloud was the most effective RfP strategy. One teacher remarked that reading aloud allows children ‘to enjoy a story without the worry of…having to do work linked to it’, and another teacher mentioned reading aloud ‘purely for pleasure’. This suggests that these teachers understand the significance of reading aloud for pleasure, which Merga and Ledger (2018) mention can allow for reading enjoyment to be shared. Additionally, one teacher commented that ‘not all children have this opportunity at home’, supporting the idea that schools have an integral role in providing quality reading experiences (Boyask et al., 2022; Ofsted, 2022).

Book talk was the most identified strategy as 90% (n=123) of the teachers mentioned using it. Additionally, 18% (n=24) of the teachers said book talk was the most effective RfP strategy. One teacher explained that these conversations ‘allow you to understand why children aren’t reading and help them overcome that barrier’. This implies teachers need to make an effort to talk to reluctant readers to understand how to engage them in reading (Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017). Similarly, Brandt et al. (2021) found that teachers felt book talk motivated reluctant readers to engage in reading. Another teacher said it ‘demonstrates you are as interested in the book as them’, suggesting that book talk allows children to view teachers as readers, thus creating a reading community (Cremin, 2019). Book talk also allows teachers to give book recommendations, which 76% (n=103) of the teachers mentioned using. One teacher said that book recommendations ‘encouraged the children who aren’t engaged’ to begin reading, which is supported by Leon and Biddle (2023) and Clark et al. (2023) who found that children said receiving book recommendations would encourage them to read. However, data about book recommendations was not collected from child participants to corroborate this finding. Overall, the data suggests that book talk is a popular RfP strategy which helps create shared reading experiences.

The data indicates that whilst children enjoy rewards for reading, teachers find them ineffective. Seven children mentioned receiving rewards such as toys and team points for reading. Four of these children said these rewards encouraged them to read more, implying they felt motivated to read due to the reward itself, which contrasts with Oxley and McGeown’s (2023) study that found some children felt rewards were ineffective motivators. 71% (n=96) of the teachers mentioned they had used reward systems to promote RfP. However, 14% (n=20) said reward systems were the most ineffective strategy. Teachers mentioned that children become ‘more motivated by reward than the joy of reading’ and ‘when strategies become tokenistic such as reading rewards, these are extrinsic motivators which are not as effective as igniting the intrinsic motivators’. This suggests that these teachers believe rewards are only effective in the short term and instead intrinsic motivation can foster a love for reading and create lifelong readers (Kohn, 1993; Salikin et al., 2017; Schiefele et al., 2012; Willingham, 2015).

Only 7% (n=9) of the teachers expressed that reward systems were the most effective strategy. One teacher said that it allows children to have ‘tangible incentives and recognition’. Another teacher explained that ‘the children are encouraged and through this they find books they enjoy and…often read more regularly and it turns into a long-term love’. Here this teacher is perhaps suggesting rewards act as extrinsic motivators, to first motivate children to read. Over time, this may lead children to discover a love for reading, meaning they could read due to their intrinsic motivation and do not need rewards to further motivate them. This is similar to Brandt et al.’s (2021) findings which mention that by using rewards related to reading, reading can become the reward for children. Overall, teachers found reward systems ineffective and instead felt intrinsic motivation was more important for RfP.

Pupil choice

Figure 2: Child participants’ answers to the question ‘Which types of books do you like to read’?

The most common book genre mentioned was fiction, which relates to Loh et al.’s (2022) study that found children prefer reading fiction books. Within this category, the children mentioned a range of titles, such as Little Red Riding Hood and Charlotte’s Web, implying children’s specific interests vary, which also relates to Loh et al.’s (2022) findings. This suggests the need for a wide range of books to be available in schools (Gagen-Spriggs, 2021; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017; Reedy & De Carvalho, 2019). Surprisingly, non-fiction books were mentioned ten times, with space books alone being mentioned by seven children. This may be due to the class’s space topic and the teacher specifically promoting these types of books.

Maddison, who previously mentioned not liking reading, said, ‘I like the ones we choose’ and ‘I don’t like monster phonics books’, suggesting that although they do not like reading, when they do choose to read, they prefer books based on their choice, rather than books from phonics schemes. This is supported by literature which implies that giving children greater book choice increases engagement, but books based on reading levels reduce children’s choice (Erickson et al., 2020; Fisher & Frey, 2018; Ofsted, 2024). 86% (n=117) of the teachers said that when choosing books for their classroom, they considered their pupils’ interests, which is also highlighted by Gamble (2013), Griffin (2016) and Schleicher (2019). One child mentioned poetry, suggesting it is an unpopular genre, which could be due to teachers’ limited knowledge of poetry (Cremin et al., 2008; Farrar, 2021).

Overall, this data shows how children’s interests are diverse, emphasising the importance of giving children freedom in their book choices and the need for a range of books within schools. However, this data also suggests that children’s book preferences may be based on the genres their teachers promote, highlighting the need for teachers to promote different types of literature.

Figure 3: Child participants’ answers to the question ‘Do you prefer reading at home or at school?’

Most of the children preferred reading at school, with Charlie explaining this is ‘because they get to help us’, suggesting children like receiving teacher support with reading, which is similar to Clark and Picton’s (2020) findings. In contrast Henry expressed feelings of upset saying that ‘we never play in here (reading area). I want to read’, perhaps implying that due to a busy school day there is not always time to go to the reading area. This links to Reedy and De Carvalho’s (2019) finding that pupils feel reading is not given enough time in schools. Alexis, who preferred reading at home said, ‘school don’t always have books I want’ and school’s books are ‘childish’, aligning with research which suggests a greater range of books need to be available in schools (Gagen-Spriggs, 2021; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017; Reedy & De Carvalho, 2019). Clark et al. (2023) found an equal number of children preferred reading at home and at school. However, it is difficult to compare the study’s data with Clark et al.’s (2023) findings as only 17 children were interviewed, whereas Clark et al. (2023) had over 70,000 participants.

Role of the teacher

When investigating teachers’ reading enjoyment, 88% (n=15) of the children said their teachers liked reading, and most of the children mentioned they knew this because their teachers read to the class. 84% (n=114) of the teachers said they enjoy RfP, which is similar to Clark and Teravainen’s (2015) and Cremin’s (2008) findings. One teacher mentioned ‘sharing my own love for reading with the children…shows an authenticity and models the importance it holds to you as a teacher’. This suggests teachers’ enjoyment of reading is important as it allows them to have authentic RfP conversations with pupils (Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017). Authentic conversations would perhaps lead teachers to be seen as reading role models, which has been suggested to encourage children to read for pleasure (Clark et al., 2023; Cremin et al., 2023a, 2014; Ofsted, 2022). Conversations with pupils about books also allow teachers to give book recommendations; 76% (n=103) of the teachers said they have used recommendations, with 13% (n=17) saying this is the most effective strategy. One teacher said that book recommendations ‘encouraged the children who aren’t engaged’ to begin reading, suggesting that recommendations give children a pathway into reading based on their interests (Clark et al., 2023; Cremin et al., 2008). Overall, the teachers in the study mostly enjoyed reading and were viewed as readers by pupils.

RfP barriers

Time is a common barrier faced when promoting RfP, mentioned by 82% (n=111) of the teachers and by research (Cremin, 2020; Ofsted, 2024). Workload was also a barrier faced by 44% (n=60) of the teachers. This can be linked to time, as having a large workload could mean teachers struggle to find time for promoting RfP. This is supported by Hempel-Jorgensen et al. (2018) who found that teachers use independent reading time to complete tasks like marking to catch up on their workload. These results suggest that due to busy school days RfP can often be sidelined.

Money was a barrier for 56% (n=76) of the teachers and resources were a barrier for 57% (n=78). Both barriers are closely linked as a lack of funding in a school means limited money for new books, which is supported by research (CLPE, 2022; Merga and Mason, 2019). Not being able to afford new books may create difficulties when attempting to promote RfP, as Gagen-Spriggs (2021) and Reedy and De Carvalho (2019) found that children would prefer a greater variety of books in school.

Only 15% (n=20) of the teachers chose a lack of knowledge as a barrier, despite research showing many teachers have limited knowledge of children’s literature, causing difficulties when recommending books (Cremin et al., 2008; Farrar, 2021; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017). The reason for this finding may be that teachers are expected to have good subject knowledge, so the teachers gave answers they assumed were desirable. Only one teacher said ‘having a teacher who is well-read in children’s books’ is the most effective RfP strategy, which may imply that other teachers think it is not essential to be knowledgeable about books when promoting RfP. Overall, these results indicate teachers face a range of challenges when promoting RfP.

Conclusion and recommendations

This study discovered that teachers utilise many RfP strategies, with reading aloud being the most effective strategy, which children also mentioned liking. In contrast, rewards were perceived as the most ineffective RfP strategy. Instead, teachers suggested using intrinsic motivation, which is mentioned in literature (Kohn, 1993; Salikin et al., 2017; Schiefele et al., 2012; Willingham, 2015). This was corroborated as only four children found rewards motivating. These findings suggest that for future RfP promotion, teachers should prioritise intrinsic motivation rather than rewards. Most teachers considered pupils’ interests when choosing books for their classroom, however, two reluctant readers indicated that books in school did not interest them. This suggests that teachers need to improve their knowledge of books that entice children, as is reflected in literature (Cremin et al., 2008; Farrar, 2021; Kucirkova & Cremin, 2017).

The study also found that time is the primary challenge when promoting RfP, as supported by other research (Cremin, 2020; Merga & Ledger, 2018; Ofsted, 2024; Oxley & McGeown, 2023), and indicates that schools need to allocate more time for RfP. Other common barriers were money and resources, emphasising the need for a greater budget to be allocated for book purchases (CLPE, 2022; Merga & Mason, 2019).

Overall, teachers found different strategies to be effective, for various reasons. In general pupils liked the strategies used by their teachers, demonstrating that the promotion of RfP is generally positive. Looking at pupils’ views of RfP is important from the perspective of teachers as this can improve their own practices regarding RfP and allow them to gain insight into the opinions of the new generation of readers. Despite the variety of RfP strategies used, teachers mentioned barriers which hindered their ability to promote RfP effectively, suggesting improvements need to be made, such as increased funding for RfP. Perhaps an increased emphasis of RfP within government policy would encourage schools to take steps forward to prioritise RfP and support teachers with its promotion in the classroom. 

A limitation of this study is that thematic analysis was utilised, which is based on interpretation, meaning findings may be biased (Bell & Waters, 2018; Howells & Gregory, 2016). Future research could use a peer-coder, to gain the interpretation of others and increase the reliability of the analysis (Burton et al., 2014; Howells & Gregory, 2016; Sheyadi, 2023). Another limitation is that teachers typically did not elaborate on their answers in the online questionnaire. For future research, interviewing teachers may be beneficial as it would allow for more in-depth data to be collected (Bells & Waters, 2018; Brinkmann, 2020; Cohen et al., 2018 Punch & Oancra, 2014). Additionally, due to the small sample size of this study, the findings lack generalisability. However, the findings support the researcher’s own development as a teacher, enabling them to effectively promote a love for reading in their future classrooms.

References

ACARA. (n.d.). The Australian Curriculum: All curriculum elements. Australian Curriculum. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/download/f10

Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi‐structured interviews. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (4th ed., pp. 492–505). A Wiley Imprint.

Afflerbach, P., & Harrison, C. (2017). What Is Engagement, How Is It Different from Motivation, and How Can I Promote It? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(2),217–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.679

Alexander, J., & Jarman, R. (2018). The pleasures of reading non-fiction. Literacy, 52(2), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12152

Bell, J., & Waters, S. (2018). Doing Your Research project: a Guide for first-time Researchers (7th ed.). Open University Press.

Biesta, G. (2021). Mixed Methods. In R. Coe, M. Waring, L. V. Hedges, & L. D. Ashley (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies in education. SAGE.

Bishop Grosseteste University. (2022). Research ethics policy. https://bishopg.ac.uk/policies-procedures-regulations-forms

Boyask, R., Harrington, C., Milne, J., & Smith, B. (2022). ‘Reading Enjoyment’ is Ready for School: Foregrounding Affect and Sociality in Children’s Reading for Pleasure. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 58(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-022-00268-x

Brandt, L., Sharp, A. C., & Gardner, D. S. (2021). Examination of Teacher Practices on Student Motivation for Reading. The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 723–731. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1999

Brinkmann, S. (2020). Unstructured and semi-structured interviewing. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 277–299). Oxford University Press.

British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018

Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2018). Affective encounters: enchantment and the possibility of reading for pleasure. Literacy, 52(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12144

Burton, N., Brundrett, M., & Jones, M. (2014). Doing Your Education Research Project. SAGE. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bishopg/reader.action?docID=5164558

Clark, C., & K Rumbold. (2006). Reading for pleasure: a research overview. National Literacy Trust.

Clark, C., & Picton, I. (2020). Children and young people’s reading in 2020 before and during the COVID-19 lockdown. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED607776

Clark, C., Picton, I., & Galway, M. (2023). Children and Young people’s Reading in 2023. In National Literacy Trust. https://literacytrust.org.uk/research-services/research-reports/children-and-young-peoples-reading-in-2023/

Clark, C., & Teravainen, A. (2015). Teachers and literacy: Their perceptions, understanding, confidence and awareness. National Literacy Trust.

Clark, C., & Teravainen, A. (2017). Celebrating Reading for Enjoyment: Findings from Our Annual Literacy Survey 2016. National Literacy Trust Research Report. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED603679

Clark, C., & Teravainen-Goff, A. (2018). Mental wellbeing, Reading and Writing How Children and Young people’s Mental Wellbeing Is Related to Their Reading and Writing Experiences. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED593894.pdf

Cobb, W. (2016). Research methods: how will I collect the data? In R. Austin (Ed.), Researching primary education (pp. 72–92). SAGE.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bishopg/detail.action?docID=5103697

Cole, A., Brown, A., Clark, C., & Picton, I. (2022). Children and young people’s reading engagement in 2022 Continuing insight into the impact of the Covid- 19 pandemic on reading. https://nlt.cdn.ngo/media/documents/Reading_trends_2022_-_Final.pdf

Cremin, T. (2019). Reading communities: why, what and how? Primary Matters. https://oro.open.ac.uk/66255/

Cremin, T. (2020). Reading for Pleasure: challenges and opportunities. In J. Davison & C. Daly (Eds.), Debates in English Teaching. Routledge.

Cremin, T., Hendry, H., Chamberlain, L., & Hulston, S. (2023). Reading and Writing for Pleasure: A Framework for Practice. The Mercers’ Company. https://cdn.ourfp.org/wp-content/uploads/20231201185032/Reading-and-Writing-for-Pleasure_FRAMEWORK-DIGITAL-FINAL-30.11.23.pdf

Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Bearne, E., & Goodwin, P. (2008). Exploring teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(4), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802482363

Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2014). Building communities of engaged readers: reading for pleasure. Routledge.

Cremin, T., Reedy, D., Bearn, E., & Dombey, H. (2023). Teaching English Creatively. Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.

Data Protection Act, (2018). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/1/enacted

Denscombe, M. (2021). The good research guide: research methods for small-scale social research projects (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bishopg/detail.action?docID=6888276

Department for Education. (2013). The National Curriculum in England: Primary Curriculum. HMSO. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425601/PRIMARY_national_curriculum.pdf

Department for Education. (2023). Early years foundation stage statutory framework. HMSO. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65aa5e42ed27ca001327b2c7/EYFS_statutory_framework_for_group_and_school_based_providers.pdf

Dewis, P. (2018). Data Collection Using Quantitative Methods. In C. Carton (Ed.), Successful dissertations: The Complete Guide for Education, Childhood and Early Childhood Studies Students. Bloomsbury.

Dewis, P., & Kay, J. (2018). Data Analysis. In C. Carton (Ed.), Successful dissertations: The Complete Guide for Education, Childhood and Early Childhood Studies Students. Bloomsbury.

Erickson, J. D., Condie, C., & Wharton‐McDonald, R. (2020). Harnessing the Power of Young Readers’ Perceptions to Support Motivation. The Reading Teacher, 73(6), 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1895

Evans, M. (2017). Reliability and validity in qualitative research by teacher researchers. In E. Wilson (Ed.), School-based Research: A guide for education students (pp. 202–216). SAGE.

Farrar, J. (2021). ‘I don’t really have a reason to read children’s literature’: Enquiring into Primary Student Teachers’ Knowledge of Children’s Literature. Journal of Literary Education, 1(4), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.7203/jle.4.21060

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2018). Raise Reading Volume Through Access, Choice, Discussion, and Book Talks. The Reading Teacher, 72(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1691

Gagen-Spriggs, K. (2021). An Investigation into the Reasons Students Read for Pleasure. School Libraries Worldwide, 26(1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.29173/slw8261

Gamble, N. (2013). Exploring children’s literature: reading with pleasure and purpose. SAGE.

Griffin, K. (2016). Listening to the Voices of Boys. Information Age Publishing.

Hempel-Jorgensen, A., Cremin, T., Harris, D., & Chamberlain, L. (2018). Pedagogy for reading for pleasure in low socio-economic primary schools: beyond ‘pedagogy of poverty’?. Literacy, 52(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12157

Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N. L., & Battle, J. (1993). Reading Aloud in Classrooms: From the Modal toward a ‘Model.’ The Reading Teacher, 46(6), 496–503. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201116

Hope, G. (2016). Methodology: what approach should I take? In R. Austin (Ed.), Researching primary education (pp. 55–71). SAGE.

Howells, K., & Gregory, P. (2016). Data analysis. In R. Austin (Ed.), Researching primary education (pp. 93–111). SAGE.

Jennifer, J. M., & Ponniah, R. J. (2015). Pleasure reading cures readicide and facilitates academic reading. I-Manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 5(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.5.4.3664

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational Research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE.

Kalb, G., & van Ours, J. C. (2014). Reading to young children: A head-start in life? Economics of Education Review, 40(40), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.01.002

Kay, J., & Wainwright, J. (2018). Data Collection Using Qualitative Methods. In C. Carton (Ed.), Successful dissertations: The Complete Guide for Education, Childhood and Early Childhood Studies Students. Bloomsbury.

Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory of Mind. Science, 342(6156), 377–380. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: the trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Mariner Books.

Kucirkova, N., & Cremin, T. (2017). Personalised reading for pleasure with digital libraries: towards a pedagogy of practice and design. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2017.1375458

Leon, L. R., & Biddle, J. (2023). Informal book talk and reader recommendations. In T. Cremin, H. Hendry, L. R. Leon, & N. Kucirkova (Eds.), Reading Teachers. Taylor & Francis.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the ‘overjustification’ hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035519

Loh, C. E., Gan, S., & Mounsey, S. (2022). What Do Children Want to Read? A Case Study of How One Primary School Library Supported Reading for Pleasure. Journal of Library Administration, 62(7), 931–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2022.2117955

Loveless, T. (2015). The 2015 Brown Center Report on American Education. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2015-Brown-Center-Report_FINAL-3.pdf

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

Mcniff, J. (2016). You and your action research project (4th ed.). Routledge.

Merga, M. K. (2016). ‘I don’t know if she likes reading’: Are teachers perceived to be keen readers, and how is this determined?. English in Education, 50(3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/eie.12126

Merga, M. K. (2017). Interactive reading opportunities beyond the early years: What educators need to consider. Australian Journal of Education, 61(3), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944117727749

Merga, M. K., & Ledger, S. (2018). Teachers’ attitudes toward and frequency of engagement in reading aloud in the primary classroom. Literacy, 53(3), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12162

Merga, M. K., & Mason, S. (2019). Building a school reading culture: Teacher librarians’ perceptions of enabling and constraining factors. Australian Journal of Education, 63(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944119844544

Merga, M. K., & Roni, S. M. (2018). Children’s perceptions of the importance and value of reading. Australian Journal of Education, 62(2), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944118779615

Nayak, M. S. D. P., & Narayan, K. A. (2019). Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses of online surveys. Technology, 6(7), 31–38.

Nell, V. (1988). The Psychology of Reading for Pleasure: Needs and Gratifications. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.2307/747903

Newby, P. (2014). Research Methods for Education (2nd ed.). Routledge.

O’Reilly, M., & Dogra, N. (2016). Interviewing children and young people for research. SAGE.

Odoh, Dr. M., & Chinedum E, Dr. I. (2014). Research Designs, Survey and Case Study. IOSR Journal of VLSI and Signal Processing, 4(6), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.9790/4200-04611622

OECD. (2021). 21st-Century Readers. In PISA. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en

Ofsted. (2022). Curriculum Research Review series: English. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/curriculum-research-review-series-english/curriculum-research-review-series-english

Ofsted. (2024). Telling the story: the English education subject report. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/subject-report-series-english/telling-the-story-the-english-education-subject-report

Oxley, E., & McGeown, S. (2023). Reading for Pleasure Practices in School: Children’s Perspectives and Experiences. Educational Research, 65(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2023.2236123

Parker, C., Scott, S., & Geddes, A. (2019). Snowball sampling. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, & A. Cernat (Eds.), SAGE research methods foundations. SAGE.

Parrish, A. (2023). Questionnaire. In A. Parrish & G. Shaikh (Eds.), A quick guide to research methods for dissertations in education (pp. 35–46). Bloomsbury.

Parry, B., & Taylor, L. (2018). Readers in the round: children’s holistic engagements with texts. Literacy, 52(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12143

Patten, M. L. (2016). Questionnaire research: A practical guide. Routledge.

Pieper, K., & Beadle, P. (2016). Reading for pleasure – a passport to everywhere. Independent Thinking Press.

Public Health England. (2014). The link between pupil health and wellbeing and attainment. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-link-between-pupil-health-and-wellbeing-and-attainment

Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education. SAGE.

Reedy, A., & De Carvalho, R. (2019). Children’s perspectives on reading, agency and their environment: what can we learn about reading for pleasure from an East London primary school? Education 3-13, 49(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1701514

Riger, S., & Sigurvinsdottir, R. (2016). Thematic analysis. In L. A. Jason & D. S. Glenwick (Eds.), Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (pp. 33–41). Oxford.

Robinson, D., Moore, N., & Harris, C. (2019). The impact of books on social inclusion and development and well‐being among children and young people with severe and profound learning disabilities: Recognising the unrecognised cohort. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12262

Salikin, H., Bin-Tahir, S. Z., Kusumaningputri, R., & Yuliandari, D. P. (2017). The Indonesian EFL Learners’ Motivation in Reading. English Language Teaching, 10(5), 81. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n5p81

Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018 Insights and Interpretations. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf

Scholastic. (2022). Reading Lives Kids & Parents | Scholastic. Scholastic.com. https://www.scholastic.com/content/corp-home/kids-and-family-reading-report/reading-lives.html

Scottish Library & Information Council. (2018). Vibrant Libraries, Thriving Schools. https://scottishlibraries.org/media/2108/vibrant-libraries-thriving-schools.pdf

Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social sciences. Teachers College Press.

Shaikh, G. (2023). Interviews. In A. Parrish & G. Shaikh (Eds.), A quick guide to research methods for dissertations in education (pp. 9–12). Bloomsbury.

Sheyadi, S. A. (2023). Document Analysis. In A. Parrish & G. Shaikh (Eds.), A quick guide to research methods for dissertations in education (pp. 63–70). Bloomsbury.

Smith, M. W., Wilhelm, J., & Fransen, S. (2016). The power of fostering pleasure in reading. In D. Appleman & K. Hinchman (Eds.), Adolescent Literacy: A Handbook of Practice-based Research. Guilford.

Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1-2), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-204

Stutchbury, K. (2017). Ethics in educational research. In E. Wilson (Ed.), School-based Research: A guide for education students (pp. 65–81). SAGE.

Sullivan, A., & Brown, M. (2015). Reading for pleasure and progress in vocabulary and mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 41(6), 971–991. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3180

Thomas, G. (2023). How to Do Your Research Project – a Guide for students. (4th ed.). SAGE.

Tymms, P. (2021). Questionnaires. In R. Coe, M. Waring, L. V. Hedges, & L. D. Ashley (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies in education. SAGE.

Ulrich Schiefele, Schaffner, E., Jens Möller, & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of Reading Motivation and Their Relation to Reading Behavior and Competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.030

Warwick, P., & Chaplain, R. (2017). Research with younger children: issues and approaches. In E. Wilson (Ed.), School-based Research: A guide for education students (pp. 154–172). SAGE.

Whitten, C., Labby, S., & Sullivan, S. L. (2019). The impact of Pleasure Reading on Academic Success. Journal of Multidisciplinary Graduate Research, 2(4), 48–64. https://jmgr-ojs-shsu.tdl.org/jmgr/article/view/11/10

Willingham, D. T. (2015). For the Love of Reading: Engaging Students in a Lifelong Pursuit. The American Educator, 39(1), 4.

Winterbottom, M. (2017). Taking a quantitative approach. In E. Wilson (Ed.), School-based Research: A guide for education students (pp. 217–2238). SAGE.

World Literacy Foundation. (2022). Changing children’s lives through the power of literacy! WLF. https://worldliteracyfoundation.org/united-kingdom/