Reading Psychology, 21:271282, 2000 Copyright 2000 Taylor & Francis 02702711/00 $12.00 + .

00

ATTITUDES TOWARD READING EXPRESSED BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
BELINDA DAVIS LAZARUS and THOMAS CALLAHAN University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, Michigan, USA

Attitude toward reading affects students achievement. While conventional wisdom and comparisons with low-skilled, non-disabled students suggest that students with learning disabilities have negative attitudes toward reading, few studies exist to support these inferences. The present study uses the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990) to describe elementary students diagnosed with learning disabilities attitudes toward academic and recreational reading and to compare their attitudes with those expressed by their non-disabled peers. The findings show that students with learning disabilities who received reading instruction in special-education, resource rooms expressed reading attitudes that equaled or exceeded those expressed by low and average non-disabled students in a nationwide study conducted by McKenna and Kear (1990). The findings also indicated that the students diagnosed with learning disabilities attitudes remained more stable across grades 1 through 5 than those expressed by their non-disabled students in the McKenna and Kear (1990) study.

Reading attitude fulfills a pivotal role in the development and use of lifelong reading skills. Richek, List, and Lerner (1989) stated that the ultimate success of instruction is strongly affected by the readers attitude (p. 20). Lipson and Wixson (1992) concluded that the students attitude toward reading is a central factor affecting reading performance (p. 141). Several researchers have postulated that attitudes affect ones motivation and subsequent reading achievement by increasing or decreasing the amount of time that learners engage in reading (Beck, 1977; Engin, Wallbrown, & Brown, 1976; Mullis & Jenkins, 1990; Richek, 1983 1989). Others have noted that even accomplished readers with

Address correspondence to Belinda D. Lazarus, School of Education, 4901 Evergreen Road, Dearborn, MI 48128-1491.

271

272

B. D. Lazarus and T. Callahan

average to poor attitudes toward reading may not read when other options such as television viewing are available (Beentjes & Van der Voort, 1988; Martin, 1984; McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth in press; Neuman, 1988). Reading theorists have attempted to describe students attitudes toward reading for decades. To date, studies that have examined attitudes in relation to such factors as gender (Mullis & Jenkins, 1990), age (Martin, 1984; McKenna et al., in press, ethnicity (Saracho & Dayton, 1991), and televiewing (Martin, 1984; Mathewson, 1993; Neuman, 1988;) have produced inconsistent results. However, extensive evidence has consistently linked reading attitude with ability and reported that poor and remedial readers express more negative attitudes than better readers (Askov & Fishback, 1972; Lipsky, 1983; Martin, 1984; McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, in press; Ransbury, 1973; Richards & Bear, 1986; Swanson, 1982; Walberg & Tsai, 1985; Wallbrown, Vance, & Prichard, 1979). In a study that included a national sample of 18,185 students in grades 1 through 6, McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth (in press) found that first and second graders expressed positive attitudes toward academic and recreational reading regardless of their reading ability. However, all students overall reading attitudes gradually, but steadily, declined across the elementary school years. Further, while all students academic-reading attitudes declined similarly regardless of their ability level, the low-ability students attitudes toward recreational reading yielded the sharpest decline across the grade levels. Although reading deficits remain a commonly reported characteristic of students diagnosed with learning disabilities (Kavale & Reese, 1992; Kirk & Elkins, 1975; McLeskey, 1992; Norman & Zigmond, 1980), few studies have attempted to describe their attitudes toward reading. In fact, most studies of students with disabilities school-based attitudes have attempted to relate the students educational placement with their attitudes (Budoff & Gottlieb, 1976; Gottlieb & Budoff, 1972) and ignored subject areas, types of tasks, and developmental changes. Recently, MacMillan, Widaman, Balow, Hemsley, and Little (1992) examined the attitudes towards school of 1,140 eighth graders whom they classified as Learning Handicapped (LH), Regular Class (RC), and Educationally Marginal (EM). The 242 LH stu-

Learning Disabled Students Attitude Toward Reading

273

dents were described as having learning and behavior disorders [that] can be associated with a neurological handicap, emotional disturbance, learning disability, mild handicap, or . . . mental retardation (p. 41). The LH students spent most of their school day in the regular classroom and received special education instruction in pull-out programs. They expressed slightly lower attitudes towards reading than the RC students, however, differences in the LH and RC students attitudes toward social studies, science, and math were negligible. Although the small and cross-categorical LH sample in the MacMillan et al. study limits the generality of their findings to learning disabilities populations, we agree with their conclusion that, Given the importance placed on attitudinal outcomes as educational goals, we are surprised by the dearth of research on school attitudes of mildly handicapped students (p. 40). It appears that inferences derived from studies of low-achieving and remedial-reading students as well as conventional wisdom have led to the perception that students diagnosed with learning disabilities harbor more negative attitudes towards reading than their non-disabled counterparts. While these inferences may have some validity, studies are lacking that describe the attitudes toward reading of students diagnosed with learning disabilities, and many questions remain. What attitudes toward reading do children diagnosed with learning disabilities express when they enter school? How do their attitudes change as they progress through school? Do the attitudes expressed by students diagnosed with learning disabilities differ from the attitudes expressed by their non-disabled peers? Method The present study employed the Elementary Reading Attitudes Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990) to describe the attitudes toward reading of students diagnosed with learning disabilities, and to compare their attitudes with those expressed by their non-disabled peers. Specifically the following research questions were addressed: 1. What are the attitudes toward recreational and academic reading of students diagnosed with learning disabilities? 2. What differences exist in the students attitudes towards recreational and academic reading across grades 1 through 5?

274

B. D. Lazarus and T. Callahan

3. How do the attitudes of the students diagnosed with learning disabilities compare with non-disabled students attitudes? Participants/Setting Thirty-nine learning-disabilities certified teachers from 42 elementary school schools in Ohio, Kansas, Georgia, and Michigan were randomly selected from a pool of 63 learning-disabilities teachers to administer the Elementary Reading Attitudes Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990) to 522 students diagnosed with learning disabilities who were randomly selected from 54 grade 1 through 5 resource rooms. The 39 teachers had an average of 6 years of learning-disabilities teaching experience. The sample exhibited many of the characteristics that are associated with the general learning-disabilities population. The proportion of male-to-female students in the study closely resembled the composition of the learningdisabilities population (e.g., 75% males to 25% females). The students were diagnosed according to each states criteria for determining learning disabilities, read at least 2 years below agemates, and received reading instruction in either learning-disabilities or cross-categorical resource rooms. All 4 states used categorical labels to identify students with disabilities. A diagnosis of a learning disability required a 20- to 30-point standard score discrepancy between a students academic achievement and aptitude and evidence that environmental and physical conditions were not the primary causes for the delays in their achievement. Table 1 further describes the sample. The elementary schools were located in urban and suburban areas of each state. Seventy-two percent of the schools housed grades K through 5; 28% contained grades K through 6. Forty-one of the resource rooms were learning-disabilities categorical rooms; the remaining 13 were cross-categorical. In the cross-categorical rooms, only the students diagnosed with learning disabilities participated in the study. Instrumentation The Elementary Reading Attitudes Survey is a norm-referenced measure that contains 20 statements about reading. Ten of the statements relate to recreational reading and 10 relate to academic (school-related) reading. Examples of recreational items on the

Learning Disabled Students Attitude Toward Reading

275

TABLE 1. Number of Students Diagnosed with Learning Disabilities in the Study and Mean Chronological Age and Reading Age Equivalents by Grade Level Grade 1 2 3 4 5 Mean CA 64 72 85 97 106 N 23 103 121 121 138 %M 73 67 77 68 73 %F 27 17 23 32 23 Reading AE* 43 411 61 611 78

*Measured by the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) or the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1985).

survey are, How do you feel about spending free time reading? and How do you feel about starting a new book?. Examples of academic items are, How do you feel about learning from a book? and How do you feel when the teacher asks you questions about what you read?. Each statement is followed by four pictures depicting Garfield the cat with facial expressions ranging from very happy to very upset and students are instructed to circle the cat which best expresses their feelings about the statement. The survey may be administered to small or large groups of children and may be read independently by the children or read to the children. For scoring purposes, the values 4, 3, 2, and 1 were assigned to the very happy, happy, upset, and very upset Garfield, respectively, for a possible 40 points apiece for the recreational and academic subscales, and 80 points for the total reading score. The raw scores may be converted to percentile ranks for comparison with the national normative sample. Normative data were collected from 18,138 students in 78 school districts in 38 states. Students with disabilities were not identified or eliminated from the sample and, because of the widespread practice off full inclusion, the authors contend that students with disabilities were represented. Cronbachs (1951) alpha was used to measure internal consistency with coefficients ranging between .74 and .89. Of the 18 coefficients computed for the two subscales and composite at each grade level, McKenna et al. (1995) reported that 16 were .80 or above. Construct validity was established by comparing various student characteristics (e.g., library card ownership, TV watching time, etc.) with sample members scores. The authors reported that the stu-

276

B. D. Lazarus and T. Callahan

dents scores varied predictably according to the characteristics (e.g., library cardholders scored higher than students who did not own library cards). Further, in an additional study of the samples data, McKenna, Stratton, and Grindler (1992) found that less than 10% of the variance in the samples responses at each grade level were due to the childrens desire to produce socially acceptable responses. Procedures The learning disabilities teachers read each survey item to small groups of students in the special-education rooms and scored each protocol. Students were told that the surveys were not tests, would not be graded, and to respond honestly to all statements. To minimize the teachers possible influence on the students responses, each teacher surreptitiously monitored student responding. To control for scoring errors, the investigator and a graduate student independently re-scored each protocol, compared their results, and investigated and corrected all disagreements. Data Analysis To describe the students attitudes towards reading, raw score means for each grade level were compared with the surveys 4point scale. A 2-tailed t-test was used to examine the differences between attitude toward recreational and academic reading. A oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences across grade levels. Finally, the raw score means of the students with and without learning disabilities were plotted on line graphs to compare their scores by grade, type of reading, and skill level. Results The comparison of the participants mean scores to the 4-point scale revealed an initial happy rating for reading in each area with a decline occurring from second throughout fifth grades Total scores for grades 15 were 2.92, 2.98, 2.87, 2.8, and 2.76; recreational scores were 2.98, 3.09, 2.96, 2.85, and 2.76; and academic

TABLE 2. Statistics Describing and Comparing Students Attitudes Toward Reading Academic Reading M 28.6 (31)* 28.7 (28.8)* 27.7 (27.8)* 27.4 (26.8)* 26.6 (25.8)* 7.4 8.1 7.1 6.6 6.8 58.4 (61)* 59.6 (59.1)* 57.2 (57.8)* 55.8 (56.8)* 54.2 (54)* 12.9 14.5 13.2 12.8 11.8 SD M SD Total Reading T-values significance 1.31 4.78 3.31 2.48 2.03 NS NS .001 .01 .05

Recreational Reading

Grade

SD

1 2 3 4 5

23 103 121 121 138

29.8 (31)* 30.9 (30)* 29.5 (30)* 28.4 (29.5)* 27.6 (28.5*)

6.6 6.5 6.4 6.2 6.2

*Mean raw scores of students in the normative sample of the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna et al., 1990). Source: Michael C. McKenna (personal communication).

277

278

B. D. Lazarus and T. Callahan TABLE 3. F-ratios for Differences in Recreational and Academic Reading Attitudes Between Primary-level (Grades 13) and Intermediate Level (Grades 45) Students with Learning Disabilities. Attitude Type Recreational Reading Academic Reading F-ratio 4.5740 1.2954 significance .001 NS

scores were 2.86, 2.87, 2.78, 2.75, and 2.68. These data show that students expressed an overall positive attitude towards reading in general and a more positive attitude toward recreational reading than academic reading. Differences in attitudes toward recreational and academic reading were significant at grader 3 [t = 3.31], 4 [t = 2.48], and 5 [t = 2.03]. No significant difference between recreational and academic reading was found for grades 1 and 2. Analysis of variance showed that grades 1, 2, and 3 participants attitudes toward recreational reading was significantly higher than grades 4 and 5 [F = 4.57]. Academic reading was not significantly different across the grades [F = 1.29]. Finally, a simple comparison of the mean raw scores produced by the students with and without learning disabilities revealed several interesting findings. First, total reading attitude scores produced by the students diagnosed with learning disabilities (range = 59.654.3) closely paralleled the non-disabled students scores (range = 6154.1) across all grade levels. Second, while the students diagnosed with learning disabilities were well behind age level in reading, their attitudes toward recreational reading exceeded the low, non-disabled readers, closely resembled the average, non-disabled readers, and declined more gradually across the grade levels. Finally, for academic reading, the students diagnosed with learning disabilities scores closely resembled the low, nondisabled readers scores, but declined more gradually across the grades than the high, average, and low readers scores. In fact, the attitudes expressed by the fourth and fifth grade students diagnosed with learning disabilities were similar to those expressed by the high and average non-disabled students and exceeded the attitudes expressed by the low, non-disabled readers.

Learning Disabled Students Attitude Toward Reading

279

FIGURE 1. Recreational and academic reading attitudes expressed by students diagnosed with learning disabilities and the low, average, and high readers in the normative sample of the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna et al., 1990).

Discussion While conventional wisdom and comparisons with low-skilled readers suggest that students diagnosed with learning disabilities in reading have negative attitudes towards reading, the results of this

280

B. D. Lazarus and T. Callahan

study indicate that they report more favorable attitudes. The students diagnosed with learning disabilities in this study expressed attitudes that were similar to and more stable than their non-disabled peers. Primary-grade children diagnosed with learning disabilities appear to like recreational reading more than fourth and fifth graders, however, no differences across the grades were found toward academic reading. This finding indicates that the attitudes toward recreational reading of the students diagnosed with learning disabilities may decline across the primary and intermediate grades, but remain stable for academic reading. For total reading, only the high, non-disabled readers scores exceeded the scores that were noted for the students diagnosed with learning disabilities. In view of the lack of research on the reading attitudes of students diagnosed with learning disabilities and the limited sample size in this study, the findings must be viewed as preliminary. However, in light of the current trend towards full inclusion, the implications of the study warrant further investigation. For example, if students diagnosed with learning disabilities who receive reading instruction in resource rooms express reading attitudes that equal, exceed, or remain more stable than their non-disabled peers, what factors in special-education classrooms account for these findings? Also, studies are needed comparing the attitudes of students diagnosed with learning disabilities who receive reading instruction in either resource rooms or general-education classroom, to examine the impact of each setting on their reading attitudes. Finally, comparisons of the kinds of instruction and support that are present in each environment, and their relationship to students diagnosed with learning disabilities attitudes, may reveal important factors that improve the attitudes of all students. References
Askov, E., & Fishback, T. (1973). An investigation of primary pupils attitudes toward reading. Journal of Experimental Education, 41, 17. Beck, M. (1977). What are pupils attitude toward the school curriculum? Elementary School Journal, 78(2), 7378. Beentjes, J. W. J., & Van der Voort, T. H. A. (1988). Televisions impact on childrens reading skills: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 389413. Budoff, M., & Gottlieb, J. (1976). Special class students mainstreamed: A study of aptitude (learning potential) treatment interaction. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 111.

Learning Disabled Students Attitude Toward Reading

281

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297334. Engin, A. W., Wallbrown, F. H., & Brown, D. H. (1976). The dimensions of reading attitude for children in the intermediate grades. Psychology in the Schools, 13, 309316 Gottlieb, J., & Budoff, M. (1972). Attitudes toward school by segregated and integrated retarded children: A study and experimental validation. Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, 713-714. Kauffman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1985). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Kavale, K. A., & Reese, J. H. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 15(2), 7494. Kirk, S. A., & Elkins, J. (1975). Characteristics of children enrolled in child service demonstration centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 630637. Lipsky, J. A. (1989). A picture-story technique to uncover s covert attitudes associated with reading failure. Reading Psychology, 4, 151155 Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1992). Assessment and instruction of reading disability: An interactive approach. New York: Harper Collins. MacMillan, D. L., Widaman, K. F., Balow, I. H., Helmsley, R. E., & Little, T. D. (1992). Differences in adolescent school attitudes as a function of academic level, ethnicity, and gender. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 15(1), 3950. Martin, C. E. (1984). Why some gifted children do not like to read. Roeper Review, 7, 7275. Mathewson, G. C. (1993). Model of attitude influence upon reading and learning to read. In R. B. Ruddell & M. E. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitudes toward reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 46, 626639. McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (in press). Childrens attitudes toward reading: A national study, Reading Research Quarterly. McKenna, M. C., Stratton, B., & Grindler, M. C. (1992, April). Childrens attitudes toward reading: Analysis of a national survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Reading Association, Orlando, FL. McLeskey, J. (1992). Students with learning disabilities at primary, intermediate, and secondary grade levels: Identification and characteristics. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 15(1), 1320. Mullis, I. V. S., & Jenkins, L. B. (1990). The reading report card: Trends from the nations report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Neuman, S. B. (1988). The displacement effect: Assessing the relation between television viewing and reading performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 414440. Norman, C. A., & Zigmond, N. (1980). Characteristics of children labeled and served as learning disabled in school systems affiliated with Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 1621. Oka, E. R., & Paris, S. G. (1987) Patterns of learning and motivation in underachieving children. In S. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 115145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

282

B. D. Lazarus and T. Callahan

Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1989). Strategies for comprehending text and coping with reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12(1), 3242. Ransbury, M. (1973). An assessment of reading attitudes. Journal of Reading, 17, 2528. Richards, H. C., & Bear, G. G. (1986, April). Attitudes toward school subjects by academically unpredictable elementary school children. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Richek, M. A. (19831989). Increasing the achievement of your remedial reading students. Paso Robles, CA: Bureau of Education and Research. Richek, M. A., List, L. K., & Lerner, J. (1989). Reading problems: Assessment and teaching strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Saracho, O. N., & Dayton, C. M. (1991). Age-related changes in reading attitudes of young children. A cultural study. Journal of Research in Reading, 14, 3335. Smith, F. (1988). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stanovich, K. (1982a). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading I: Word decoding. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 485493. Stanovich, K. (1982b). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading II: Text-level processes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 549554. Swanson, B. B. (1982). The relationship between attitude toward reading and reading achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42. Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. L. (1985). Correlates of reading achievement and attitude: A national assessment study. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 159 167. Wallbrown, F. H., Vance, H. H., & Prichard, K. K. (1979). Discriminating between attitudes expressed by normal and disabled readers. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 472477. Woodcock, R. W., & Woodcock, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson psychoeductional batter y-revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.