Gender and Reading Preferences

By K. Bucher|M. L. Manning Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall

Updated on Jul 20, 2010

Worldwide literacy scores indicate that boys do not perform as well as girls. For example, in
England, girls score higher than boys in English when tested at ages 7, 11, 14, and 16 (Haupt,
2003) while, in Australia, a 1996 survey found that literacy scores for boys declined over a 10
year period (Bantick, 1996). Von Drasek (2002) reported on the National Center for Educational
Statistics National Assessment for Educational Progress of 19922000 reading assessments in
the United States. Between 1998 and 2000, the gap between boys and girls scores increased
(p. 72). Although the percent of girls at or above the proficient level in 2000 was higher than in
1992, for boys, the percentage in 2000 was not significantly different than in 1992 (p. 72).
In Reading Dont Fix No Chevys, Smith and Wilhelm (2002) identified a number of general
research findings about boys, girls, and reading:

Girls comprehend fiction better than boys.

Boys seem to prefer nonfiction, magazines, and newspapers.
Boys tend to prefer short texts or texts with short sections.
Girls enjoy leisure reading more than boys.
Many boys enjoy reading about sports and hobbies.
Some boys enjoy fantasy and science fiction.
Graphic novels and comic books are more popular with boys than girls.
Boys prefer visual texts.
Boys really do judge a book by its cover.

However, Wilhelm and Smith (Wilhelm, 2001) went on to caution educators that boys can be
more different than alike (p. 60) and that depending on statistics alone can cause educators to
lose sight of individual differences (p. 60). Citing Millard (1997) and Telford (1999), Wilhelm
and Smith (Wilhelm, 2001) noted that teachers tend to use conventional wisdom to reinforce
traditional notions of gender and gender preferences, thereby denying boys wider choices and
chances to expand their tastes (p. 60).

Gurian (2001) pointed out that most of the reading traumatized and reading-deficient high
school students (p. 297) are boys. In a national survey conducted during the 2001 Teen Read
Week, adolescents responded to the question: If you dont read much or dont like reading,
why? Boys reported the following as obstacles to reading: boring/not fun (39.3%), no time/too
busy (29.8), like other activities better (11.1%), and cant get into the stories (7.7%). Other
responses constituted less than 5% (Jones & Fiorelli, 2003).
In a survey of Arizona high school students that was repeated in 1982, 1990, and 1997, Hale and
Crowe (2001) found that, while contemporary boys favorite books are about adventure, sports,
science fiction, and mystery, contemporary girls rank mystery and romance/love stories as their
favorites. The lowest-rated categories of books for both boys and girls were historical, western,
and biography/autobiography. Although humor books were favorites in 1982, they dropped
significantly in popularity by 1997. It should be noted there was no category for realistic fiction
on the survey and that the top pleasure reading titles in 1997 were from the genres of
fantasy/science fiction/horror, mystery, contemporary realistic fiction, and historical fiction.
While these findings cannot be applied across the board to all adolescents, it is necessary to keep
them in mind when selecting young adult literature. Reading takes practice. A coach would never
say to a basketball player, You know how to shoot a basket so you dont need to practice
anymore. Instead, both the coach and the player know that practice improves performance. The
same holds true with reading. Von Drasek (2002) notes that skilled readers read an average of
11 pages a day (p. 72). However, if teachers and library media specialists are not providing the
kinds of materials that boys and/or girls enjoy reading, there is a lower probability that
adolescents will spend time practicing their reading skills and thus developing reading
proficiency.
To encourage boys to read, Allison Haupt (2003), coordinator of Childrens and Young Adults
Services at the North Vancouver District Public Library, declared: Ive decided to be overtly
and blatantly sexist in everything from the way I approach storytelling to the books I promote.
Its not that I dont think that boys and girls...cant read and enjoy the same books...But [I am
convinced]...that our ability to promote reading can be greatly enhanced by recognizing
biological and developmental differences between the guys and the gals (p. 20). Both boys and
girls need to see that reading is important and that it can blend with their academic or
professional goals. For boys, if reading is identified as being soft or feminine, then reading
would diminish rather than develop...[a boys] fragile sense of self and growing masculinity
(Haupt, 2003, p. 21). Connecting Adolescents and Their Literature 22 has some suggestions for
encouraging boys to read.
Excerpt from Young Adult Literature Exploration, Evaluation, and Appreciation, by K. Bucher,
M. L. Manning, 2006 edition, p. 44-45.
______ 2006, Allyn & Bacon, an imprint of Pearson Education Inc. Used by permission. All
rights reserved. The reproduction, duplication, or distribution of this material by any means
including but not limited to email and blogs is strictly prohibited without the explicit permission
of the publisher.
Reading, Risk, and Reality: College
Students and Reading for Pleasure
Julie Gilbert and Barbara Fister
Differences between Voluntary Reading and
Academic Reading Practices
There is a body of compelling evidence that
reading for pleasure is beneficial,6 not just for
increasing literacy but because information
encountered in leisure reading informs readers about
the world they live in and about themselves.7
Reading for pleasure has been associated with
creativity8 and with improved academic
achievement.9 Some argue that reading literature
achieves many of the goals of liberal education and
can have a profound effect on individuals lives.10
Reading assignments are commonly used in
the college years to convey information in greater
depth than can be accomplished in class or to provide
exposure to important primary literature in a
discipline. Students often need help in learning how
to do close or in-depth analytical reading. In the
field of literary studies, learning to read imaginative
literature critically often involves overcoming
common and ingrained reading practices. Critical
reading requires avoiding being absorbed in a story
one of the great pleasures of the reading
experience11if that emotional involvement inhibits
analysis. As one English professor put it, students
need to learn that reading, which may seem effortless,
is actually quite difficult. Students enjoyment in
reading literature, he reported, proved a serious
obstacle to the students ability to think critically
about the works and their own thinking. It created a
kind of transparency effect in the reading
experience, preventing students from getting very far
toward reading in deliberate and self-conscious
ways. Unskilled readers tend to focus on what is
happening to the characters and must actively resist
the lure of being spellbound by the story in order to
read well. Only trained readers have the skills to
negotiate, back and forth, the relation between the
textualities of fiction and its sublime imaginary
constructions.12 A goal of his teaching is to turn
nave readers into sophisticated ones, learning to go
beyond discussing the story to focus on how the story
works.
In a practical book of advice for literature
teachers, Elaine Showalter points out13 that teachers
who are themselves novelists often teach reading
fiction as a way of discovering the narrative shape
and meaning of ones own life; but, more commonly,
English teachers, trained in literary criticism, teach
students to avoid identification with characters. To
read critically means to understand how a story is
constructed and to relate one text to another through
thematic or chronological connections. Though close
reading can provide its own pleasures of discovery,
Showalter acknowledges that many readers feel it is
no substitute for feeling transported.
Rita Felski has argued that enchantment as a
quality of the reading experience is underrated by her
fellow literary scholars because it is associated with
womens supposed tendency to succumb to escapist
fare and because it is believed to be a cheap sleight-
of-hand trick performed by profit-driven mass media
concerns. She writes,
While much modern thought regulates such
hyper-saturations of mood and feeling to the realm of
the child-like or the primitive, the accelerating
interest in affective states promises enchantment is
richer and more multi-faceted than literary theory has
allowed; it does not have to be tied to a haze of
romantic nostalgia or an incipient fascism. Indeed,
enchantment may turn out to be an exceptionally
fruitful idiom for rethinking the tenets of literary
theory.14
It may be that endorsing the power of
enchantment as a legitimate purpose for literature
might sanction students selfdirected reading.
According to a study of students beliefs about
reading, Lydia Burak15 found that students who
believe reading engages their imaginations and is not
a waste of time report the highest motivation to read
outside of class. Of the 201 students she surveyed, 63
percent reported having read a book for pleasure in
the past semester. Over 90 percent agreed with the
statements that reading increases knowledge,
improves vocabulary, and engages the imagination;
70 percent felt it relieves stress; only a tiny minority
of 5 percent agreed with the statement that it was a
waste of time.
Others who teach college literature feel that
popular literacy practices could be studied in the
classroom16 or that the kinds of reading practiced by
book clubs might provide insights that could be
useful to teachers of literature.17 Still others have
focused their research entirely on reading that
happens outside academia, such as Janice Radways
study of romance readers18 and Elizabeth Longs
research into womens book groups.19
Reading and the College Experience
The handful of studies that have been conducted on
college students recreational reading practices
suggest that students themselves see voluntary
reading and assigned reading very differently. A 1991
survey of over 300 seniors at a small public liberal
arts institution found that 88 percent of them engaged
in reading for pleasure, favoring literature and current
events as subject matter.20 A more recent study21 of
539 students who completed time-diary surveys
found that using the Internet was more popular
with students than recreational reading, but that
Internet use did not appear to displace reading as an
activity. Watching television was less popular than
reading for pleasure, but students were more likely to
watch some television every day than to read for
pleasure. Reading assigned texts was the least
popular of the four activities, but it consumed much
of their time. In a small-scale study by Hari and
Joliffe at a large public university, students kept
detailed reading logs that demonstrated they read a
lot, both online and in print, the subjects recording an
average of 25 minutes a day reading print sources not
assigned for class and about twice that much time
reading online sources such as e-mail, Facebook, and
other Web sites. We found students who were
actively involved in their own programs of reading
aimed at values clarification, personal enrichment,
and career preparation, the authors reported. In
short, we discovered students who were extremely
engaged with their reading, but not with the reading
that their class required.22
One site for examining the contested nature
of reading is the summer reading or reading in
common programs that have sprouted up on college
campuses in recent years. They typically involve
asking incoming first-year students to read a book in
common for discussion during orientation.
Programming, such as an author visit, film viewing,
or other events may complement the reading activity.
Adopted from the popular community reads
movement started by Nancy Pearl in Seattle in 1998,
reading in common programs straddle the book club
orientation to reading as an opportunity to discuss a
book informally with others in a social setting and the
eat-your-vegetables imperative of an assigned
reading. A 2007 survey of college and university staff
who administer such programs23 found that faculty
involvement was listed as a strength when it was
present, and as a challenge when it was not. An
examination of Web pages24 of over 100 such
programs suggests their goals, rather than stressing
the development of close reading skills and an
understanding of literary traditions emphasized in
many English courses, are more focused on building
community, making the transition to college,
exploring personal values, and examining social
issues. Though the words intellectual and
academic often appear in these statements of
purpose, the supporting materials tend to be
marketing information from publishers Web sites
and discussion questions that, like many book
discussion guides, emphasize using the book
discussion as a vehicle for developing personal
insights and social engagement.
Academic and public libraries have typically
defined their roles in regard to reading promotion
very differently. In public libraries, readers advisory
has seen a renaissance, though provision of factual
information remains a significant mission of public
libraries. Academic libraries, as a site of teaching,
learning, and discovery, tend to focus on helping
students and faculty find resources for their work.
While public libraries strive to help their patrons
discover reading material of choice, academic
libraries are more focused on locating materials that
will support a task. Could academic libraries help
provide a bridge between the kinds of reading that
Joliffe and Hari found engages students and the
institutional reading that undergirds the college
curriculum?
Several academic libraries have pursued
recreational reading promotions. Julie Elliott has
twice surveyed academic librarians about reading
promotions in their libraries and the barriers
librarians perceive to recreational reading on college
campuses. In 2007, Elliott25 found that libraries
engage in a variety of reading promotion activities,
such as one-book programs, leisure reading
collections, and book lists. Librarians reported
several barriers toward promotion, such as impact on
staff time and collection development budgets, lack
of training in readers advisory services, and a fear
that promoting recreational reading makes libraries
look less academic. In 2009, Elliott reported26 that
librarians continue to find lack of funding and the
impact on staff time to be significant barriers, as well
as the lack of interest in some staff to participate,
perceived low levels of student interest in leisure
reading, and acting within a culture that does not
value reading.
Tom Kirk recently reviewed the status of
browsing collections at academic libraries and has
suggestions for using technology to help students
develop the habit of reading beyond required texts,
arguing that libraries should cultivate curiosity;
otherwise, the library may drift into an abdication of
responsibility for promoting reading among its
students.27 Pauline Dewan also makes a case for
creating popular reading collections in academic
libraries.28 Ann Salter and Judith Brook surveyed
undergraduates at two institutions29 and discovered
that a majority of respondents read for pleasure and
are perhaps not as aliterate as recent studies indicate.
Salter and Brook further encourage libraries to
promote recreational reading. Renee Bosman, John
Glover, and Monique Price30 support a blog, a book
swap and a READ program in their library in part as
a way to support the library as what Ray
Oldenburg31 has called a third placea social
community setting that is not the workplace and not
homewhere students can feel comfortable both
relaxing and learning. Heidi Gauder, Joan Giglierano,
and Christine H. Schramm32 developed a Porch
Reads program at the University of Dayton that
facilitates book discussions among sophomore
students and faculty; students have responded
positively to the program. Bette Rathe and Lisa
Blankenship33 established a recreational reading
collection at their library that is separate from the rest
of the collection. A brief survey of students who use
the collection report they appreciate a smaller, easier-
tonavigate collection. Rochelle Smith and Nancy J.
Young34 have provided practical ways of
highlighting leisure reading already in a librarys
collection, such as book lists, displays, tools such as
NoveList, as well as using instruction sessions as an
opportunity to inform students they can also use the
Reference Desk to find recreational reading. Finally,
Mardi Mahaffy35 outlined ways academic libraries
can sponsor reading outreach programs, describing
two programs facilitated by the New Mexico State
University Library.
 Reading Preferences among Different Generations: A Study of Attitudes and Choices in
Singapore

Abdus Sattar Chaudhry

Kuwait University

Gladys Low
National Library Board

Abstract

A survey of reading habits of a selected group of readers between the ages of 28 and 43 in Singapore
indicated that they tended to adopt pragmatic and utilitarian approach towards reading. The preference for
television and internet-related activities shifted them away from reading. Internet ranked the top source of
information acquisition. While online sources were preferred, some readers were still willing to travel to
libraries and bookstores to get the books they would like to read. The profile of book readers was likely to
be female, single, having higher educational qualification, and with no children. The changing reading
trends suggest that libraries need to consider shift in focus of services offered.

Introduction

Concerns have been expressed since early eighties about the fall in reading on account of the various
environmental factors and social trends typical of the era (Clammer, 1981; Meyer, 1985). Older readers
had less choice of media compared to younger readers who were raised at a time when new media were
proliferating. It was observed that year of birth determined the level of readership as 71% of the age
cohort 18-24 years old read newspapers in 1967 compared to just 42% in 1999. Generational analysis
allows researchers in the area to extend beyond basic understanding of reading habits to that of social
trends and processes that affect reading habits. For example, generation X experienced the impact of
television on reading habits. This generation of people born roughly during the years 1965 to 1980 is
often regarded as disillusioned, cynical, or apathetic. They have been exposed to television and radio
since childhood. It will be important for libraries to know about the reading patterns and information
seeking behaviour of different generations. Goldstein & Brown (2004) reported that more than half of
Generation X read the paper on a given day. It was also reported that just 28% of them read the paper the
day before and only for about 10 minutes on average. They favoured other media to newspapers
(Goldstein & Brown, 2004). This paper reports the results of a study that was conducted to profile reading
habits of a selected group of Generation-X Singaporeans. Singapore offers a good case for such analysis
with its homogeneous cross-section of the population. The study under report describes reading profile
focusing on the attitudes, motivations and preferences of a selected group about reading. The paper also
reflects on information sources preferred, relationship between gender and reading, impact of academic
attainment on reading, and preferences for relevant activities. It discusses the possible impact of changing
reading trends on focus of library services. A survey conducted in 2005 revealed that Singaporeans spent
most of their leisure time at home watching television and listening to radio (Ngian & Manoo, 2005).
Only half of those surveyed enjoyed reading. The top reasons for reading were knowledge, work/study
and hobbies. Attitude towards learning was positive, and choices included books, magazines and
newspapers. A nation-wide reading campaign, Read!Singapore, was inaugurated in 2005 to encourage
leisure reading especially among working professionals, otherwise known as the missing generation
from the libraries (National Library Board of Singapore, 2005).
 Reading Comprehension: Developmental Processes, Individual Differences, and
Interventions
By Johnston, Amber M.; Barnes, Marcia A.; Desrochers, Alain
Article excerpt
Research on the typical development of reading comprehension, individual differences in
comprehension, and reading comprehension interventions is less common than research on word
reading. The authors present an overview of research on the development of reading
comprehension skills and sources of individual differences in comprehension with reference to
cognitive models of comprehension. Methodological issues particular to developmental and
individual difference research on comprehension are also described. The article ends with a
selective review of research programmes that illustrate effective comprehension interventions for
typically developing children and for children who struggle to understand what they read.

Keywords: reading, comprehension, comprehension interventions, comprehension processes

The science of word reading is a success story in psychology: A single cognitive model can
explain both typical and atypical skill development, a great deal is known about the neurobiology
of the skill, and there is a strong research base on prevention models for children at risk of word
reading difficulties and interventions for those with reading disability. In contrast, a recent
review led by the RAND Reading Study Group, an expert panel in reading research (Snow,
2002, p. xii), described the current knowledge base on

reading comprehension as "sketchy, unfocused, and inadequate as a basis for reform in reading
comprehension instruction." Research priorities included the construction of models that can
account for the development of reading comprehension, the development of valid tools for the
assessment of reading comprehension, and the investigation of individual differences. Yet, much
has been accomplished in the past several years to address these gaps; in this article, we provide
an overview of comprehension in typical and atypical development as well as illustrative
examples of comprehension programmes that have produced good effect sizes in intervention
trials. Because of space limitations, we exclude neuroimaging studies (Schmalhofer & Perfetti,
2008), genetics studies (Keenan, Betjemann, Wadsworth, DeFries, & Olson, 2006), and
diagnosis of comprehension disabilities (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007).

Reading Comprehension: Typical Development and Individual Differences

Cognitive Models of Comprehension

Cognitive models of reading comprehension (Kintsch, 2002) and of the cognitive processes
involved in comprehension-related skills such as inference-making (Schmalhofer, McDaniel, &
Keefe, 2002) describe how fluent readers (a) access word-level and sentence meaning from the
surface structure of text, (b) build text-based representations through processes critical for
semantic coherence such as pronominal reference and inferences that connect parts of text, and
(c) construct mental models that capture and integrate the information provided by the text with
readers' goals and world knowledge (Kintsch, 2002).
Comprehension is supported by cognitive resources, such as working memory (Just & Carpenter,
2002) and inhibitory control (Gernsbacher, Varner, & Faust, 1990). Working memory serves as a
mental workspace where information retrieved from memory (either world knowledge or
previously read text) is available for integration with incoming text or contributes to updating
and revision of the mental representation of the unfolding text or discourse (Graesser, Millis, &
Zwaan, 1997). Problems can arise because working memory resources are limited or become
overloaded if suppression or inhibitory controls are lacking, preventing accurate and efficient
integration.
Cognitive models describe several online and offline processes involved in accessing and
constructing meaning from text, but they are not inherently developmental. Studies of children's
comprehension use these models to identify candidate comprehension skills and associated
cognitive resources to study development and children who struggle with comprehension without
necessarily testing the models.
 Electronic Sources

Electronic Source 1
Author(s):
Rebecca J. Baier
Year of Publication:
2005
Title of the article:
Reading Comprehension and Reading Strategies
Page(s)/Para(s):
Pages 8-9, 15,18-19,21-22
Website:
http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2005/2005baierr.pdf
Database Name:

Date of Retrieval:
January 05, 2016

Electronic Source 2
Author(s):
Francis O. Ezeokoli and Ezenandu E P.
Year of Publication:
2013
Title of the article:
Effects of Preferred Text Genres and Literacy Activities on Students
Achievement in and Attitude to Reading Comprehension in some Secondary
Schools in Abeokuta, Nigeria
Page(s)/Para(s):
Pages 2-3,9-10
Website:
http://ozelacademy.com/ejes.v5.i2-3.pdf
Database Name:

Date of Retrieval:
January 05, 2016

Electronic Source 3
Author(s):
Eleni Griva, Anastasia Alevriadou and Klio Semoglou,
Year of Publication:
2010
Title of the article:
Identifying gender differences in reading preferences and strategies
employed by Greek students: A socio-cognitive perspective
Page(s)/Para(s):
Pages 2-3, 13-14
Website:
http://www.ucy.ac.cy/unesco/documents/unesco/Articles_2010-
2010_conference/GRIVA_ALEVR_SEMOG_paper.pdf
Database Name:

Date of Retrieval:
January 05, 2016
Electronic Source 4
Author(s):
Brian W. Sturm
Year of Publication:
2003
Title of the article:
The Information and Reading Preferences of North Carolina Children
Page(s)/Para(s):
Pages 1-3, 17-18
Website:
asl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol6/SLMR
_InfoReadingPreferences_V6.pdf
Database Name:

Date of Retrieval:
January 05, 2016

Electronic Source 5
Author(s):
Mohammed Alshehri
Year of Publication:
2014
Title of the article:
Improving Reading Comprehension For Saudi Students By Using The
Reading Aloud Strategy
Page(s)/Para(s):
Pages 8 (1st and 2nd Paragraph),10-15
Website:
https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/65437/
Alshehri_Mohammed_Masters_December2014.pdf?sequence=1
Database Name:
Date of Retrieval:
January 05, 2016
 SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

Journal 1
Author(s):
K. Bucher, M. L. Manning
Year of Publication:
2010
Title of the Journal:
Gender and Reading Preferences
Page(s)/Volume/Issue:
2006 edition, p. 44-45
Name of the Journal:
Education.com

Journal 2
Author(s):
Yamina Bouchamma, Vincent Poulin, Marc Basque, Catherine Ruel
Year of Publication:
2013
Title of the Journal:
Impact of Students Reading Preferences on Reading Achievement
Page(s)/Volume/Issue:
Vol.4, No.8, 484-491
Name of the Journal:
Scientific Research (An Academic Publisher)

Journal 3
Author(s):
Julie Gilbert and Barbara Fister
Year of Publication:
September 11

Title of the Journal:

Reading, Risk, and Reality: College Students and Reading for Pleasure
Page(s)/Volume/Issue:
p. 475-477

Name of the Journal:

Reading, Risk, and Reality
Journal 4
Author(s):
Abdus Sattar Chaudhry
Year of Publication:
2009
Title of the Journal:
Reading Preferences among Different Generations: A Study of Attitudes and
Choices in Singapore
Page(s)/Volume/Issue:
Volume 38, p. 27-28
Name of the Journal:
Singapore Journal of Library & Information Management

Journal 5
Author(s):
Johnston, Amber M.; Barnes, Marcia A.; Desrochers, Alain
Year of Publication:
2008
Title of the Journal:
Reading Comprehension: Developmental Processes, Individual Differences,
and Interventions
Page(s)/Volume/Issue:
Vol. 49, No. 2
Name of the Journal:
ACADEMIC JOURNAL ARTICLE
 BOOKS

Book 1
Author(s):
Emy M. Pascasio, Lourdes G. Dalupan, Apricinia B. Fernandez, Carol A. Nunez,
Mary Jennifer J. Que
Year of Publication:
1997
Title:
Basic English for College Revised Edition
Pages:
p. 34-35
Publisher:
Ateneo de Manila University
Place of Publication:
Quezon City

Book 2
Author(s):
Perla M. Villanueva, Dolores C. Acurantes, Roberta C. Aranzaso, Angelita P.
Makalinao
Year of Publication:
1995
Title:
English Skills for College Frehmen
Pages:
p. 46-47
Publisher:
KATHA Publishing Co., Inc.
Place of Publication:
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City

Book 3
Author(s):
Encyclopedia Volume 16
Year of Publication:
2008
Title:
The New Book of Knowledge
Pages:
p. 110-111
Publisher:

Place of Publication:
Danbury, Connecticut
Book 4
Author(s):
Joseph Laffan Morse
Year of Publication:
1996
Title:
Funk and Wagnalls Standard Reference Encyclopedia
Pages:
7465
Publisher:
WILFRED FUNK, INC.
Place of Publication:
United States of America

Book 5
Author(s):
Danielle S. McNamara
Year of Publication:
2007
Title:
Reading Comprehension Strategies Theories, intervention and technologie
Pages:
p. 3-4
Publisher:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Place of Publication:
101 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
Topic:

Reading Preference for English

Enrichment and Reading
Comprehension among AB
English Third Year Students.

Submitted by:

Enriquez, Achilles Theophilus

Falcasantos, Ellaine
Flores, Michelle Claire
Introduction

Background of the study

Motivation in education can have several effects on the students

learning capacity and their behaviour towards the subject matter thus,
leading to more productive learning experience. Students also develops time
management and more energy for the task ahead. It can increase initiation
of and persistence in activities and lead to improve performance towards
particular goals. Students are not always naturally motivated and sometimes
needs situated motivations which is found in the environment conditions that
the teacher created.

Reading activities develops the mind. It unlocks the students ability to

acquire ideas. It also develops the students imaginative capabilities while
reading. It creates clear and accurate visualization and it aids in the
retention of ideas and impressions.