Why and What They Read When They Don’t Have to: Factors Influencing the Recreational Reading Habits of Gifted Students in Singapore

Abstract

This study examined the recreational reading habits of 10- to 12-year-old students enrolled in one of the nine Gifted Education Program (GEP) schools in Singapore. A total of 125 students were surveyed regarding the time they spent on recreational reading, and the top and bottom 10% were labeled Highly Avid Readers (HAR) and Less Avid Readers (LAR), respectively. The 24 readers from the HAR and LAR groups subsequently participated in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), which revealed that the two groups differ considerably in terms of their ideations about reading, perception of themselves as readers, and the time they devote to reading, as well as parental influences in reading. Results, which are interpreted using Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory framework, indicate more can be done in both home and school settings to encourage recreational reading. Insights and recommendations are offered in light of this.

Keywords

recreational reading habits gifted students in Singapore gifted readers

The observed decline in students’ reading for pleasure beyond the elementary school years is a growing cause for concern (Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006). Research studies have consistently demonstrated a high correlation between children’s reading patterns in later life and the reading habits they form between fourth and eighth grade (Halsted, 2009). These are crucial years because the decline is found to begin at or about the fourth-grade year (Durik, Vida, & Eccles, 2006). In Schatz and Krashen’s (2006) study on 812 children enrolled in four elementary schools in Colorado, the decline in enthusiasm for reading (measured in the children’s responses to the straightforward question “Do you like to read?”) is found to occur in stages with clear drops after Grades 1, 3, and 5. However, the question did not isolate voluntary, recreational reading, but rather was left to the respondents’ interpretations. Similarly, the reading levels of talented readers are found to decline when they reach upper elementary years (Reis & Boeve, 2009).

A large majority of published research studies with talented readers focus mostly on differentiated reading curriculum and/or instructional strategies (Reis & Boeve, 2009; Reis et al., 2004), efficacy of programs designed for advanced primary readers (Brighton, Moon, & Huang, 2015), how to foster critical thinking skills for intermediate gifted readers (Kenney, 2013), and identification and assessment of precocious reading abilities (Margrain, 2006; Olson, Evans, & Keckler, 2006). There are also studies that look into the reading attitudes of academically talented students (Worrell, Roth, & Gabelko, 2007); their reading interests and goals (Fox, Dinsmore, & Alexander, 2010), especially among talented middle school boys (Cavazos-Kottke, 2006) and gifted male readers (Pagnani, 2013); and the passion for fiction among verbally gifted preadolescent girls (Stutler, 2011). Yet there is a dearth in literature about the recreational reading habits of gifted students coming from outside of the United States, United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia, and the factors that influence them to read for pleasure and to identify themselves as readers. Therefore, this study examined a population of gifted students from Singapore to address this gap in literature.

Literature Review

Importance of Recreational Reading: Achievement Gains

Research studies now strongly indicate a very high correlation between reading for pleasure (or reading engagement) and reading achievement across national and international reading studies (Brozko, Shiel, & Topping, 2008; Smith, Smith, Gilmore, & Jameson, 2012). In fact, Krashen (2004) claimed more exposure to print leads to more reading, which subsequently results in greater literacy development, including a more enhanced vocabulary and better reading comprehension (see also Andreassen & Bråten, 2010; Schiefele, Schaffner, Möller, & Wigfield, 2012). This may be explained by the fact that intrinsically motivated readers tend to read more, resulting in more reading practice, thereby an increase in desirable reading-related outcomes (Stutz, Schaffner, & Schiefele, 2016). Moreover, it was found in Rambo-Hernandez and McCoach’s (2015) study on reading growth that high-achieving students made as much progress in reading in the summer without direct instruction as they did in the regular semester, suggesting recreational reading might be as effective as direct reading instruction, at least in terms of reading achievement.

Stainthorp and Hughes (2004) examined the progress made by fourteen 11-year-old children originally identified as precocious readers before they started primary school at the age of 5 and had not been taught explicitly to read by their parents. Results showed that original high reading ability at age 5 resulted in high reading attainment at age 11 when compared with readers who did not read early. However, this finding led the researchers to ask whether the precocious readers could have made even more accelerated progress if their work had not been left unsupported, allowing them to capitalize on their early achievements in school.

Importance of Recreational Reading: Social and Emotional Benefits

Over and above the enhanced academic performance, pleasure reading also has been associated with interpersonal and intrapersonal gains. Recreational reading has been linked to heightened social engagement and improved personal development among young teens as reading helps provide an avenue for a more nuanced self-construction and self-identification (Howard, 2011). Stutler (2011) discovered that for preadolescent girls, being avid fiction readers is strongly correlated with their empathetic thinking as they make meaning and construct their lives’ purpose. This led Stutler to claim they are “youthful self-actualizers” (p. 34). This is also evident in the study conducted by Mar, Oatley, and Peterson (2009) with 252 adults, which showed a very strong association between reading fiction and levels of empathy. The researchers controlled for gender, age, English fluency, personality trait, and capacity for imagination/fantasy in their attempt to rule out the possibility of individual differences being responsible for the link found between reading fiction and empathy.

Further correlational studies indicate that declines in reading are linked with serious civic, social-cultural, and economic implications in the long term (Gambrell, 2008; Gopalakrishnan, 2011). The connections between reading and the development of empathetic skills (Bal & Veltkamp, 2013; Nikolajeva, 2012), capacity to recognize and appreciate social differences, and validation of children’s lived experiences (Botelho & Rudman, 2009) have likewise been demonstrated in the literature. Applegate and Applegate (2010), however, cautioned against reading these correlational findings as causal, something that Paris (2005) termed as critical misinterpretations of reading research, which could then lead to prescriptive errors in reading pedagogy. That being said, it is also important to continue reflecting on what the implications of such strong correlations are for educational practice.

Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding Recreational Reading

Transactional theory of reading

Rosenblatt’s (1978) transactional theory of reading is one framework that can be used to understand one’s motivations for reading. The theory makes a distinction between two kinds of reading that fall within a continuum. In “efferent reading,” the emphasis is on deriving information from the text. The reader is disengaged with the text as he focuses on what the symbols designate and how these could serve the end result he seeks. “Aesthetic” reading, on the other hand, focuses more on the “potentialities for a qualitative response” (Rosenblatt, 1978, p. 34). The focus of the reader is inward as he realizes how the words call forth an affective response within him. In Pilonieta and Hancock’s (2012) study of 68 first graders and their four first-grade teachers at an urban elementary school in the United States, it was shown that students who assumed an aesthetic stance in reading demonstrated better connections based on direct or vicarious personal experiences and subsequently scored higher on comprehension measures. Moreover, aesthetic readers are generally found to be more enthusiastic readers who are intrinsically motivated and read for pleasure (Applegate & Applegate, 2004; Parsons, 2013).

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological Systems Theory has been used to understand reading attitudes, as well as students’ academic achievement across 33 countries, as mapped out across family factors and educational resources in a study conducted by Chiu and Chow (2015). The 141,019 fourth graders have been examined across the microsystem (family factors that include socioeconomic status [SES], home education resources, and parent attitude toward reading; and classmates’ past literacy skills and reading attitudes), the mesosystem (classmates’ family and their home education resources and parent attitude toward reading), and the macrosystem (wealth of the country and whether they are from a collectivist/egalitarian cultural background). Results reveal how reading achievement, as measured through their performance on the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) subtests, is linked with family, classmate, and country characteristics such as classmates’ family SES and presence of educational resources at home (Chiu & Chow, 2015).

The research shows how a systemic framework can be used in providing greater clarity and a more nuanced understanding of myriad factors that could influence one’s reading attitudes and achievement. In this particular study, however, the authors were only looking at the micro (perceived individual and family factors) and macrosystem (the Singapore context), as no information has been obtained pertaining to the mesosystem.

Leisure Reading in the Singapore Context

Singapore’s reading achievements

Based on the PISA 2009 report (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2011), Singapore ranked fifth among 65 participating countries when it comes to Reading. In fact, Soh (2014) noted that Singapore should be considered as being on a par with Finland (which ranked first) because the mean difference of 10 points on Reading is considered to be a trivial, and hence, negligible effect size, further suggesting that the different rankings are “based on a spurious precision” (p. 461). Singapore’s literacy level in 2011 was at 96.1% (Singapore Ministry of Education, 2013). However, the picture is incomplete, because although it does indicate that Singaporeans have very good reading skills, it does not show whether they are necessarily reading for pleasure. Applegate and Applegate (2010) pointed out how “surprised and dismayed” they are by the number of children in their study who identified themselves as being “good readers” yet articulated a palpable disdain for reading itself and the role it could play in their lives (p. 231). Hence, technical proficiency in reading does not necessarily guarantee students will be engaged in a more thoughtful and critical response to what they read. In fact, it is not so much technical proficiency as the strong motivation to read (defined as engaged readers who are intrinsically motivated) that accounts for a more thoughtful response to text across a group of 443 children ranging from second through sixth grade residing in the areas of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware (Applegate & Applegate, 2010). The results of the PIRLS in 2011 (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012) also indicate an apparent dramatic decline in positive reading attitudes of fourth-grade students (mostly 10-year-olds). However, it is Krashen and Loh’s (2015) view that the decline may be an artifact of a change in the reading attitude questionnaire, such that if a student were not a frequent outside-of-school reader, the student could not be classified as liking reading, regardless of the student’s other responses on the other items of the questionnaire. In other words, reading fluency does not necessarily translate to positive reading attitudes and habits.

Singapore as a (nonpleasure) reading nation

Singapore, in particular, lends itself as a good context for research, particularly because a few of its academics claim “Unfortunately, we are not a reading nation, so few parents are role models, much less good guides” (T. H. Tan & Loh, 2015, para. 12). A recent survey by the National Arts Council found that fewer than half of Singaporeans read at least one literary book a year (Yuen, 2016). Literary books include fiction, poetry, drama, graphic novels, creative nonfiction, critical writing, and anthologies. This falls far behind other countries like the United States, where 76% read at least one book a year (Yuen, 2016).

There appears to be a greater focus on enrichment activities or tuition (tutorial sessions on specific subjects such as mathematics, science, English language and Mother Tongue Languages) with parents spending $1.1 billion a year on tuition, up from $820 million in 2008 (T. H. Tan & Loh, 2015). Singapore emphasizes the universal development of strong mathematics, science, and technical skills. The country’s solid foundation in mathematics and science for all students in the elementary grades seems to be a core part of students’ later success (OECD, 2011), relegating literature as “marginal and irrelevant to life in Singapore” (Poon, 2010, p. 32). In the same vein, gifted children in Singapore typically have been studied in terms of their giftedness in math and sciences (Caleon & Subramaniam, 2008; Lang, Wong, & Fraser, 2005; T. Tan & Garces-Bacsal, 2013), resulting in a lack of literature on gifted readers, apart from Loh’s (2013) ethnographic study of six gifted adolescent boys (15-year-olds) who belong to a gifted education class in Singapore. In Loh’s (2013) study, the gifted boys reflect a strong sense of self-concept as readers who did not just see literature as a means to a good grade and better educational opportunities, but an enjoyable activity in and of itself. The gifted boys reported belonging to home and school backgrounds in which reading was encouraged as a valued activity, both for leisure and an academic pursuit—showing a markedly different kind of sensibility from T. H. Tan and Loh’s (2015) perception of the larger community who generally regard leisure reading as inconsequential.

Countrywide initiatives that promote lifelong reading in Singapore

The official discourse, as promoted by the Singapore Ministers, highlights the passion for lifelong reading rather than just promoting literacy, per se. In 2004, Singapore’s current Prime Minister (then Deputy Prime Minister), Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, asserted the importance of reading as a recreational activity:

Children need to find time to read as much as they find time to play, watch TV or surf the internet. If a child grows up with a love for books, they will find reading fun. I hope all parents will encourage a reading and learning habit amongst our children. Learning is a lifelong gift. By helping children discover the joy of reading and learning, we are helping to mould their future. (Lee, 2004, para. 16)

Given Singapore’s high-stakes examination, however, teachers in mainstream schools are said to be more mindful in providing students with model answers and singular interpretations of texts, leading to a highly “scripted and authoritative” reading pedagogies in regular Singaporean classrooms (Kwek, Albright, & Kramer-Dahl, 2007, p. 77). Research studies in Singapore’s gifted schools concerning students’ reading practices and teacher pedagogies have been scant to practically nonexistent. This research study seeks to address this gap in the literature by giving voice to gifted students about what they perceive as factors that influence their love for reading.

Method

Participants

This study is part of a much larger study on 125 gifted students from Grades 4 to 6 enrolled in one of the nine gifted education program (GEP) schools in Singapore. All 150 Primary 4, 5, and 6 students who made up the GEP population in the school (one of the nine GEP schools in Singapore) were invited to participate in the study. The authors received student and parental consent to include 125 students. Of the 125 participants in this study, 40 were female and 85 were male. Students from all three levels of the Primary GEP were examined due to Halsted’s (2009) assertion that children often develop the reading patterns they will maintain into adulthood between fourth and eighth grades. All 125 participants completed a recreational reading log (defined as any reading voluntarily undertaken that has not been assigned for class; sources include books/e-books, novels, magazines) that asked students to record what they read each night and the time they spent reading. The results were rank ordered by the average number of minutes they spent on recreational reading each day.

The 12 readers (top 10%) who reported the most recreational reading and the 12 readers (bottom 10%) who reported the least recreational reading were selected for the focus group discussions (FGDs). There were 17 male participants and seven female participants, and all are of Singaporean–Chinese descent (see Table 1 for a distribution of respondents across gender and grade level).

Table 1.

Distribution of Respondents Across Gender and Grade Level.

Group	Grade level	Gender	Number of respondents
Avid Readers Group 1	Grade 4	Male	2
Avid Readers Group 1	Grade 5	Female	2
Avid Readers Group 2	Grade 5	Male	2
Avid Readers Group 2		Female	1
Avid Readers Group 3	Grade 6	Female	3
Avid Readers Group 3		Male	2
Less Avid Readers Group 1	Grade 4	Male	2
Less Avid Readers Group 1	Grade 5	Male	4
Less Avid Readers Group 2	Grade 5	Male	3
		Female	1
	Grade 6	Male	2
Total			24

For the purposes of this research study, the students who reportedly read the most are called highly avid readers (HARs), and those who read the least were considered less avid readers (LARs). This is because both groups shared that they enjoyed reading but differed significantly in terms of how much time they spend reading. The term avid reader comes from Beers (1998) who has used it to refer to one of the five different reading identities she identified.

The HARs interviewed for this study voluntarily read an average of 200 minutes each day during the 2-week data collection period whereas the LARs read an average of 10 minutes each day over the same recording period. Both groups demonstrate a fairly good overall academic standing, with no clear distinction across them; a comparison of the overall results for the academic year in the five examinable subjects (i.e., English, Chinese, mathematics, science, and social studies) shows that the HARs have an average score of 82.8%, and the LARs have an average score of 80.4%. Because there were only 24 respondents, the researchers decided not to look into gender as a potential variable in this study, although this is something that may be examined in future studies. Ethical clearance from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained before the study commenced, and consent forms were administered and agreed upon by the respondents and their parents.

FGD

Five FGDs were conducted with the 24 readers who were divided into three groups of HARs (four HARs in each group) and two groups of LARs (6 LARs in each group). The duration of the FGD for the HAR groups was between 20 and 25 minutes, whereas that of the LAR groups was 15 and 20 minutes each. The uneven grouping was due to the availability of the children as they could only be excused from their class during a time that would be least disruptive for them. See the appendix for FGD Guide Questions.

Data Analysis

All five FGDs were audiorecorded, transcribed, and coded using Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) systematic approach in the qualitative framework whereby coding begins with the major themes asked during the FGD session, as well as Glaser’s (1992) emergent theory approach, with themes generated after reading the FGD transcripts (Creswell, 2008). Although specific elements were examined in the transcripts based on the questions asked, the themes were not prefigured but arose organically from the data. Open coding was initially used in the first reading of the data, moving subsequently to axial coding as the categories and themes became more evident (Creswell, 2008).

Results

The following themes addressed what differentiated HARs from LARs, specifically what seemed to be most influential in their reading habits:

Reading as a meaningful pastime activity. This theme shows that meaning is perceived differently across the two groups, with LAR equating the value of reading to vocabulary enrichment, whereas HAR reported its meaningfulness across a variety of factors including relief from stress or an escape into fantasy. The meaningfulness of the activity also is evidenced in how HARs report picking up additional knowledge from reading nonfiction titles for leisure.

Finding the time to read. The key difference across the two groups lies in HARs crafting time for themselves to read notwithstanding their busy schedule, whereas LARs would prefer engaging in other leisure activities rather than read during their spare time.

Self-identification as reader. Although HARs regard themselves to be good or average readers as a whole, all of the LARs (except for one) described themselves to be below-average readers who often encounter difficulties when it comes to reading unfamiliar materials.

Parental influences in reading. Although LARs shared experiencing parental restrictions when it comes to reading from parents who rarely read novels or do leisure reading themselves, HARs shared how their parents often read to them, bring them to the public library, and model leisure reading habits to them.

Reading as a Meaningful Pastime Activity

Although all participants indicated that they enjoy reading, the HARs mentioned that they read to satisfy personal interests and to relieve their stress. Only one LAR reported feeling the former, and none of the LAR perceived reading as a stress reliever. Most of the LARs enjoy reading primarily for vocabulary enrichment, which only one HAR indicated.

The HARs reported that they enjoy the fantasy genre because it is “unpredictable” and fuels their imagination, as well as mysteries because they like to problem solve as they read. One HAR student noted: “Even though fantasy has nothing to do with our real life, some of the experiences that the characters might have might be parallel examples to our real life experiences and we can relate to that.”

This is further corroborated by an analysis of their reading logs, which indicated that fantasy series such as Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling, Percy Jackson by Rick Riordan, and The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis as well as mystery titles by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie were popular among the HARs. On the contrary, the LARs’ reading logs indicated that they were reading mostly school-based and school-recommended materials such as the literature texts they were using for their novel study units and the locally produced Young Scientists monthly magazine.

Three of the 12 HARs also articulated a strong preference for nonfiction because of its “practical value” and “daily application.” The HARs liked the fact that they could “pick up stuff outside of the curriculum” and that there are often “hidden messages” or “moral values to be learned.” A variety of guidebooks on topics from origami (the art of paper folding) to Minecraft (a popular video game) and nonfiction books on out-of-school topics such as medicine, history, and geography that surfaced in the HARs’ reading logs support these findings as well.

Finding the Time to Read

Several of the HARs explained that they have enough time for reading because they spend their free time reading or read once they complete their homework, and their parents allow or think it is important for them to read. School-assigned homework and the need to study were the main reasons indicated by the LARs for their lack of time to read. A few LARs attributed the lack of time for reading to “co-curricular activities” and “poor time management.” In addition, one LAR felt that “reading takes up too much time.”

Although the HARs did enjoy many other leisure activities, all of these readers reported that they would rather read than watch television. On the contrary, the LARs confirmed that there were various activities they would rather participate in than reading including: “playing computer games,” “watching television,” “lazing in bed,” and “outdoor activities such as rollerblading and biking.”

Self-Identification as a Reader

HARs described themselves to be “average” or “good” readers. In contrast, only one of the LARs in this study described himself as an average reader; the rest described themselves as below-average readers. It is interesting that their identification of being a “good reader” is contingent on what they perceive to be their comprehension skills rather than enjoyment of reading. One HAR, however, picked up on this distinction: “I’m an average reader. But actually, it’s not about reading skills, it’s about if you enjoy the book.”

Most LARs also reported that they tend to give up easily when confronted with difficult passages in the novels they read. They shared that they sometimes could not understand what they were reading, often had to read a book a few times to understand it, and that there were “super complicated words” that made it difficult for them to understand and enjoy a book. One student reported, “I generally read more slowly than all my friends,” and another explained, “I skip a lot of wordy and descriptive parts. It’s a waste of energy.”

Parental Influences in Reading

Only the HARs reported being read aloud to before they started school and had parents who took them regularly to public libraries. According to one HAR, “After I was able to read on my own for about one year, my mother would bring my brother and me to the library every week.” Another HAR stated: “Every weekend, we will go to the library and borrow some books.” The HARs also shared that they had parents who actively read to them. According to one HAR, “When I was a bit younger, my parents alternate[d]—they took turns to read to me every day. They read books to me at home and this was every night before I go to bed.”

One student reported being thoroughly encouraged when, as a child, his father bought him “a ton of books and I ended up reading all of them in less than a week, when I was in Primary 2 [2nd grade]. They were mainly science and composition guide books. It was during the December holidays.”

External reinforcement was likewise given to the younger HARs when they were starting to read. One student shared,

When I was young, I hated reading but my mother just gave me some kiddie books and wanted me to read them out loud. I always refused so she said every time I read, she will give me a lollipop.

Apart from candies, another HAR reported having extra computer time for games as a reward given by parents: “Now, I still like playing computer games but I prefer reading a little bit more.”

The LARs, on contrary, shared that they experienced greater parental restrictions on reading. One LAR mentioned, “They actually made it worse. My parents. They forced me to read very uninteresting books. Chinese books.”

This loss of autonomy in reading is likewise reflected in the type of genres that the students are expected to read. One LAR and one HAR indicated how reading comics is not allowed by their parents. The HARs also shared that their parents step in when they feel that the HARs “don’t know when to stop reading.” Four HARs mentioned that their parents encourage them to finish their homework first before they read for leisure with a few insisting, especially during examinations, that they should focus more on their studies. For example,

“During examinations, my father would tell me to revise [review] instead of read. I would still read in secret.”

“Sometimes, when I am done with my work, my mother would start nagging that I should go to bed. I would read in secret.”

“Sometimes during the examination period, when my mother sees me reading, she may nag at me to do my work and revise. I just read when she’s not there so it doesn’t affect me.”

The responses indicate that despite the parents’ good intentions, the students managed to find a way around the injunctions and read, albeit in secret.

Many of the LARs in this study reported that they saw their parents reading the newspaper or materials related to work on a fairly regular basis, but rarely saw anyone in their homes reading books or novels for enjoyment. The HARs in this study, however, reported seeing parents or siblings reading novels and other materials more associated with pleasure reading. Another interesting difference between the two groups is that LARs reported that their parents hold more pragmatic values about reading, which they feel “helps in studies,” “helps in composition writing,” and “is better than playing computer games.” One LAR also reported that although his parents valued reading, they thought he “should spend less time on reading and more time on studies.”

Discussion

Using Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory as a framework, the authors are able to discern how the HARs and LARs differ across several key dimensions, particularly in the microsystem where the individual and family factors are mentioned.

Microsystem: Individual Factors

Although LARs regarded reading more as a means to an end, that is, a tool for vocabulary enrichment and in building their comprehension skills, thereby assisting them in their examinations (characteristic of efferent readers), the HARs regarded reading as pleasurable in itself (characteristic of aesthetic readers who have an autonomous reading motivation). As Parsons (2013) pointed out, “Stance does matter if our goal is to encourage children to identify as readers” (p. 21) with avid readers enjoying reading and finding the time to read. Many of the LARs in this study stated that they simply did not have time for recreational reading due to the amount of academic work they were given. Although the HARs reported having a similarly heavy academic workload, they did not appear to let assignments, projects, and examinations get in their way of reading despite parental injunctions and still found time to read voluntarily outside of school, which raises their self-efficacy as readers. Hence, although all 24 respondents are considered gifted students in Singapore (ranked as among the top 1% of their cohort based on the GEP assessment administered in Primary 3), not all of them may necessarily fit Reis et al. (2004) definition of talented readers, that is, readers who do not just read early and above level and possess advanced language skills but also enjoy the reading process and exhibit advanced processing in reading.

The LARs also reported having a bit of trouble when it comes to reading difficult materials causing them to give up easily, not finding it worth their while to unpack the meanings based on the context of what they are reading. In the Reading Scale created by Renzulli, Siegle, Reis, Gavin, and Reed (2009), talented readers demonstrate remarkable tenacity when posed with challenging reading and pursue advanced reading material independently—traits that are not reported by the LARs in this study. Although there were twice-exceptional students among the original 125 participants in the study, there are no identified twice-exceptional students in the HAR and LAR groups. There is also a good mix of high-achieving and underachieving students in both the HAR and LAR groups as evidenced in their end-of-year results.

Moreover, the respondents perceive their being “good readers” as contingent on specific reading skills such as text-comprehension, with only one HAR pointing out enjoyment of the book as key in their self-identification as a reader. This is also reflected in Loh’s (2015) study on the reading practices of secondary-level students whereby reading serves a pragmatic, instrumentalist view where students adopt the official discourses of reading as important in academic achievement—similar to the LARs in this study. Most of the HARs in this study, however, demonstrate a fusion of the aesthetic-efferent or cognitive-affective continuum whereby even reading for information is perceived as enjoyable or pleasurable, because they claim to enjoy “problem solving” as they read, and that they actively look for “hidden messages” in the text. A few HARs have expressed a preference for nonfiction reading materials, and noted how reading allows them to gain more knowledge outside of what is taught in the curriculum. Hence, recreational reading can also be purposive and strategic, as well as pleasurable, as these HARs attest.

Microsystem: School Factors

Researchers (Reis et al., 2004) have noted the potential impact of using books that are too easy for gifted students, which may result in them not developing the requisite skills needed to work on more challenging texts. Reis and Boeve (2009) indicated how the academically talented students “initially balked at bigger words and quickly lost interest in longer text” (p. 231). However, with appropriate support through an afterschool program (the Schoolwide Enrichment Model–Reading Framework), all of the five academically talented students in their study started reading at a higher level for short periods of time. In many schools, however, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model–Reading Framework is implemented within the typical school day as part of the reading curriculum (Reis & Field, 2007).

Although the Schoolwide Enrichment Model in Reading is used as an enrichment-based approach to engage students in differentiated reading instruction alongside interest-based choice opportunities in reading (Reis et al., 2007), the Reading Scale (Renzulli et al., 2009) expands the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students to include new scales in reading, mathematics, science, and technology to help teachers and administrators to identify students with talents in these specific areas.

All students in this study have no such afterschool reading enrichment programs provided for them, leading the researchers to wonder about the possible long-term impact of the lack of interest now demonstrated by the gifted LARs with their recreational reading, and how this would affect them in later years when provided with more advanced reading materials.

Results also indicate how the participants in the study read a range of texts, from fantasy to nonfiction. This has clear implications when it comes to providing access to a wide range of reading materials in the school setting. Research (Wiesendanger, Braun, & Perry, 2009) has indicated that when teachers share stories with their students, they help children make appropriate book selections that may be of interest to them.

Microsystem: Perceived Parental Influences

It also is important that students are able to choose appropriately challenging texts because a mismatch can result in an even greater lack of interest in reading (Allington, 2002). This is apparent in the case of one LAR who stated that his parents “forced” him to read uninteresting texts such as Chinese books. Research also has shown that when students are allowed to choose the reading materials they find interesting, they are able to more actively grasp the significance and value of reading (De Naeghel, Van Keer, Vansteenkiste, Haerens, & Aelterman, 2016). Hence, “forcing” a child to read a book he or she finds uninteresting can indeed prove to be counterproductive, despite the parents’ best intentions. This also may be explained by the fact that the parental injunction to read is not so much to cultivate an interest in reading for its own sake, but as a tool for increased literacy and to extract informational knowledge. It is important to investigate parental attitudes in reading and its potential impact to gifted students’ reading attitudes for future studies.

The findings from this study, particularly for the HARs, are consistent with the findings of other researchers (Chen, 2008; Strommen & Mates, 2004) who have explored the contribution of the home to the development of reading skills and leisure time reading habits. In a study of 151 sixth- and nine-grade “readers,” those for whom reading is an important and recreational activity and a consistent part of everyday life, Strommen and Mates (2004) found that what the readers had in common were parents or other family members who prioritized reading as a leisure activity, in addition to having access to a variety of reading materials. Chen’s (2008) study of avid adolescent readers in Taiwan also reported that the family and teachers play important roles and were strongly associated with the likelihood of being an avid reader.

Macrosystem: Cultural Influences

The LARs in this study spoke about the lack of reading models in their homes, with their parents reading mostly newspapers or work-related texts, rather than reading for leisure. This is not surprising given how, in Singapore, reading is closely tied to literacy development to help students develop the strong foundation to be successful in the English Language (Singapore Ministry of Education, n.d.), which is considered to be the official language of business and education (Silver, 2005). Singapore’s drive toward becoming globally competitive leads to a very top-down, hierarchical nature of curriculum development so that there is greater alignment between educational goals and economic productivity (Poon, 2010). This, alongside the high-stakes testing in Singapore, may be the reason why, despite the perceived parental support of students in this study, parents of both HARs and LARs do not necessarily regard leisure reading as paramount, insisting that their children read only after they have reviewed for their examinations or completed their assignments. Rather than encouraged for its own sake, recreational reading is seen as peripheral and not that important in the larger scheme of things.

Conclusion

It appears that a radical shift in mindset may be needed to change the attitude in reading, something that is gradually being recognized now in Singapore, in light of the National Reading Movement, meant to encourage more Singaporeans to develop reading habits as it helps promote self-directed, lifelong learning (Lim, 2016). Because the movement is in its early stages, it will be interesting to determine how much this rhetoric has actually permeated (or even perceived as valuable) within the Singapore classrooms, particularly in gifted schools, as well as in the homes of gifted learners. Future studies in this area could look into possible gender differences in reading attitudes and habits among the gifted, a closer examination of books they choose to read for leisure and how they get access to them, and student perceptions on instructional practices they find useful in getting them to read for pleasure.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Author Biographies

Rhoda M. Garces-Bacsal is an assistant professor at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. She is the program leader of the Masters and Bachelor’s Program in High Ability Studies and Gifted Education.

Sulyn Denise Yeo is an English language teacher and subject head of Humanities in the Gifted Education Department at one of the gifted schools in Singapore. Her research and pedagogical interests include family and parental roles in talent development and gifted underachievement, and the reading habits of gifted students in Singapore. She earned her MEd in gifted education at the National Institute of Education in Singapore.

References

Allington

R. L.

(2002). You can’t learn much from books you can’t read. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 16–19.

Andreassen

Bråten

(2010). Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 263–283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01413.x

Applegate

A. J.

Applegate

M. D.

(2004). The Peter effect: Reading habits and attitudes of preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57, 554–563.

Applegate

A. J.

Applegate

M. D.

(2010). A study of thoughtful literacy and the motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 64, 226–234.

Bal

P. M.

Veltkamp

(2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An experimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e55341. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055341

Beers

(1998). Choosing not to read: Understanding why some middle schoolers just say no. In Beers

Samuels

B. G.

(Eds.), Into focus: Understanding and creating middle school readers (pp. 37–63). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Botelho

M. J.

Rudman

M. K.

(2009). Critical multicultural analysis of children’s literature: Mirrors, windows, and doors. New York, NY: Routledge.

Brighton

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

Huang

F. H. L.

(2015). Advanced readers in reading first classrooms: Who was really “left behind”? Considerations for the field of gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 257–293.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. London, England: Harvard University Press.

10.

Brozko

W. G.

Shiel

Topping

(2008). Engagement in reading: Lessons learned from PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 304–315.

11.

Caleon

I. S.

Subramaniam

(2008). Attitudes toward science of intellectually gifted and mainstream upper primary students in Singapore. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 940–954.

12.

Cavazos-Kottke

(2006). Five readers browsing: The reading interests of talented middle school boys. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 132–147.

13.

Chen

S. Y.

(2008). Who is the avid adolescent reader in Taiwan? The role of gender, family and teacher. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 214–223.

14.

Chiu

M. M.

Chow

W.-Y.

(2015). Classmate characteristics and student achievement in 33 countries: Classmates’ past achievement, family socioeconomic status, educational resources, and attitudes toward reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 152–169. doi:10.1037/a0036897

15.

Creswell

J. W.

(2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International.

16.

De Naeghel

Van Keer

Vansteenkiste

Haerens

Aelterman

. (2016). Promoting elementary school students’ autonomous reading motivation: Effects of a teacher professional development workshop. The Journal of Educational Research, 109, 232–252. doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.942032

17.

Durik

A. M.

Vida

Eccles

J. S.

(2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 382–393. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.382

18.

Fox

Dinsmore

D. L.

Alexander

P. A.

(2010). Reading competence, interest, and reading goals in three young adolescent readers. High Ability Studies, 21, 165–178.

19.

Gambrell

L. N.

(2008). Patterson, Proust, and the power of pleasure reading. Reading Today, 25(4), 18.

20.

Glaser

B. G.

(1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

21.

Gopalakrishnan

(2011). Multicultural children’s literature: A critical issues approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Halsted

J. W.

(2009). Some of my best friends are books: Guiding gifted readers from preschool to high school (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

23.

Howard

(2011). The importance of pleasure reading in the lives of young teens: Self-identification, self-construction, and self-awareness. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 43, 46–55.

24.

Kenney

(2013). Fostering critical thinking skills: Strategies for use with intermediate gifted readers. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 41(2), 28–39.

25.

Krashen

(2004). The power of reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

26.

Krashen

Loh

E. K. Y.

(2015). A problem with PIRLS: A bogus dip in attitudes toward reading between 2006 and 2011. RELC Journal, 46, 199–203.

27.

Kwek

Albright

Kramer-Dahl

(2007). Building teachers’ creative capabilities in Singapore’s English classrooms: A way of contesting pedagogical instrumentality. Literacy, 41, 71–78. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00460.x

28.

Lang

Q. C.

Wong

A. F. L.

Fraser

B. J.

(2005). Teacher-student interaction and gifted students’ attitudes toward Chemistry in laboratory classrooms in Singapore. Journal of Classroom Intervention, 40, 18–28.

29.

Lee

H. L.

(2004, April 23). Speech by Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the launch of kidsREAD, Woodlands regional library. Retrieved from http://archive.wn.com/2004/04/23/1400/p/77/c59e819e827737.html

30.

Lim

(2016, March 3). Singaporeans should be encouraged to read more: Yaacob Ibrahim. Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singaporeans-should-be/2570654.html

31.

Loh

C. E.

(2013). Singaporean boys constructing global literate selves through their reading practices in and out of school. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 44, 38–57. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01177.x

32.

Loh

C. E.

(2015). Building a reading culture in a Singapore school: Identifying spaces for change through a socio-spatial approach. Changing English, 22, 209–221. doi:10.1080/1358684X.2015.1022509

33.

Mar

R. A.

Oatley

Peterson

J. B.

(2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. Communications, 34, 407–428. doi:10.1515/comm.2009.025

34.

Margrain

(2006). In the eye of the beholder: Parent, teacher and researcher assessment in a study of precocious readers. Kaira Ranga, 7(2), 5–10.

35.

Mullis

Martin

Foy

Drucker

(2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) & Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

36.

Nikolajeva

(2012). Reading other people’s minds through word and image. Children’s Literature in Education, 43, 273–291. doi:10.1007/s10583-012-9163-6

37.

Olson

L. A.

Evans

J. R.

Keckler

W. T.

(2006). Precocious readers: Past, present, and future. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 205–235.

38.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). PISA 2009 results: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/60/46619703.pdf

39.

Pagnani

A. R.

(2013). Gifted male readers: Current understandings and suggestions for future research. Roeper Review, 35, 27–35. doi:10.1080/02783193.2013.740600

40.

Paris

S. G.

(2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 184–202.

41.

Parsons

L. T.

(2013). An examination of fourth graders’ aesthetic engagement with literary characters. Reading Psychology, 34, 1–25. doi:10.1080/02702711.2011.566762

42.

Pilonieta

Hancock

S. D.

(2012). Negotiating first graders’ reading stance: The relationship between their efferent and aesthetic connections and their reading comprehension. Current Issues in Education, 15(2), 1–9.

43.

Poon

A. M. C.

(2010). Constructing the cosmopolitan subject: Teaching secondary school literature in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30, 31–41.

44.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

McCoach

D. B.

(2015). High-achieving and average students’ reading growth: Contrasting school and summer trajectories. The Journal of Educational Research, 108, 112–129. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.850398

45.

Reis

S. M.

Boeve

(2009). How academically gifted elementary, urban students respond to challenge in an enriched, differentiated reading program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 203–240.

46.

Reis

S. M.

Field

G. B.

(2007). Exploring the new literacies using two new approaches: The schoolwide enrichment model in reading and Renzulli learning. New England Reading Association Journal, 43(1), 30–35.

47.

Reis

S. M.

Gubbins

E. J.

Briggs

C. J.

Schreiber

F. J.

Richards

Jacobs

J. K.

. . . Renzulli

J. S.

(2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 315–338.

48.

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

Coyne

Schreiber

F. J.

Eckert

R. D.

Gubbins

E. J.

(2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. The Elementary School Journal, 108, 3–24.

49.

Renzulli

J. S.

Siegle

Reis

S. M.

Gavin

M. K.

Reed

R. E. S.

(2009). An investigation of the reliability and factor structure of four new scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 84–108.

50.

Rosenblatt

(1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

51.

Sainsbury

Schagen

(2004). Attitudes to reading at ages nine and eleven. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 373–386. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00240.x

52.

Schatz

Krashen

(2006). Attitudes toward reading in grades 1–6: Some decline in enthusiasm but most enjoy reading. Knowledge Quest, 35(1), 46–48.

53.

Schiefele

Schaffner

Möller

Wigfield

(2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 427–463.

54.

Silver

R. E.

(2005). The discourse of linguistic capital: Language and economic policy planning in Singapore. Language Policy, 4, 47–66. doi:10.1007/s10993-004-6564-4

55.

Singapore Ministry of Education. (2013). Education in Singapore. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002298/229877E.pdf

56.

Singapore Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Introduction: The STELLAR vision. Retrieved from http://www.stellarliteracy.sg/cos/o.x?c=/wbn/pagetree&func=view&rid=1143645

57.

Smith

J. K.

Smith

L. F.

Gilmore

Jameson

(2012). Students’ self-perception of reading ability, enjoyment of reading and reading achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 202–206.

58.

Soh

(2014). Finland and Singapore in PISA 2009: Similarities and differences in achievements and school management. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44, 455–471. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.787286

59.

Stainthorp

Hughes

(2004). What happens to precocious readers’ performance by the age of eleven? Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 357–372. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00239.x

60.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

61.

Strommen

L. T.

Mates

B. F.

(2004). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older children and teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 188–200.

62.

Stutler

S. L.

(2011). Gifted girls’ passion for fiction: The quest for meaning, growth, and self-actualization. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 18–38. doi:10.1177/0016986210383979

63.

Stutz

Schaffner

Schiefele

(2016). Relations among reading motivation, reading amount, and reading comprehension in the early elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 101–113. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.022

64.

Tan

Garces-Bacsal

R. M.

(2013). The effect of journal writing on mathematics achievement among high-ability students in Singapore. Gifted and Talented International, 28, 173–184.

65.

Tan

T. H.

Loh

C. E.

(2015). Out with tuition and in with a reading nation. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/out-with-tuition-and-in-with-a-reading-nation

66.

Unrau

Schlackman

(2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement in an urban middle school. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 81–101.

67.

Wiesendanger

Braun

Perry

(2009). Recreational reading: Useful tips for successful implementation. Reading Horizons, 49, 269–284.

68.

Worrell

F. C.

Roth

D. A.

Gabelko

N. H.

(2007). Elementary reading attitude survey (ERAS) scores in academically talented students. Roeper Review, 29, 119–124. doi:10.1080/02783190709554395

69.

Yuen

(2016). Less than half of Singaporeans read literary books, National Arts Council survey finds. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/less-than-half-of-singaporeans-read-literary-books-national-arts-council-survey-finds