4.2 Article

Adolescents' perspectives on the barriers to reading for pleasure

Journal

LITERACY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/lit.12359

Keywords

Adolescence; Reading; Motivation; Participatory; Qualitative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adolescence is a vulnerable period for reading motivation and engagement, but the literature reveals a nuanced pattern of changing interest, attitude, and motivation for reading during this time. This research identifies six themes, including access, mismatch between provision and needs, social factors, reading experiences in school, reading affect, and time and competing activities, that adolescents perceive as barriers to their reading for pleasure.
Adolescence is often positioned as a particularly vulnerable period for reading motivation and engagement, both for academic reading and reading for pleasure. However, closer scrutiny of the literature reveals a much more nuanced pattern of changing interest, attitude, and motivation for reading during adolescence. Despite this, there is a distinct lack of research that explores the barriers adolescents' face to reading for pleasure from the perspectives of adolescents themselves. Working with a Young People's Advisory Panel, peer- and adult-led interviews were carried out with 46 adolescents (13-15 years old) from six high schools. Six themes were identified from the thematic analysis, reflecting adolescents' perceptions of the barriers to their reading for pleasure: (1) access; (2) mismatch between provision and needs; (3) social factors; (4) reading experiences in school; (5) reading affect; and (6) time and competing activities. This article makes a novel and significant contribution to the limited literature on reading for pleasure during adolescence and provides important qualitative insights for researchers and educational practitioners interested in supporting adolescents' reading motivation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available