Literate Actions, Reading Attitudes,

and Reading Achievement:

Interconnections Across Languages
for Adolescent Learners of English in
Korea
JUHEE LEE DIANE L. SCHALLERT
University of Texas University of Texas
Foreign Language Education Department of Educational Psychology
SZB 528–South D5700 SZB 504 D5800
Austin, Texas 78712 Austin, Texas 78712
Email: juheelee.carpediem@gmail.com Email: dschallert@austin.utexas.edu

Using the three components of attitude in Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) Reasoned Action Theory—
cognition (personal and evaluative beliefs), affect (feelings, emotions), and conation (behavioral
intentions)—the present study investigated relations among L1 and L2 reading attitudes, the relative
contributions of reading attitude and language proficiency to reading achievement, and various factors
that shape L2 reading attitude. Participants were 289 middle school students studying English in Korea.
Their language proficiency, reading achievement, and reading attitudes in L1 and L2 were measured.
Results indicated that measures of L1 reading attitude factors correlated with scores on the
corresponding L2 reading attitude factor. Despite the correlations between cross-linguistic reading
attitudes, reading attitudes in L1 and L2 exhibited different tendencies. Both cognitive attitude and
language proficiency predicted L1 reading comprehension, whereas language proficiency was the sole
contributor to L2 reading achievement. Reading frequency significantly contributed to reading attitude
and achievement scores in L1, but such patterns were not as clearly apparent in L2. Also, proficiency in
both L1 and L2 was associated with more positive reading attitudes and fewer negative feelings about
reading in the corresponding language. Finally, several factors predicted L2 reading attitude: access to
books, length of private instruction, teachers’ encouragement, and participant gender.
Keywords: reading attitudes; reading achievement; associations between L1 and L2 reading; reading
frequency; adolescent readers

SUCCESSFUL READING IN A SECOND OR factors, and metacognitive abilities on the L2

foreign language calls upon various abilities and
is influenced by several factors in the reader’s first
(L1) as well as second language (L2). In order to
explain L2 reading development, researchers
have investigated the effects of readers’ linguistic
knowledge of their two languages, cognitive
The Modern Language Journal, 98, 2, (2014)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12088.x
0026-7902/14/553–573 $1.50/0
© 2014 The Modern Language Journal
reading process (e.g., Alptekin & Ercetin, 2010;
Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Jimenez, Garcia, &
Pearson, 1996; Lee & Schallert, 1997; Tsai, Ernst,
& Talley, 2010). Although they acknowledge the
critical importance of cognitive factors and
linguistic knowledge in L2 reading development,
researchers have come to recognize the role that
affective variables play in engaging individuals in
L2 reading (Bernhardt, 2011; Grabe, 2009). Even
fluent readers may develop negative attitudes
toward reading and choose not to read when
alternative tasks are available, a condition that
554
McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth (1995), in its
extreme form, called aliteracy. Despite a growing
appreciation of the importance of reading atti-
tudes, there has been surprisingly little empirical
research establishing the connection between
L2 reading attitude and L2 reading achievement.
In the few extant studies, critical components of
L2 reading attitude were not included in the
same design, making it difficult to examine the
full multidimensional nature of L2 reading
attitudes. Also, most studies have involved adult
L2 readers, who can be said to have fully
developed attitudes toward reading, at least in
their first language. The purpose of this study was
to investigate how reading attitudes of adolescent
learners of English toward their native and target
languages are related to and affect each other,
and what other factors play a role in shaping L2
reading attitudes and influencing L2 reading
achievement.
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR
READING ATTITUDE CONSTRUCTS
A review of the literature reveals that defining
reading attitude and grasping its multidimensional
nature have not been easy. Alexander and Filler
(1976) defined the term reading attitude as “a
system of feelings related to reading which causes
the learner to approach or avoid a reading
situation” (p. 1). Similarly, Smith (1990) wrote
that reading attitude is “a state of mind,
accompanied by feelings and emotions, that
makes reading more or less probable” (p. 215).
Eagly and Chaiken (1993) stated that “attitude is a
psychological tendency that is expressed by
evaluating a particular entity with some degree
of favor or disfavor” (p. 1). These definitions
suggest that reading attitudes shape an individual’s
intentions, which are themselves connected to
actual reading behavior. An individual’s reading
attitudes may be characterized at an overall level
and simultaneously show differentiation toward
particular genres or topics (McKenna et al.,
1995). Whether reading attitudes range from
general to specific, it is assumed that once they
have become established, they show much
constancy and less volatility, influencing reading
behavior either positively or negatively (McGuire,
1969). Because reading attitudes tend to develop
from previous experiences at home and in school
settings (Smith, 1990), these learned dispositions
become enduring and persistent regardless of
specific situations, and come to make up the
individual’s cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984).
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
Along with addressing definitional issues, many
researchers have offered different conceptualiza-
tions of what constitutes a reading attitude (Ajzen,
1989; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Mathewson, 1994;
McGuire, 1969; McKenna, 1994). Despite some
slight differences in approach, the general con-
sensus has converged on three constituents of
reading attitude: cognitive (evaluative beliefs),
affective (feelings and emotions), and conative
(behavioral intentions) factors. The cognitive
component refers to the beliefs, opinions, or
evaluations that an individual has about reading,
and centers on the perceived instrumentality of
reading, such as linguistic, intellectual, or practi-
cal values associated with reading (e.g., “Reading
English is useful to get a good job in the future”).
These instrumental values tend to develop from
retrospective feelings or evaluations of prospec-
tive outcomes from reading (McGuire, 1969). The
affective component is linked to feelings or emo-
tions that an individual experiences in connec-
tion with reading (McKenna et al., 1995). An
example of a statement reflecting the affective
component is, “I feel anxious if I do not know all
the words in reading passages.” Such feelings or
emotions are likely to be influenced by surround-
ing circumstances, such as family, friends, or the
learning environment (Paimin, Hadgraft, &
Alias, 2011). The last construct, conation, is
defined as the intentions one has to act toward
a particular object (in this case to reading), “the
way in which a person (. . .) goes about acting” on
the goals they have adopted (Gerdes & Stromwall,
2008, p. 236). For instance, an individual may
have a generally positive view of learning a second
language but, lacking conative attitude, never
actually engage in any action that would make
learning the language possible. In other words,
conation entails showing through one’s actions
how one feels about reading (e.g., “I go to a library
to borrow or read English books”).
These three aspects of attitude were integral to
the tripartite approach represented by Fishbein
and Ajzein’s (1975) Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA) framework, a psychological theory devel-
oped to explain the general connection among
beliefs, attitudes, and actions. In the theory,
cognitive beliefs are said to influence affective
attitudes that are then associated with behavioral
intentions (the conative component), themselves
expressed in actual behaviors. A reciprocal
influence feedback loop exists such that actual
behaviors influence beliefs. For our study, the
TRA framework encouraged us to measure all
three reading attitude constituents and to look for
relationships among the three components.
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert
L1 READING ATTITUDE AND ITS RELATION
TO READING PERFORMANCE
With our interest in the role of L2 reading
attitudes in L2 reading performance, we turned
first to the literature that has examined whether
and how attitudes toward reading in the native
language are associated with reading perfor-
mance, as well as how reading attitudes are
formed.
In a review of the research on the connection
between L1 reading attitude and reading achieve-
ment, Roberts and Wilson (2006) reported on
factors that give birth to L1 reading attitudes. Day
and Bamford (1998) claimed that attitudes are
formed from previous experiences related to
reading, messages encountered in educational
settings, and cultural beliefs about reading.
Particularly, repeated success or failure with
reading significantly affects the development of
positive or negative attitudes toward reading
(Swanson, 1985). McKenna et al. (1995) found
that positive attitudes toward reading tend to
change into negative ones as American children
grow older, and this decline appears more
precipitous among struggling than successful
readers. This phenomenon has been explained
as a component of what Stanovich (1986) called
the Matthew effect, indicating that successful read-
ers at earlier stages of schooling tend to read more
and continue to succeed in reading, whereas
those who struggle with reading in the early
grades are not only likely to fall further behind in
reading in later school years but are likely to avoid
reading, choosing other activities instead (Cun-
ningham & Stanovich, 1997). Therefore, through
past experiences with reading, children develop
not only emotions and beliefs about reading but
also self-efficacy beliefs, and these aspects influ-
ence the formation of L1 reading attitude.
In addition, from a socio–constructivist per-
spective, individuals’ mental functioning cannot
be separated from the social and cultural settings
in which the individual is situated, but is heavily
affected by practices, norms, cultures, and per-
ceptions that the society values and expects
(Wertsch, 1991). In this regard, in explaining
why American girls and women are better at
reading and are more likely to report engaging in
reading than boys and men, educational research-
ers have pointed to the social and cultural
expectations individuals construct associated
with their gendered selves and how these expect-
ations may have an impact on their attitudes
toward reading as an activity. McKenna and his
colleagues (1995) reported that female students
555
had more positive reading attitudes than male
students at all grades. Other studies have consis-
tently reported gender differences favoring girls
over boys in their attitudes toward reading (Logan
& Johnston, 2009; Swalander & Taube, 2007;
Worrell, Roth, & Gabelko, 2007).
More recently, a more nuanced picture of
gender differences in reading attitudes seems to
be emerging. For example, in a study examining
reading attitudes of adolescents toward academic
and recreational reading in print and digital
formats, McKenna et al. (2012) reported that
female adolescents had more positive attitudes
toward academic reading but male students had
more positive attitudes toward recreational read-
ing, particularly in digital forms. Given that
attitudes are formed in the crucible of cultural
experiences, it is likely that gender differences in
attitudes toward reading may differ depending on
the particular sociocultural context of the stu-
dents being examined, even though the more
positive attitudes and higher performance of girls
and women over boys and men have been
replicated surprisingly frequently across several
countries (e.g., Logan & Johnston, 2009; Lummis
& Stevenson, 1990; Sani & Zain, 2011). Our study,
situated in a Korean middle school, afforded us an
opportunity to take a crosscultural look at the
relation between L1 attitudes and L1 reading
achievement, but also at a less frequently exam-
ined variable in the L2 reading literature: gender
differences.
Important to our study was the literature on the
relationship between reading attitudes and read-
ing achievement, a literature that has produced
inconsistent results for L1 reading. Martinez,
Aricak, and Jewell (2008) examined the associa-
tions among reading ability, reading attitude, and
reading achievement for 76 American elementary
school students, through the Elementary Reading
Attitude Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990, 1999).
The results indicated that 4th grade reading
ability and reading attitudes were significant
predictors of 5th grade reading achievement,
together accounting for more than 50% of the
variance, with ability the stronger predictor but
with attitude making up at least one third of the
contributing explanation of reading achievement
scores. Lazarus and Callahan (2000) used the
same survey instrument to measure the reading
attitudes of 522 children diagnosed with learning
disabilities, who showed comparable or even
more favorable reading attitudes than did non-
diagnosed peers at low and average levels of
reading achievement, suggesting that reading
attitude may not depend on reading ability. Also,
556
using longitudinal covariance structural model-
ing, Kush, Watkins, and Brookhart (2005) re-
ported that some poor readers with early positive
reading attitudes held on to their positive
attitudes despite the challenges they experienced
with reading. Finally, in light of an early review by
Wigfield and Asher (1984) of studies that
concluded that more able readers have more
positive reading attitudes than less able readers, it
is interesting to consider the broadly accepted
finding that reading attitudes generally drop as
students advance in school (McKenna
et al., 1995), implying that becoming a more
practiced reader does not necessarily bring with it
more positive attitudes toward reading. Thus, the
literature on L1 reading attitude and its connec-
tion to L1 reading achievement remains mixed.
Regardless of the complexities that exist in the
L1 field per se, it would seem reasonable to expect
a connection between attitudes toward reading in
a native language and attitudes toward reading in
a second language. In fact, Day and Bamford
(1998), in a list of possible factors influencing the
acquisition and development of L2 reading
attitude, include L1 reading attitudes as a major
source of influence. Readers with positive atti-
tudes toward L1 reading might be expected to
hold favorable attitudes toward L2 reading, to
which we turn next.
ROOTS OF L2 READING ATTITUDE AND
RELATION TO READING PERFORMANCE
Actual empirical studies focused on L2 reading
attitudes are much more sparse. A few studies
examined affective variables associated with
reading and their connection to reading perfor-
mance; however, L2 reading attitude per se was
not the focus in these studies. A second group of
studies has looked at contributors to L2 reading
attitude without measuring the full complement
of factors making up attitudes.
In terms of the connection of affective variables
and L2 reading performance, a relevant study is
that of Saito, Horwitz, and Garza (1999) who
reported that foreign language reading anxiety
could be differentiated from general foreign
language anxiety and was found to be negatively
correlated with reading performance. Their study
also demonstrated that students’ self-perceived
difficulties in L2 reading were linked to levels of
reading anxiety such that those who perceived
reading in the second language as difficult tended
to have higher levels of reading anxiety than those
who perceived it as less difficult. Similarly,
Brantmeier (2005) discovered that learners’ self-
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
assessment about their L2 reading ability and
their reported enjoyment of L2 reading were
significantly connected to reading comprehen-
sion, suggesting that nonlinguistic variables could
play a critical role in L2 reading performance.
However, the study included only two nonlinguis-
tic variables—self-assessment and enjoyment—
limiting the inferences that could be drawn about
the role of L2 attitudes in reading performance.
Mills, Pajares, and Herron (2006) investigated the
contributions of students’ self-efficacy and anxiety
to reading achievement for 95 university-level
English speakers enrolled in French classes for
two semesters. Results indicated that reading self-
efficacy positively predicted reading proficiency,
whereas reading anxiety was not significantly
associated with reading performance. In a quali-
tative study of Latina bilingual college students,
Kamhi–Stein (2003) reported that the two women
who held positive views of their first language and
who viewed reading as meaning-construction
allowed themselves to use their L1 when reading
in English whereas the two women who had more
negative views of the utility of Spanish to their
academic success encountered more difficulties
as they read. Thus, although affective variables
have been connected to L2 reading achievement,
the particular construct of L2 reading attitudes
was not the focus in these studies.
Another line of research has aimed to find
contributing factors to L2 reading attitude. Based
on the analysis of first language reading attitudes
from Mathewson’s (1994) reading attitude model
and McKenna’s (1994) later development of that
model, Day and Bamford (1998) identified four
sources related to the development of L2 reading
attitudes: a) L1 reading attitudes, b) positive or
negative experiences with learning to read other
second languages (if any), c) general attitudes
toward the target language, culture, and people,
and d) the L2 classroom environment. Although
L2 proficiency may be necessary for fluent L2
reading, their model does not consider language
proficiency as a contributor to the formation of L2
reading attitudes.
Without explicitly citing Day and Bamford’s
(1998) contributors to L2 reading attitude,
Camiciottoli (2001) included many factors in
her survey of 182 Italian adult learners of English
that echo the Day and Bamford list: length of
English (L2) study and private instruction, access
to English books, L1 and L2 reading frequency,
experiences abroad, encouragement to read in
English for pleasure, and self-perception of L2
reading ability. Results indicated that the amount
of L1 reading and experiences in the target
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert
language culture were the most significant
predictors of L2 reading amount and attitude.
Perhaps surprisingly, more years of L2 instruction
were associated with a decrease in students’ self-
confidence about reading ability and to less
engagement in L2 reading, suggesting that Day
and Bamford’s fourth factor, the quality of L2
instruction, is important in promoting L2 reading
attitudes. In sum, Camiciottoli found that L1
reading amount, experiences abroad, and the
instructional setting predicted L2 reading
attitudes.
From what we could determine, Yamashita
(2004, 2007) is the only L2 researcher who has
used Mathewson (1994) and McKenna’s (1994)
conceptualization of reading attitude to describe
the relationship between L1 and L2 reading
attitudes. Leaving aside the conative component
because of difficulties in measuring it in the
context of her study, she measured the subcom-
ponents of cognitive attitude (including intellec-
tual, practical, and linguistic values) and affective
attitude (including comfort and anxiety). Assum-
ing that affective variables developed in the native
language may transfer to the L2 reading process,
Yamashita found that, although L1 reading
attitudes differed from L2 reading attitudes
among EFL adult learners, there was a significant
connection between L1 and L2 reading attitudes,
a connection that remained strong for all learners
regardless of L2 proficiency. In these two studies,
the conative dimension of attitudes was left out, a
component that should be included in order to
provide a full picture of L2 reading attitude
because it is related to what drives a student to
engage in reading behavior.
Finally, gender is another factor that may be
associated with L2 reading attitude. Although
previous studies indicated that girls had more
positive L2 reading attitudes, the reading attitude
surveys simply measured preference for reading
(Camiciottoli, 2001) or foreign language anxiety
(Abu–Rabia, 2004) and failed to capture all
dimensions of L2 reading attitude. Thus, we
included gender in our study to test whether it
would be a significant contributor to reading
attitude.
CURRENT RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Earlier studies on L1 and L2 reading attitude
have identified three components of reading
attitude—cognition, affect, and conation—but these
three dimensions have not been included in tests
of the connection between L2 reading attitudes
and L2 reading achievement. Thus, the present
557
study adopted a tripartite approach to examine
both L1 and L2 reading attitudes, the impact of
L1 reading attitude on L2 reading attitude, and
ultimately, their connection to L2 reading
achievement. We also included contributing
factors to L2 reading that have been identified
in previous studies, such as the length of L2
instruction, L2 proficiency, gender, and L2
reading amount, to allow for a comprehensive
look at the construct of reading attitude. In
addition, unlike earlier studies that have focused
on adult L2 readers, our participants were
adolescent EFL students who might be described
as still in the process of forming their L1 and L2
reading attitudes. Thus, our study stood to
contribute to an understanding of attitude
development as well as to the relationship
between attitude and achievement within and
across languages. We organized our research
questions to address three issues.
With regard to predicting L2 reading attitudes
our research questions are:
RQ.1.a. What are the relations between EFL
Korean adolescent students’ L1 and L2
reading attitudes?
RQ1.b. Besides L1 reading attitudes, what
additional factors predict L2 reading
attitudes?
With regard to predicting reading achievement
our research questions are:
RQ.2.a. How are reading attitudes in L1 and L2
associated with reading achievement in L1
and L2, respectively?
RQ2.b. What is the relative contribution of L1
and L2 reading attitudes and L2 language
proficiency to L1 and L2 reading
achievement?
Finally, with regard to the role of reading
frequency, our combined research questions are:
RQ.3. What differences arise in L1 (L2) reading
attitude and achievement among groups
of readers representing different levels of
L1 (L2) reading frequency, with L1 (L2)
language proficiency as a covariate?
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 289 students (162 boys, 127
girls) learning English as a foreign language in
558
Korea. They were 13 or 14 years old and attending
the second year of middle school (equivalent
to U.S. 8th grade). Initially, 310 students were
tested, but 21 data records were eliminated
because they were incomplete.
Most elementary and middle schools in Korea
are required to follow a standardized curriculum
including fixed lesson hours and textbooks. Our
participants had been receiving formal English
instruction for about two hours weekly from the
3rd to 6th grade, with English lessons focused on
basic communication skills through skits and
songs. Comprehensive English instruction, in-
cluding reading, speaking, listening, writing, and
grammar, starts with the first middle school year
(equivalent to U.S. 7th grade) with three or four
hours of lessons per week. Despite the relatively
similar English education across Korea, students’
English proficiency is likely to vary due to variable
but pervasive access to private English instruction.
The majority of the participants (92.4%) had had
some private instruction, and 53 students (18.3%)
had received more than seven years of English
lessons when data were collected. Only 22 of 289
students had not experienced any extracurricular
English instruction. However, nearly all students
(96.5%) reported either no experience of visiting
English speaking countries or visits that were for
less than a month, and only one student had lived
in an English dominant culture for more than a
year. This student and those who had been abroad
for more than one month but less than a year
(3.1%) were included in the data analysis because
their data did not change results. Responses to the
demographic questionnaire, as well as the actual
questions asked, are presented in tabular form in
the supplementary information available in the
online version of this article.
Materials
Background Questionnaire. The questionnaire
asked participants about their background infor-
mation. Previous studies had identified several
factors that may be connected to reading attitudes
and reading achievement (e.g., Camiciottoli, 2001;
Day & Bamford, 1998), and we included nine items
in the questionnaire to measure gender, length of
formal and private English instruction, experience
staying in English-speaking countries, experiences
learning other foreign languages, access to English-
language books, teacher’s encouragement to read
books in English, and frequency of pleasure
reading in L1 and L2.
Language Tests. The language measures in-
cluded five tests: two English language proficiency
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
tests, an English reading comprehension test, a
Korean language proficiency test, and a Korean
reading comprehension test. Table 1 displays
descriptive statistics of the tests, including mean
scores, standard deviations, and skewness and
kurtosis indices.
Students’ English proficiency was measured by
two tests. The first test, a 30-item standardized
English test composed of listening and reading
comprehension multiple-choice questions, was a
component of the overall diagnostic assessment
undertaken by the educational district office at the
beginning of each academic year, to which we had
access in the form of summative English scores
from the school. The second test consisted of 70
vocabulary and grammar multiple-choice ques-
tions that we selected from ESL/EFL testing
websites specific to the proficiency level of the
target participants. These 70 questions were
reviewed by three English teachers, including
one who was teaching the participants, for
appropriateness. Scores on each test were con-
verted to percent correct, and the resulting two
percentages averaged together to represent an
individual’s English proficiency score. In order to
address the reliability of the measures, we
calculated correlations between the overall mean
scores on the proficiency measures and the
students’ English achievement scores from the
previous semester that included measures of
reading, listening, speaking, writing, grammar,
and vocabulary. The high correlation (r ¼ .89)
indicated that our measures were sufficiently
reliable for research purposes as measures of
students’ English proficiency.
To measure students’ English reading compre-
hension, we constructed a 30-item test by taking
multiple-choice questions from two types of
national level standardized English tests—high
school entrance certificate tests for self-study
students, and high school entrance tests—admin-
istered for the past six to seven years by the Korea
Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, the
office that develops and oversees national-level
educational assessment in Korea. These standard-
ized English tests were chosen because they had
been constructed and reviewed by assessment
experts and were assumed to be valid. In order to
ascertain whether the test items were appropriate
for the target population in terms of test-taking
time and difficulty levels, this test was reviewed by
two English teachers and then pilot tested with 27
middle school students who were at similar
English proficiency levels as the participants.
Through a series of review procedures, 30
questions were finally selected, and scores were
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert 559
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Language Tests (N ¼ 289)

Skewness Kurtosis
Tests Items Min–Max Mean SD (SE) (SE)
Korean proficiency 30 12–100 63.1 20.5 .51 (.14) .58 (.29)
Korean reading 30 16–100 67.5 17.8 .68 (.14) .140 (.29)
English proficiency 1 30 12–96.5 66.5 23.9 .54 (.14) .85 (.29)
English proficiency 2 70 16–86 34.9 11.5 1.22 (.14) 2.09 (.29)
Combineda 1 & 2 100 15–91 50.7 16.3 .09 (.14) .81 (.29)
English reading 30 13–100 62.4 18.7 .38 (.14) .39 (.29)
Note. Min: Minimum score; Max: Maximum score; SD: Standard deviation; SE: Standard error;
a
the combined score of the English proficiency tests was used in analyses.

converted to percentage equivalents. The strong
correlation (r ¼ .75) between scores on this test
and previous semester English achievement
demonstrated the reliability of the reading
comprehension test.
Third, the students’ language proficiency in
their first language and their knowledge of
Korean grammar, vocabulary, and reading com-
prehension was assessed using a standardized
measure provided by the district educational
office. This test was also a part of overall diagnostic
evaluation administered by the educational office
in the region. Finally, Korean reading compre-
hension was measured through 30 multiple-
choice items from the Test of Proficiency in
Korean made by the National Institute for
International Education in Korea. This test is a
national and international level test used to assess
Korean language proficiency of learners of
Korean as a foreign language. We chose this test
because the types of reading comprehension
questions were parallel to the reading compre-
hension items in English, requiring less content
knowledge of the passages but measuring various
aspects of reading comprehension ability. The
selected items were reviewed by an experienced
Korean language teacher for suitability for our
study participants. Again, to verify reliability of
these two measures, we calculated correlations
between the scores of each test and the partic-
ipants’ Korean language achievement scores
assessed in the previous semester at school. The
strong correlations suggested that the Korean
proficiency test (r ¼ .81) and the Korean reading
comprehension test (r ¼ .74) were consistently
and dependably measuring students’ Korean
language ability.
Measuring L1 and L2 Reading Attitudes. Our
next set of measures assessed different dimen-
sions of L1 and L2 attitudes, using two sets of
parallel items: 35 items focused on English
reading attitudes and 35 items focused on Korean
reading attitudes, with all items written in Korean.
For each item, students rated the degree to which
they endorsed the statement on a 5-point scale,
with 1 ¼ “Not at all true of me” and 5 ¼ “
Completely true of me.” In order to make the
comparison of L1 to L2 reading attitude possible,
we used the same items on each survey modified
only to indicate whether English or Korean
reading was being assessed. Thus, students
responded to items like “I feel tired when reading
English books” or “I feel tired when reading
Korean books.” Adopted or adjusted from previ-
ous L1 and L2 reading attitude questionnaires,
items addressed Mathewson’s (1994) three com-
ponents of reading attitude: feelings (affective),
evaluative beliefs (cognitive), and action readiness
(conative). Some affective items were adapted
from Yamashita (2004, 2007), with several addi-
tional items added such as comfort, anxiety,
enjoyment, and avoidance, to provide a comprehen-
sive measure of the affective component of attitude
(Stokmans, 1999; Yamashita, 2004, 2007). In terms
of the cognitive domain, we again borrowed items
from Yamashita (2007) measuring intellectual,
practical, and linguistic attitudes, as well as adapt-
ing some self-assessment items from Brantmeier
(2005) to measure Mathewson’s evaluative beliefs
dimension. Finally, we created conative items
guided by studies of L1 conative attitude for
reading (Tait–McCutcheon, 2008; van Schooten,
de Glopper, & Stoel, 2004). Items in these two
sections of the questionnaire were factor analyzed,
and we report the factor analysis results as well as
reliabilities of subscales in the next section.
Procedure
At the beginning of the academic school year,
the five language tests were administered in paper
form either as part of the all-day district-wide test
560
administration or during relevant regular classes
(either Korean or English), distributed across
three weeks so as not to take more than 45
minutes of instructional time per week. Students
were told that the test scores would not affect their
school grades but were encouraged to do their
best. In the fourth week, the attitude question-
naires were administered, again in paper form,
during a session of a social studies class.
Instructions for each measure and for how to
answer the 5-point rating scales were given in
Korean, and the students were encouraged to ask
questions if any survey item puzzled them.
RESULTS
Factor Analysis to Identify L1 and L2 Reading
Attitude Factors
In order to identify components of reading
attitude, we began with two separate factor
analyses for L1 and L2 reading. Following
Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), we used the
following criteria in extracting factors: Items
with a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 and that
loaded on a factor at a level of .45 and above were
kept; items that loaded on multiple factors at .32
or higher or with little theoretical connections to
the factor were deleted. Results indicated the
same five-factor solution (with varimax rotation)
for both surveys (29 items for L1; 30 items for L2).
Tables 2 and 3 present the factor loadings of
items, and the mean scores and standard devia-
tions of each reading attitude factor. The five
factors of L1 and L2 reading attitudes accounted
for 52.5% and 54.7% of the total variance,
respectively. Because the two questionnaires
were almost identical, it is not surprising that
the same five factors were extracted. Factor 1,
named cognitive attitudes, was associated with
intellectual, practical, and linguistic values that
students expected to achieve through reading.
Factor 2, conative attitudes, obtained high loadings
from items that measured students’ actual read-
ing behaviors, their intentions to read in L1 or L2.
Factors 3 and 4 were related to negative feelings
associated with reading. Initially, we had expected
enjoyment, avoidance, comfort, and anxiety either to
load on one overarching factor or on several
independent factors. However, items measuring
enjoyment were dropped because they did not
meet the factor analysis criteria. Also, the items
connected to avoidance and discomfort loaded
together on Factor 3, which we labeled negative
affect, and separate from anxiety items, which
loaded on Factor 4 and which we labeled anxiety.
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
Finally, items associated with students’ percep-
tions about their own reading competence loaded
on Factor 5, self-assessment.
Also, we calculated the internal consistency
estimate of reliability for each factor (see Tables 2
and 3). The L1 and L2 reading attitude factors
demonstrated good internal consistency, ranging
from .58 to .89, with the anxiety factor showing
relatively lower reliability in both L1 and L2,
a ¼ .62 and .58, respectively.
Research Questions 1a and 1b: Predicting L2
Reading Attitudes from L1 Reading Attitudes as Well
as from Additional Reading Factors
We first examined the connection between L1
and L2 reading attitudes from two perspectives: by
calculating the contribution of L1 attitudes to L2
attitudes in multiple regressions and sequential
regressions and by testing for differences between
L1 and L2 attitudes. We next tested several factors
that had been identified in the previous literature
as predictors of L2 reading attitude.
The results of simple bivariate correlations
between L1 and L2 reading attitude factors
confirmed no violation of the multicolinearity
assumption that would preclude the use of
multiple regression. We also checked whether
our data satisfied other regression assumptions,
including normal distribution, homogeneity of
variance, homoscedasticity, and linearity, and
verified that all assumptions were met (Tabach-
nick & Fidell, 2001). The correlation between
attitude factors within and across languages were
of low to moderate size (see Table 4). The
strongest associations appeared between corre-
sponding L1 and L2 reading attitude factors,
ranging from the cognitive attitude factor
(r ¼ .71) to the negative affect factor (r ¼ .44).
Without claiming a causal connection between L1
reading attitudes and L2 reading attitude, we saw
these associations as suggestive of an underlying
attitude tendency that connects particular atti-
tude factors in a student’s L1 with the same factor
in the student’s L2.
Results of simultaneous multiple regressions
revealed that the five L1 reading attitude factors,
that is, the factors of L1 cognitive, conative,
negative affect, anxiety, and self-assessment,
entered as independent predictors, explained
approximately 22% to 51% of the total variance
for each of the five L2 reading attitude factors.
These results suggest that variations in L2 reading
attitudes could be explained by L1 reading
attitude factors (see Table 5). Interestingly, for
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert 561
TABLE 2
Five-Factor Solution for Reading Attitudes in Korean

Loadings M SD
Factor 1: Cognitive attitudes about L1 reading 3.54 .73
K12. I can acquire broad knowledge if I read books. .785 3.67 1.10
K22. I can improve my sensitivity to the Korean language if I read books. .730 3.54 1.03
K35. I can develop reading ability if I read books. .705 3.61 .97
K8. Reading books is useful to get a good job in the future. .694 3.71 1.05
K18. Reading books is useful to get a good grade in class. .675 3.42 1.02
K27. I can acquire vocabulary if I read books. .651 3.52 1.00
K26. I can become more knowledgeable if I read books. .649 3.43 .97
K6. I can develop writing ability if I read books. .597 3.64 1.09
K16. I get to know different values if I read books. .547 3.34 1.06
a ¼ .87
Factor 2: Conative attitudes about L1 reading 2.90 .81
K14. I go to a library to borrow or read books. .733 2.50 1.17
K13. I like to read books in my spare time. .679 2.55 1.10
K24. I try to find time for reading. .603 2.80 1.06
K21. I want to read many books in the future. .540 3.33 1.13
K33. I sometimes use the Internet to read stories that interest me. .457 2.98 1.24
K15. If someone tells me that he or she likes a book very much, .425 3.25 1.25
I am going to read it too.
a ¼ .87
Factor 3: Negative affect about L1 reading 2.57 .74
K19. Reading books is dull. .660 2.70 1.21
K9. I want to avoid reading as much as possible. .656 2.45 1.07
K17. I feel tired if I read books. .635 2.68 1.13
K11. I do not want to read even if the content is interesting. .607 2.17 1.08
K5. I don’t mind even if I cannot understand the book content .600 2.69 1.07
entirely.
K30. If I do not understand content in reading, I skip the part. .574 2.75 1.13
K25. When I read books, I find it difficult to concentrate. .560 2.51 1.07
a ¼ .79
Factor 4: Anxiety about L1 reading 2.38 .76
K20. I sometimes feel anxious that I may not understand even if I read. .794 2.37 1.05
K3. I feel anxious if I don’t know all the words in reading passages. .694 2.27 1.06
K34. I feel anxious when I’m not sure whether I understood the book .574 2.51 1.00
content.
a ¼ .58
Factor 5: Self-assessment about L1 reading 3.02 .71
K28. I am good at understanding what I read. .583 3.25 1.00
K4. My grades for Korean classes at middle school are very good. .536 2.84 .94
K23. I feel confident when I am reading books. .529 3.02 .99
K32. I read fast and understand quickly. .491 2.98 1.08
a ¼ .66
Note. M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation; a: Cronbach’s alpha; Percentage variance explained: total variance,
52.50; cognitive, 17.04; conative, 11.40; negative affect, 10.80; anxiety, 6.24; self-assessment, 7.03.

three of the five L2 reading attitude factors (L2
cognitive, conative, and anxiety), the only signifi-
cant predictor was the corresponding L1 attitude
factor. For instance, students with positive cogni-
tive attitudes toward L1 reading were likely to
score high on the L2 cognitive attitude factor
(B ¼ .67). For two of the L2 attitude factors, a
second predictor, in addition to the correspond-
ing L1 factor, made a significant contribution: (a)
L2 negative affect was predicted by L1 self-
assessment (negatively) as well as by L1 negative
affect; and (b) L2 self-assessment was predicted by
L1 cognitive factor as well as by L1 self-assessment.
This result suggests that reading attitudes estab-
lished in one’s native language may transfer to, or
at least correlate with, L2 reading attitudes. Next,
to calculate estimates of the unique proportion of
each significant predictor, we used sequential
562 The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
TABLE 3
Five-Factor Solution for Reading Attitudes in English

Loading M SD
Factor 1: Cognitive attitudes about L2 reading 3.27 75
E22. I can develop my English reading ability if I read English. .773 3.28 1.04
E10. I can develop my English writing ability if I read English. .756 3.25 1.10
E23. I can improve my sensitivity to the English language if I read English. .730 3.21 1.01
E32. I can acquire broad knowledge if I read English. .724 3.29 1.03
E15. Reading English is useful to get a good grade in class. .691 3.25 1.06
E8. I can become more knowledgeable if I read English. .672 3.27 1.09
E12. I can acquire English vocabulary if I read English. .671 3.53 1.04
E16. Reading English is useful to get a good job in the future. .669 3.47 1.02
E14. I get to know different values if I read English. .577 2.88 .96
a ¼ .89
Factor 2: Conative attitudes about L2 reading 2.32 .73
E29. I go to a library to borrow or read English books. .756 1.91 .96
E9. I like to read English books in my spare time. .710 1.90 .91
E21. I sometimes visit English websites and read them on the Internet. .654 2.09 1.09
E2. I try to find time for reading in English. .612 2.27 .95
E35. During my vacation I want to read at least one English book. .545 2.72 1.23
E26. If someone tells me that he or she likes an English book very much, .507 2.74 1.11
I am going to read it too.
E18. I want to read many English books in the future. .499 2.58 1.11
a ¼ .82
Factor 3: Negative affect about L2 reading 2.99 .71
E13. I want to avoid reading in English as much as possible. .702 3.07 1.08
E11. Reading English is dull. .700 3.05 1.05
E34. If I do not understand content in reading, I skip the part. .687 3.21 1.09
E1. I feel tired if I read English. .676 2.85 1.07
E31. When I read in English, I find it difficult to concentrate. .615 2.80 1.07
E3. I do not want to read in English even if the content is interesting. .512 2.89 1.10
E17. Reading English is troublesome. .501 3.20 1.10
E5. I don’t mind even if I cannot understand the book content entirely. .467 2.88 1.07
a ¼ .81
Factor 4: Anxiety about L2 reading 2.73 .85
E20. I feel anxious if I don’t know all the words in reading passages. .796 2.82 1.14
E7. I sometimes feel anxious that I may not understand what I read. .785 2.71 1.12
E4. I feel overwhelmed whenever I see a whole page of English in .520 2.67 1.10
front of me.
a ¼ .62
Factor 5: Self-assessment about L2 reading 2.67 .89
E27. My grades for English reading tests at middle school are very good. .682 2.57 1.06
E28. I feel confident when I am reading in English. .654 2.63 1.03
E25. I am good at reading in English. .616 2.81 1.16
a ¼ .75
Note. M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation; a: Cronbach’s alpha; Percentage variance explained: total variance,
54.66; cognitive, 17.29; conative, 11.33; negative affect, 12.81; anxiety, 6.39; self-assessment, 6.84.

regression analysis. Each predictor was entered
into the model as a second step controlling for all
other predictors entered in together in a first
block (Warner, 2013). The effect sizes for
significant individual predictor variables ranged
from 2% to 28% of the total variance.
Another approach to addressing the first
research question was to examine differences
between L1 and L2 reading attitudes. Using a
Bonferroni correction that established the signif-
icance level at .01 to correct for an inflated Type 1
error, we calculated matched t-tests and found
that students were reporting different reading
attitudes for reading in English and Korean (see
Table 6). L1 reading attitudes were higher than
L2 reading attitudes for the cognitive, conative,
and self-assessment factors, with differences all
statistically significant. Thus, these EFL middle
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert 563
TABLE 4
Intercorrelations of the Reading Attitude Factors for L1 (Korean) and L2 (English) Reading

Scale Factors K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 E1 E2 E3 E4
K Cognitive (K1) –
K Conative (K2) .50 –
K Negative affect (K3) .30 .56 –
K Anxiety (K4) .06 .19 .01 –
K Self-assessment (K5) .56 .59 .43 .05 –
E Cognitive (E1) .71 .36 .21 .09 .40 –
E Conative (E2) .41 .58 .37 .14 .32 .47 –
E Negative affect (E3) .24 .29 .44 .00 .17 .36 .55 –
E Anxiety (E4) .12 .19 .09 .46 .07 .12 .05 .19 –
E Self-assessment (E5) .45 .42 .35 .02 .47 .47 .53 .50 .09

p < .05.
Boldface coefficients indicate corresponding correlations across L1 and L2.

school students seemed to expect higher levels of
cognitive outcomes (linguistic, intellectual, prac-
tical) from L1 reading than L2 reading, were
more willing to read in their native than in their
second language, and had higher self-confidence
about L1 reading compared to L2 reading. As for
affective factors, students had more negative
affect toward English than Korean reading, and
higher anxiety in L2 than L1 reading. As shown in
Table 6, calculations of Cohen’s d, a common
measure of effect size and indicator of the
practical import of a significant difference,
indicated that effect sizes ranged from .36, a
low–moderate effect size associated with less than
1/3 of a point difference between means, to .75, a
high–moderate effect size associated with 3/5 of a
point on the 5-point scale. Note that although
these means differed significantly, they were
neither very high nor very low in absolute terms
on the 5-point scale, ranging from 3.54 for the L1
cognitive factor to 2.32 for the L2 conative factor.
Finally, we tested the contributions of various
other factors, in addition to L1 reading attitude,
in predicting L2 reading attitude. Guided by
previous research, we tested variables that had
been found to contribute to the L2 reading
attitude: length of L2 formal and private instruc-
tion, experiences of learning foreign languages
other than English, L1 and L2 reading frequency
as separate factors, teachers’ encouragement to
read L2 texts, gender, and access to reading
resources. These demographic variables, along
with the measure of L2 proficiency as another
well-established contributor to L2 reading atti-
tude, were entered into simultaneous multiple
regressions as predictors of each of the five L2
reading attitude factors (see Table 7).
Of the nine variables, L2 proficiency, L2 reading
frequency, and access to English books significantly
contributed to four of the L2 reading attitude
factors (excluding the anxiety factor), whereas L1
reading frequency was not a statistically significant
predictor of any of the factors. Furthermore,
length of L2 instruction had almost no impact on L2
reading attitude, although length of L2 private
instruction was negatively linked to conative
attitude, suggesting that the longer students
received private L2 instruction, the less they

TABLE 5
Contribution of L1 Reading Attitude to L2 Reading Attitude

Dependent variable Significant predictors B (beta) t R2inc Total R2 Total F

E1 Cognitive K1 Cognitive .67 (.65) 12.60 .28 .51 59.06
E2 Conative K2 Conative .44 (.49) 7.14 .17 .36 31.19
E3 Negative affect K3 Negative affect .32 (.33) 5.17 .07 .24 17.42
K5 Self-assessment .17 (.17) 2.36 .02
E4 Anxiety K4 Anxiety .50 (.45) 8.32 .19 .22 16.36
E5 Self-assessment K5 Self-assessment .46 (.37) 5.29 .07 .25 19.23
K1 Cognitive .24 (.20) 3.11 .03

p < .05.
Note. K: Korean (L1); E: English (L2); standardized betas are in parentheses; R2inc: R squared incremental refers to
R square change, and is an effect size index for each individual predictor variable.
564 The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
TABLE 6
Pairwise Comparisons Between L1 and L2 Reading Attitude

Korean (L1) M (SD) English (L2) M (SD) t Cohen’s d


K1 Cognitive 3.54 (.73) E1 Cognitive 3.27 (.75) 8.17 0.36
K2 Conative 2.90 (.81) E2 Conative 2.32 (.73) 13.97 0.75
K3 Neg. affect 2.57 (.74) E3 Neg. affect 2.99 (.71) 9.52 0.58
K4 Anxiety 2.38 (.76) E4 Anxiety 2.73 (.85) 7.15 0.43
K5 Self-assess 3.02 (.71) E5 Self-assess 2.67 (.89) 7.21 0.43

p < .05 (Bonferroni adjustments)
Note. K: Korean (L1); E: English (L2); M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation.

were self-directed in choosing to read English
books. Pressures associated with private English
instruction from an early age, including private
tutoring or special cram schools, may have led to
negative attitudes toward L2 reading. In contrast,
access to English books contributed to developing
positive reading attitudes (cognitive, B ¼ .10;
conative, B ¼ .15; negative affect, B ¼ .09; self
assessment, B ¼ .13), and teachers’ encourage-
ment for L2 reading was associated with positive
cognitive and conative attitude factors (B ¼ .13
and .09, respectively). Our participants were
adolescent L2 learners who perhaps were suscep-
tible to the influence of those around them,
including their teachers.
Contradicting Day and Bamford (1998), experi-
ences of learning to read other second languages was not
a significant predictor of these students’ reading
attitudes. Because these middle school students’
foreign language curriculum solely focused on
English, only 23% of the sample (N ¼ 66) had
experienced learning other foreign languages.
The last of the variables that showed some
degree of association with any of the attitude
factors was gender. Girls reported more negative
affect (B ¼ .18) and lower self-assessment (B ¼
.27) toward L2 reading compared to boys, when
other factors (e.g., L2 proficiency, L2 reading
frequency, and access to English books) were
taken into account.
When we used sequential regression to measure
the contribution of individual predictors to each
reading attitude factor, we found that although
each L2 reading attitude factor (except for
anxiety) was accounted for by the composite of
the nine variables from 22% to 37% of the total

TABLE 7
Factors Predicting L2 Reading Attitude

Dependent variable Significant predictors B (beta) t R2inc Total R2 Total F


E1 Cognitive L2 proficiency .01 (.28) 4.33 .05 .23 9.04
Teachers’ encouragement .13 (.18) 3.03 .03
Access to English books .10 (.14) 2.34 .02
E2 Conative Access to English books .15 (.22) 3.84 .04 .30 13.29
L2 reading frequency .14 (.22) 3.84 .04
L2 proficiency .01 (.19) 3.09 .02
Private L2 instruction .09 (.16) 2.50 .02
Teachers’ encouragement .09 (.13) 2.39 .01
E3 Negative affect L2 proficiency .01 (.32) 4.83 .07 .22 8.69
L2 reading frequency .15 (.22) 3.77 .04
Gendera .18 (.12) 2.21 .01
Access to English books .09 (.14) 2.25 .01
E4 Anxiety .02 .48
E5 Self-assess L2 proficiency .02 (.41) 6.98 .11 .37 17.95
L2 reading frequency .15 (.19) 3.46 .03
Access to English books .13 (.16) 2.85 .02
Gendera .27 (.15) 3.00 .02

p < .05.
Note. K: Korean (L1); E: English (L2); standardized betas are in parentheses; R2inc: R squared incremental refers to
R square change, and is an effect size index for each individual predictor variable.
a
Gender was coded with boys ¼ 1 and girls ¼ 2.
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert
variance, the proportion of the total variance
explained by individual predictors was relatively
low, ranging from 1% to 11% (see Table 7).
In sum, although there were differences
between L1 and L2 reading attitudes, significant
correlations existed between the corresponding
L1 and L2 attitude constructs and a sizable
proportion of L2 reading attitudes was predicted
by L1 reading attitude. In addition, several other
factors were associated with L2 reading attitude,
including access to English reading materials,
teacher encouragement, gender, and length of L2
private instruction. Note that two other predictors
of L2 reading attitude, L2 proficiency and L2
reading frequency, have as yet not been fully
discussed because these two variables are ad-
dressed in more depth in the next two sections.
Research Questions 2a and 2b: Associations Between
Reading Attitude and Reading Achievement, Taking
into Account the Contributions of Proficiency
Addressing this research question meant relat-
ing each attitude factor to reading achievement
scores in both languages, again using simple
bivariate correlations followed by multiple re-
gressions. Results indicated significant correla-
tions between most attitude factors and reading
scores in L1 and L2 (see Table 8). The only factor
that showed no relation with either reading score
was the anxiety factor in both L1 and L2. The two
strongest relationships were represented by L1
cognitive attitude (K1) linked to Korean reading
scores (r ¼ .47) and L2 self-assessment (E5) and
English reading scores (r ¼ .42).
Similar results were obtained when L1 and L2
reading attitude factors were entered in multiple
regression analyses simultaneously as predictor
variables (see Table 9). In both regressions,
cognitive attitude toward L1 reading was a
significant predictor, not only of L1 reading
achievement (B ¼ 7.97) but also of L2 reading
scores (B ¼ 5.40), whereas the L2 self-assessment
attitude factor significantly predicted L1 reading
TABLE 8
Correlations Between Reading Attitude Factors and Reading Achievement in L1 and L2
K3
Reading K1 K2 Neg. K4 K5
score Cog. Cona. affect Anxiety Self-assess
Korean .47 .32 .28 .02 .33
English .33 .20 .20 .09 .29

p < .01.
Note. K: Korean (L1); E: English (L2).
565
scores (B ¼ 4.20) as well as L2 reading scores
(B ¼ 6.62). Another way of interpreting the results
of the two regressions is to consider the combina-
tion of contributors that predicted each of the
achievement scores. L2 reading achievement was
predicted by the combination of L2 self-assess-
ment and L1 cognitive attitude factors whereas L1
reading achievement was predicted by L1 cogni-
tive, L1 negative affect, and L2 self-assessment
factors. Again, although the proportion of
variance explained by the composite of L1 and
L2 reading attitudes was approximately one
quarter of the total variance, the contribution of
each individual reading attitude factor to reading
achievement was rather small in both L1 and L2,
explaining from 2% to 5% of the variance.
In order to examine the relative contributions
of reading attitude and language proficiency to
reading achievement in L1 and L2, multiple
regressions were conducted. When L2 proficiency
and L2 reading attitude were entered into the
multiple regression simultaneously as predictor
variables of L2 reading achievement, only L2
proficiency remained as a significant factor
(B ¼ .83) (see Table 10). Similarly, when L1
proficiency and L1 reading attitude factors were
entered into the multiple regression simulta-
neously as predictor variables of L1 reading
achievement, L1 proficiency was a critical con-
tributor (B ¼ .58), but so was L1 cognitive attitude
(K1) (B ¼ 5.00). The findings indicated that L2
proficiency was the sole contributor to L2 reading
scores, explaining approximately 58% of the
variance, whereas both linguistic and nonlinguis-
tic (attitude) variables predicted approximately
60% of the total variance of L1 reading
performance.
Next, to assess the effect size of individual
predictor variables on reading achievement
scores, we conducted follow-up analyses using
hierarchical regression. After accounting for the
rest of the predictors (e.g., attitude factors) in a
first block, we entered each significant predictor
(e.g., proficiency) in a second step. L1 proficiency
and L2 proficiency were the most explanatory
E3
E1 E2 Neg. E4 E5
Cog. Cona. affect Anxiety Self-assess
.35 .17 .12 .03 .29
.31 .26 .30 .02 .42
566 The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
TABLE 9
Contribution of L1 and L2 Reading Attitude to L1 and L2 Reading Achievement

Dependent variable Predictor variable B (beta) T R2inc Total R2 Total F


Korean reading K1 Cognitive 7.97 (.33) 3.98 .04 .28 10.57
K3 Negative affect 4.31 (.18) 2.59 .02
E5 Self-assess 4.20 (.21) 3.00 .02
English reading E5 Self-assess 6.62 (.31) 4.36 .05 .23 8.48
K1 Cognitive 5.40 (.21) 2.49 .02

p < .05.
Note. K: Korean (L1); E: English (L2); Standardized betas are in parentheses.

factor, accounting for 35% and 37% of the total
variance in L1 and L2 reading scores, respectively.
Although cognitive attitude factor (K1) was the
only significant factor among the reading attitude
factors, its individual effect on the Korean reading
score was limited to 3% of the total variance in
reading achievement. However, it should be
noted that there remained variance that was not
explained by proficiency, which accounted for
25% and 21% respectively of the variance in each
L1 and L2 reading score. This proportion of the
variance was assumed to be due to the combina-
tion of reading attitude factors even though
individual attitude factors were not separately
significant contributors.
Given that reading achievement was predicted
by reading attitude and language proficiency, we
added a follow-up analysis to determine whether
reading attitude differed as students’ levels of
language proficiency increased. For this analysis,
we computed Pearson product–moment correla-
tion coefficients and drew a series of scatterplots
to illustrate the relationship between proficiency
scores and each of the five reading attitude factors
in L1 and L2, respectively (see Figure 1). Except
for the anxiety factor, all the correlations between
proficiency and attitude factors were statistically
significant at p < .01: for L1: cognitive r ¼ .40,
conative r ¼ .27, negative affect r ¼ .26, and self-
assessment r ¼ .36; for L2: cognitive r ¼ .37,
conative r ¼ .28, negative affect r ¼ .34, and
self-assessment r ¼ .50. Such correlations indicat-
ed that students of different language proficiency
levels had different levels of reading attitudes.
Specifically, in terms of awareness of cognitive
values related to reading, intention to read books
(the conative factor), lower negative affect
associated with reading, and higher self-assess-
ment of one’s reading competence, students at
higher proficiency levels had more positive
reading attitudes, in both L1 and L2, compared
to those at lower proficiency levels.
In sum, results indicated that language profi-
ciency had a strong association with reading
attitude in both L1 and L2. Students who scored
high on measures of language proficiency tended
to report positive reading attitudes and less
negative feelings about reading; this was true in
both languages.
Research Question 3: Associations Among Reading
Frequency, Reading Attitude, and Reading
Achievement
Although the importance of reading frequently
has often been endorsed as a route to improving
reading attitudes as well as reading scores, there
has been a paucity of research on the effects of
reading frequency on achievement and attitude
in L1 and L2. In our study, we used students’
survey responses about how often they read books
in Korean and in English for pleasure on a five-
point scale, with 1 indicating that the person
“almost never” read for pleasure; 2 indicating that
he/she read “once a month”; 3 indicating the

TABLE 10
Contributions of Language Proficiency and Reading Attitude to Reading Achievement

Dependent variable Predictor variable B (beta) T R2inc Total R2 Total F


Korean reading score L1 proficiency .58 (.66) 15.74 .35 .60 69.99
Cognitive attitude (K1) 5.00 (.20) 4.20 .03
English reading score L2 proficiency .83 (.72) 15.75 .37 .58 64.19

p < .001.
Note. K: Korean (L1); E: English (L2); standardized betas are in parentheses; R2inc: R squared incremental refers to
R square change, and is an effect size index for each individual predictor variable.
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert
FIGURE 1
Scatterplots of L1 and L2 Reading Attitude Scores Regressed on L1 and L2 Proficiency
person read “once a week”; 4 indicating he/she
read “3–4 times a week”; and 5 indicating that the
person read for pleasure “almost every day.”
Responses to these items were used to create five
groups, separately for L1 and L2, representing
reading frequency levels. For the reading attitude
factors as dependent variables, we used two
567
separate MANCOVAs with language proficiency
as covariates. For reading scores as dependent
variables, we used two ANOVAs to determine
whether the reading frequency groups differed.
ANOVA, and not MANCOVA, was appropriate
here because the high correlation between
proficiency and reading achievement (.75 and
568
FIGURE 1
(Continued)
.76 for L1 and L2) meant that little variance would
be left unaccounted for once proficiency was
partialled out (Warner, 2013).
In L1 reading, the results indicated that there
was a large difference in reading scores between
those who almost never read (Group 1) and all
other groups, who reported reading once a
month or more often (see Table 11). Almost no
differences were found in reading achievement
among Groups 2, 3, 4, and 5, indicating that
occasional readers did not achieve significantly
different scores from those who read every day. As
for reading attitudes, significant main effects for
frequency of reading for pleasure were found for
four of the five attitude factors, cognitive,
conative, negative affect, and self-assessment,
with only anxiety showing no difference. These
results suggested that as students reported
reading more often, they recognized the cognitive
value of reading better, had less negative affect
toward reading, and evaluated their reading
competence as higher than those who read less.
Pairwise comparisons generally indicated signifi-
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
cant differences between the two lower groups
and the three higher group, and generally no
difference between the first and second groups
and between the fourth and fifth group. There
was a dramatic increase in conative attitude from
those who never read to those who read every day.
Because conative attitude should be highly
predictive of students taking action for reading,
it is perhaps not surprising that students report-
ing different levels of reading frequency should
report such strikingly different conative attitudes.
In L2 reading, because there were only 8
students who read in English every day for fun, we
combined groups 4 and 5 in order to make the
groups of students more comparable (see Ta-
ble 11). Despite the similarity to results for L1
reading, reading scores and attitude were not
linearly associated with frequency. For instance,
although those who read once a month or more
often achieved statistically significantly higher
reading scores than those who never read for
pleasure, more frequent reading groups did not
always have higher reading achievement than less
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert 569
TABLE 11
Reading Attitude and Achievement in L1 and L2 by Frequency Grouping of Students

L1 (Korean) Groups (N)

G1 (74) G2 (68) G3 (69) G4 (51) G5 (27) Total F
Reading scores 61.42 69.57 a
68.59 a
68.88 a
73.74 a
3.47
Reading Attituded
Cognitive 3.27a 3.50 ab
3.68bc 3.64 bc 3.86 c
3.82
Conative 2.31 2.90 a
3.01 a 3.31 b 3.45 b
19.65
Negative affect 2.96 2.55 a
2.47 ab 2.35abc 2.17 bc
8.40
Anxiety 2.40 a 2.32 a
2.44 a 2.42 a 2.27 a
.40
Self-assessment 2.77 a 2.93 a
3.04 a 3.29 b 3.41 b
6.11

L2 (English) Groups (N)

G1 (176) G2 (54) G3 (29) G4 and G5 (30) Total F
Reading scores 59.39 66.74 a
68.41 a
66.83 a
3.22
Reading Attituded
Cognitive 3.13 a
3.57 b
3.30 abc 3.49 abc
4.26
Conative 2.08 2.65 a
2.62ab 2.78 ab
16.53
Negative affect 3.16 2.78 a
2.83 ab 2.55 ab
7.96
a a
Anxiety 2.73 2.85 2.68 a 2.61 a
.56
Self-assessment 2.44 2.95 a
2.93 ab 3.23 ab
9.13

p < .05. Overall N ¼ 289.
Note. dCovariates: Korean (and English) language proficiency test scores. Means that share the same letter are not
statistically different from each other.

frequent reading groups. In addition, the in-
crease in reading attitude scales was not as
dramatic or as simple as we had found for L1
reading despite the fact that L2 reading frequency
was a significant main effect for all areas of L2
reading attitude except anxiety.
DISCUSSION
Whereas previous studies have consistently
found evidence of cross-linguistic transfer from
L1 to L2 by demonstrating that L1 literacy and
oral skills are associated with L2 proficiency, L2
achievement, and L2 aptitude (Ganschow &
Sparks, 2001; Sparks et al., 2009, 2012), few
studies have investigated affective factors that may
similarly transfer from L1 to L2 and the contri-
butions of these affective factors to predicting
linguistic achievement. Designed to provide a
more nuanced conceptualization of the con-
structs of L1 and L2 reading attitudes based on
Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) tripartite approach,
our study examined several aspects of the
connection between attitude and reading for
middle school students in Korea learning English.
This examination first took up what relationships
obtained among different components of reading
attitudes, both within and across languages, and
what factors might be associated with L2 reading
attitudes. From among these factors, the two we
found to explain the most variance in reading
attitudes were language proficiency (both L1 and
L2) and frequency of reading (in L1 and L2).
Thus, a final step was to examine whether L1 and
L2 reading attitude predicted reading perfor-
mance in each language, taking language profi-
ciency into account, and to establish what
associations existed among reading frequency,
reading attitudes, and reading achievement in L1
and L2.
L1 and L2 Reading Attitudes
From two factor analyses, five components of
reading attitudes were specified for both English
and Korean reading: cognitive, conative, negative
affect, anxiety, and self-assessment attitude fac-
tors. Through multiple regression analysis, the
five constructs making up students’ attitudes
toward reading Korean were found to contribute
significantly to the corresponding components of
English reading attitudes, suggesting the possibil-
ity of cross-linguistic transfer in the affective
domain and corroborating the reports of Day and
Bamford (1998) and Yamashita (2004, 2007) that
reading attitudes developed in the native lan-
guage may shape L2 attitudes.
Despite the close associations between L1 and
L2 reading attitudes, the degree of favorability for
570
reading differed in each language. These EFL
adolescent students believed that they would gain
more cognitive benefits from reading in Korean,
more willingly engaged in L1 reading, had lower
negative affect and anxiety in L1 reading, and
evaluated their own reading ability more highly
for reading in Korean than in English. Such
results may not be surprising. Although the
students expected positive cognitive outcomes
from reading in English in terms of linguistic,
practical, and intellectual aspects, their insuffi-
cient L2 proficiency seemed connected to higher
negative affect and anxiety, lower self-assessment,
and a reluctance to read in English compared to
L1 reading. The results are also consistent with
previous studies that have found that EFL learners
felt more comfortable and less anxious when
reading in their first language and perceived
more intellectual value from L1 than L2 reading
(Yamashita, 2004, 2007).
In addition, we examined specific factors that
may have an effect on attitudes toward L2 reading
through multiple regressions. The significant
predictors of L2 reading attitudes included L2
proficiency, L2 reading frequency, access to
English books, the length of private L2 instruc-
tion, teachers’ encouragement, and gender.
Because L2 proficiency and L2 reading frequency
explained a large proportion of the variance of L2
reading attitudes, we conducted several analyses
with these factors, and these are discussed after we
discuss the other predictors.
First, we should note that access to English
books significantly contributed to cognitive atti-
tudes, negative affect (negatively), and self-
assessment in L2 reading, whereas the length of
private L2 instruction negatively predicted cona-
tive attitudes toward L2 reading. That is, when
English reading resources are available to stu-
dents, they are likely to build positive attitudes
toward L2 reading, implying that self-initiated
reading behavior may be more naturally shaped
by being exposed to sufficient reading resources
rather than by being sent to private L2 instruction
at an early age. Unlike Camiciottoli (2001) who
found a negative effect of years of previous
English study on reading attitudes among Italian
EFL university students, we included both the
years of school English education and the length
of private English lessons in the multiple regres-
sion model because the majority of the Korean
students had received private English instruction
from an early age in addition to school education.
In particular, we assumed that the Korea-specific
educational context, recently labeled as display-
ing collective neurosis of English fever (Kim, 2002)
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
that has forced young Korean students to study
English until late at night in cram schools, might
have an unintended impact on students’ attitudes
towards English reading. Our results indicated
that years of English study in formal schooling was
not a significant predictor, but length of private
English instruction was a negative contributor to
conative attitudes for English reading (perhaps
simply by way of displacing any time a student
could spend in pleasure reading). This finding
confirmed Day and Bamford’s (1998) argument
that enjoyable experiences in the second lan-
guage classroom environment, including teach-
ers, peers, learning materials, and activities, can
shape positive reading attitudes in L2, whereas
unpleasant impressions or ongoing experiences
may develop into negative attitudes.
Results of our study related to gender effects
were complex. Inconsistent with previous studies
in the first language (e.g., Logan & Johnston,
2009; McKenna et al., 1995; Swalander & Taube,
2007), girls had more negative affect (discomfort,
avoidance) toward English reading and lower self-
assessment, even though they significantly out-
performed boys in terms of English proficiency
(girls: 54.6, boys: 47.7, t(287) ¼ 3.57, p < .001)
and English reading comprehension (girls: 65.7,
boys: 59.9, t(287) ¼ 2.64, p < .01). Our results
were similar to a crosscultural study of gender
effects in beliefs about school performance by
Stetsenko et al. (2000) who reported that girls
between the ages of 8 and 13 from six countries
(Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Russia,
Switzerland, and the United States) and from
several contexts were similar in that they had a
tendency to undervalue their talent for good
performance even though their actual achieve-
ment tended to be better than boys. However, in
some contexts (e.g., Prague, and Berlin at some
data gathering times), the connection between
beliefs and performance tended to be lower than
in others (e.g., Moscow, Los Angeles, West
Berlin). Also, in some contexts (e.g., Bern), there
were no differences between boys and girls in
either beliefs or performance, pointing to the
complexity of culturally-situated gender differ-
ences in school performance.
As a final factor predicting L2 reading attitudes,
we were somewhat surprised to find that L1
reading frequency was not a significant contribu-
tor to any L2 reading attitudes. We had assumed
that L1 reading frequency might have an indirect
impact on the development of L2 reading
attitudes because L1 reading frequency seems to
be associated with L1 reading attitudes, and L1
reading attitudes contribute to the formation of
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert
L2 reading attitudes, according to Day and
Bamford (1998). In addition, Sparks et al.
(2012) reported that L1 print exposure contrib-
uted to 3 to 10% unique variance to the
prediction of L2 proficiency, including reading
comprehension, word decoding, and oral and
writing skills. Thus, we had speculated that those
students who engage in L1 reading to a higher
extent are the same students with higher L2
proficiency, who in turn have more favorable L2
reading attitudes. However, although L1 reading
frequency may contribute to some of the variance
in either L1 reading attitudes or L2 proficiency, its
power and impact were too insufficient and
indirect to account for L2 reading attitudes.
Reading Attitudes, Language Proficiency, and
Reading Achievements
Both L1 and L2 reading attitudes were signifi-
cant predictors of reading achievement in each
language although the components of attitudes
that were significant predictors were different.
Specifically, for L1 reading attitudes, it was the
cognitive component, that is, students’ percep-
tions of the linguistic, intellectual, and practical
benefits of reading, that predicted both L1 and L2
reading achievement, whereas for L2 reading
attitudes, negative affect and self-assessment were
the predictors of L1 and L2 reading achievement.
However, when language proficiency was en-
tered into the multiple regression with L1 and L2
reading attitudes as independent variables, a large
proportion of the variance in reading achieve-
ment was explained by language proficiency,
particularly for L2 reading achievement. We
also found a significant association between
language proficiency and reading attitudes in
both L1 and L2, which is inconsistent with
Yamashita’s (2007) findings that L2 proficiency
was not a significant predictor of L2 reading
attitudes except for L2 comfort. In our study,
students’ reading attitudes, except for anxiety,
were associated significantly with language profi-
ciency in both L1 and L2. The patterns across the
two languages were remarkably similar, with
higher levels of proficiency associated with higher
scores on the positive attitude factors (cognitive,
conative, and self-assessment) and with lower
scores on the negative affect factor.
Reading Attitudes, Reading Frequency, and Reading
Achievements
Although L1 reading frequency was not a signi-
ficant predictor of L2 reading attitudes, reading
571
frequency in L1 and L2 was associated with
reading achievement and reading attitudes within
each language. With regard to the associations
between reading frequency and reading achieve-
ment, those who read almost never scored
significantly lower in reading comprehension
than occasional or everyday readers in both L1
and L2. Previous studies (Stanovich, 1986, 2000)
have also indicated a causal relationship between
reading amount and reading achievement by
demonstrating that those who read more
achieved a higher level of language-related skills,
including reading comprehension. However, we
need to consider why occasional, frequent, and
everyday readers obtained similar reading com-
prehension test scores in both L1 and L2. A
possible reason for this phenomenon may be that
the total amounts of reading may be similar
between those who read once a month and those
who read every day.
As for the relation between reading frequency
and reading attitudes, an obvious pattern ob-
tained in both L1 and L2: Those who reported
more frequent reading perceived more cognitive
value in reading, more voluntarily engaged in
reading, and had lower negative affect and higher
self-assessment about their reading ability than
those who read less. Such patterns were more
noticeable in L1 reading attitudes than L2,
possibly because insufficient linguistic knowledge
and fewer automatic decoding skills in L2 reading
slow down the reading speed that connects full
involvement in reading with the development of
positive affect and willingness to read more.
IMPLICATIONS
Second/foreign language reading involves
complex abilities and constructs in two language
systems. Many attempts have been made to
examine the multidimensional nature of L2
reading, particularly focusing on L1 literacy and
L2 knowledge. However, as Bernhardt (2005)
pointed out, only half of L2 reading is explained
by linguistic knowledge, with the other half
remaining unexplained. Nonlinguistic variables,
such as L2 reading attitudes, may begin to
contribute to explaining the other half. This
study was intended to identify the connections
between L1 and L2 reading attitudes and their
relation to L2 reading achievement.
The results of this study may have implications
for L2 teachers as well as L2 learners. With its
demonstration of the connection between L2
learners’ attitudes for L1 and L2 reading,
and between reading attitudes and reading
572
achievement in each language, the findings of this
study may help L1 and L2 readers recognize the
importance of nonlinguistic variables such as
attitudes in L2 reading. Moreover, the multidi-
mensionality of reading attitude that the results
demonstrated may give teachers a basis for
understanding students’ positive or negative
attitudes. Thus, teachers who recognize what
aspects of reading attitudes are positively or
negatively related to students’ reading behaviors
and ultimately, their reading comprehension may
take different approaches in encouraging their
students to read. Finally, this study may pave the
way for future research in an area that has so far
been underexplored, that of L2 reading attitudes
including the three domains of cognition, affect,
and conation for adolescent L2 readers.
REFERENCES
Abu–Rabia, S. (2004). Teachers’ role, learners’ gender
differences, and FL anxiety among seventh-grade
students studying English as a FL. Educational
Psychology, 24, 711–721.
Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behavior. In
A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Brecker, & A. G. Greenwald
(Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 241–
274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes
and predicting social behavior. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Alexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes and
reading. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Alptekin, C., & Ercetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2
working memory in literal and inferential com-
prehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in
Reading, 33, 206–219.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in
second language reading. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 25, 133–150.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-
language reading. New York: Routledge.
Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting
relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consol-
idating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic
interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics,
16, 15–34.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the
judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
Brantmeier, C. (2005). Nonlinguistic variables in
advanced second language reading: Learners’
self-assessment and enjoyment. Foreign Language
Annals, 38, 494–504.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2001). Extensive reading in English:
Habits and attitudes of a group of Italian university
EFL students. Journal of Research in Reading, 24,
135–153.
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early
reading acquisition and its relation to reading
experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 934–945.
Day, R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the
second language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology
of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention,
and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (2001). Learning difficulties
and foreign language learning: A review of
research and instruction. Language Teaching, 34,
79–98.
Gerdes, K. E., & Stromwall, L. K. (2008). Conation: A
missing link in the strengths perspective. Social
Work, 53, 233–242.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving
from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Jimenez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996).
The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o
students who are successful English readers:
Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research
Quarterly, 31, 90–112.
Kamhi–Stein, L. D. (2003). Reading in two languages:
How attitudes toward home language and beliefs
about reading affect the behaviors of “underpre-
pared” L2 college readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37,
35–71.
Kim, Y. M. (2002). Collective neurosis of English fever.
Education Review, 9, 56–64.
Kush, J. C., Watkins, M. W., & Brookhart, S. M. (2005).
The temporal–interactive influence of reading
achievement and reading attitude. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 11, 29–44.
Lazarus, B. D., & Callahan, T. (2000). Attitudes toward
reading expressed by elementary school students
diagnosed with learning disabilities. Reading
Psychology, 21, 271–282.
Lee, J. W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative
contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1
reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test
of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713–739.
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in
reading ability and attitudes: Examining where
these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading,
32, 199–214.
Lummis, M., & Stevenson, H. W. (1990). Gender
differences in beliefs and achievement: A cross-
cultural study. Developmental Psychology, 26, 254–
263.
Martinez, R. S., Aricak, O. T., & Jewell, J. (2008).
Influence of reading attitude on reading
achievement: A test of the temporal–interaction
model. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 1010–
1022.
Juhee Lee and Diane L. Schallert
Mathewson, G. C. (1994). Model of attitude influence
upon reading and learning to read. In R. B.
Ruddel, M. R. Ruddel, & H. Singer (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.,
pp. 1131–1161). Newark, DE: International Read-
ing Association.
McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and
attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 108–
141). New York: Rinehart and Winston.
McKenna, M. C. (1994). Toward a model of reading
attitude acquisition. In E. H. Cramer & M. Castle
(Eds.), Fostering the life-long love of reading: The
affective domain in reading education (pp. 18–40).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B. G.,
& Meyer, J. P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle
school students: Results of a U.S. survey. Reading
Research Quarterly, 47, 283–306.
McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring
attitudes toward reading: A new tool for teachers.
The Reading Teacher, 46, 626–639.
McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1999). Garfield revisited:
Unlimited extension of permission to copy the
ERAS. Reading Teacher, 53, 244.
McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995).
Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national
survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934–956.
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation
of the role of anxiety: Self-efficacy, anxiety, and
their relation to reading and listening proficiency.
Foreign Language Annals, 39, 276–295.
Paimin, A. N., Hadgraft, R., & Alias, M. (2011, October).
An examination of learning strategy, interest, intention
and academic performance: Case studies of Australia
and Malaysia. Paper presented at the Research
in Engineering Education Symposium, Madrid,
Spain.
Roberts, M. S., & Wilson, J. D. (2006). Reading attitudes
and instructional methodology: How might
achievement become affected? Reading Improve-
ment, 43, 64–69.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign
language reading anxiety. Modern Language
Journal, 83, 202–218.
Sani, A. M., & Zain, Z. (2011). Relating adolescents’
second language reading attitudes, self-efficacy for
reading, and reading ability in a non-supportive
ESL setting. Reading Matrix, 11, 243–254.
Smith, M. C. (1990). A longitudinal investigation of
reading attitude development from childhood
to adulthood. Journal of Educational Research, 83,
215–219.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N.
(2009). Long-term crosslinguistic transfer of skills
from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203–243.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N.
(2012). Do L1 reading achievement and L1
print exposure contribute to the prediction
573
of L2 proficiency? Language Learning, 62, 473–
505.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading:
Some consequences of individual differences in
the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 21, 360–407.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading:
Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York:
Guilford.
Stetsenko, A., Little, T. D., Gordeeva, T., Grasshof, M., &
Oettingen, G. (2000). Gender effects in children’s
beliefs about school performance: A cross-cultural
study. Child Development, 71, 517–527.
Stokmans, M. J. W. (1999). Reading attitude and its
effect on leisure time reading. Poetics, 26, 245–261.
Swalander, L., & Taube, K. (2007). Influences of family
based prerequistes, reading attitude, and self-
regulation on reading ability. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 32, 206–230.
Swanson, B. B. (1985). Teacher judgments of first-
graders’ reading enthusiasm. Reading Research and
Instruction, 25, 41–46.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using
multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tait–McCutcheon, S. L. (2008). Self-efficacy in mathe-
matics: Affective, cognitive, and conative domains
of functioning. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar
(Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions:
Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia,
(Vol. 2, pp. 507–513). Brisbane, Australia: MERGA.
Tsai, Y. R., Ernst, C., & Talley, P. C. (2010). L1 and L2
strategy use in reading comprehension of Chinese
EFL readers. Reading Psychology, 31, 1–29.
van Schooten, E., de Glopper, K., & Stoel, R. D. (2004).
Development of attitude toward reading adoles-
cent literature and literary reading behavior.
Poetics, 32, 343–386.
Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate
through multivariate techniques (2nd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to
socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M.
Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially
shared cognition (pp. 85–100). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Wigfield, A., & Asher, S. R. (1984). Social and motivational
influences on reading. New York: Longman.
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.
Yamashita, J. (2004). Reading attitudes in L1 and L2,
and their influence on L2 extensive reading.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 16, 1–19.
Yamashita, J. (2007). The relationship of reading
attitudes between L1 and L2: An investigation of
adult EFL learners in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 41,
81–105.