J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Copy 2

Does reading make you surf more?

-Patterns and relationships between commuter’s daily reading habits
and Internet usage.

1
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Abstract

This study compares data for two groups of subjects observed as either
readers or non-readers on morning commuter Underground trains. The
study investigates the cognitive effects of differential exposure to print by
assessing the groups reading practices at home, work, and use of the
Internet. The results showed that subjects observed as readers
significantly out-perform non-readers across a range of literacy and
Internet measures. It also showed that background variables of age,
gender and social class are an indicator of reading and Internet
competence. An individual reader’s exposure to print predicts other
literacy practices and characteristics, and supports the hypothesis that
engaging in reading activities leads to the informal development of new
literacy skills.

2
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Introduction

Much has been written around the subject of gaps in access, for individuals
and communities, to information technology –widely referred to as the ‘digital
divide’. Explanations, accounting for this, have mostly been based around
four groups of factors: economic, cultural, psychological and institutional
(Neice 1998; Kvasny 1998; Schön, Sanyal and Mitchell 1998). These factors
go someway in explaining digital participation in terms of social
exclusion/inclusion or barriers and gateways to access. However, they do not
describe digital participation as a logical progression in literacy development.
In recent years there has been a shift within the area of literacy studies, where
attitudes have moved away from ‘considering literacy as an autonomous set
of acquired skills to investigating literacy as a social practice’1. Street (2001)
describes literacy as a socially situated practice, where our uses of reading
and writing define our identity and mediate our connections with our
surrounding world, leading to ‘quite new ways of understanding and defining
what counts as literacy.’2 The UK Government’s Essential Skills Strategy
(2002)3 defines literacy as ‘the skills and abilities needed by all to ensure that
they participate in society and working life’. Current demands in the domains
of work and education stress the increasing need for individuals to attain
computer literacy. The rise in home computer ownership, burgeoning
magazine titles offering help advice and consequent Internet access,
suggests that individuals are engaging in informal learning processes to
extend their literacy abilities. Barton and Hamilton (1998) describe these as
‘vernacular strategies’ used to learn new literacies.
Researchers have been interested in the effects of individual reading practice
and the development of reading abilities, which has led to the recognition that

1 Anne Kernaghan Literacy as a social practice: a case study. Learning and skills
development agency. Northern Ireland.
2 Street (2001: 18), see Bibliography/References.

3 As described in: Anne Kernaghan Literacy as a social practice: a case study. Learning and

skills development agency. Northern Ireland.

3
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

reading practice is rooted in social participation and that social role has an
influence on adults reading interests and habits (Gray & Rogers, 1956). The
work of cognitive psychologists, interested in the socio-cultural perspectives of
learning and cognition, proposes that all individual cognitive abilities

originate as internalizations of social interactions in surrounding social

environments (Leontiev 1975, and Vygotsky 1978). This has led to the belief
that literacy activities lead to intellectual benefits, as Smith (1994) states:

Those who have opportunities to read (i.e., through availability of printed

materials, appropriate literacy models and instruction) can develop and refine
their skills; well-developed skills, in turn, enable the reader to accomplish
reading tasks of increasing complexity.

Despite general belief in the positive relationship between reading activities

and the informal development of cognitive skills, only limited research has
been conducted in to this area, and with mixed results (Hayes, 1988;
Stanovich & Cunningham). West, Stanovich & Mitchell (1993) conducted
research into an exposure hypothesis and found evidence to support their
view that widespread ‘exposure to print’ (that being the quantity of an
individual’s daily reading activities) leads to cognitive gains. Further research,
based on this exposure to print paradigm, by Smith, Elliot & Hutchinson
(1994) was ‘unable to distinguish high exposure and low exposure adult
readers on cognitive outcomes presumed to be related to how extensively
people read’.
This study follows the same exposure hypothesis to investigate the
relationship between an individual’s daily reading practice and use of the
Internet. For the purpose of this study Internet use is chosen as a proxy to
describe the intermediation processes associated with the wider class of
digital technologies (Neice 1998) and also because it is predominantly a text-
based media which shares much with reading in terms of the richness of its
information content. Although assessing the informal development of new

4
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

literacy skills is beyond the scope of this paper, it is possible to reveal

correspondences between the literacy practices of reading (newspapers,
books, magazines, personal documents...etc) and use of the Internet for
individuals, across age, gender and socio-economic groups.
Given the mixed results from previous ‘exposure’ research and lack of studies
that directly compare reading and Internet usage in this way, it was not
entirely clear what patterns would emerge from the data. However, the
research by West, Stanovich and Mitchell (1993) suggests ‘a role for reading
experience in a comprehensive theory of cognitive growth’, while Smith (1994)
states that such exposure hypothesis studies ‘suggest that exposure to texts
provides practice at literate activities…and promotes skill in those activities’.
Conclusions of research relating to the effects of information technology and
television on reading are similarly mixed: the Programme for International
Student Assessment’s (PISA) results for Canadian students showed a
positive association between reading scores and the frequency of computer
use and home computer access; and Robinson et al (2000) found that despite
Internet usage time tripling from 1995-1999, the amount of time users devote
to other media (Newspaper reading and Television watching) has not been
significantly impacted on. However, Neuman & Celano, (2004) observed
student activities, on computers, and found that instead of using computers as
a tool to strengthen reading skills, they used them in non-academic ways.
Gadberry (1980) found that reducing the amount of television children
watched by half improved Performance IQ and increased reading time.
Despite these latter negative research results, Hayes & Ahrens (1988) note
that the Internet does not exhibit the lack of depth with which television and
radio are associated.

The design of the questionnaire was influenced by the methodological

approaches of two pieces of research:
o The US National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS)4 as described by Smith,

4 Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins & Kolstad, 1993, referenced in Smith M C (1994),

5
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

1994)5. A document-type classification from this study was used to

gather data for individual’s self-reported levels of reading activities in
two social contexts of home and work.
o Stanovich & West’s (1989) detection logic Recognition Tests, as a
checking device against the tendency for individuals to give socially
desirable responses in self-reported data.

The study was conducted in London Underground morning commuter trains,

for the same reasons West, Stanovich & Mitchell (1993) selected passenger-
waiting lounge at an airport as a setting because:

Reading occurs via the free choice of the subject. Experimenters do not
intrude upon the process…[and]…the setting…directly addresses

concerns about ecological validity.

For the purpose of this study, subjects observed in a setting where they are
free to make a choice to read or not, are classified as readers or non-readers
and this distinction is used as a means of comparison, in addition to the
variables of social class and gender, when considering patterns between
reading activities and Internet use.

Methodology

Procedure
The study took place on London Underground trains, during commuters’
morning travel to work and was conducted by the author of this research
paper. Subjects were selected as solitary travellers not engaged in
conversation. Before being approached, potential informants were observed

5Smith M C (1994) What Do Adults Read and Wny Does It Matter? Northern Illinois
University. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research
Association, Chicago, October 1994.
http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~smith/Unpubs/mwera94_2.pdf

6
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

and classified as either readers or non-readers. A reader was defined as

someone engaged in a literacy practice involving reading, a non-reader
defined as not engaging in any reading activity. For readers, a note was taken
of the reading activity that they were engaged in, from the following
classifications: newspaper, fiction, non-fiction, personal papers, religious,
maps, adverts, crosswords, diary, notes, official forms, personal digital
assistants, mobile phones. The gender of the observed reader/non-reader
was also recorded at this stage. Once this initial data had been recorded, the
observed individuals were approached and invited to complete a
questionnaire with the purpose of eliciting certain information about their
reading and Internet practices (Moser and Kalton 1971:271), having first been
described the purpose of the study.

Study environment
As noted, the study environment addresses concerns about ecological
validity, but also offers the opportunity to provide a representative sample of
socio-economic classes (Sankoff 1980c:52). Data is collected on two morning
commuter journeys6 in order to incorporate social classifications, using the
National Readership Survey (NRS) classification of social grades7. It is
assumed that commuters travelling into the financial centre of London will
provide data for: A –upper middle class, high managerial, administrative or
professional; B –middle class, intermediate managerial, administrative or
professional; and C1 –lower middle class, supervisory or clerical and junior
managerial, administrative or professional. Correspondingly, commuters
travelling out and away from the financial centre will provide data for the social
grades: C2 –skilled working class, skilled manual workers; D –working class,
semi and unskilled workers; and E –casual or lowest grade workers. Since
this is a small study the target sample size is six respondents for each social
6 The first journey for observation and questionnaire conducted on a Northern Line train,
between Clapham South and Bank stations. Second journey on the District Line between Bank
and Barking
7 A full list of National Readership Survey definitions of social grades can be found in

Appendix 2.

7
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

grade (Milroy 1987).

Preliminary investigation noted that there would be serious structural

limitations to gathering data. To avoid crowded train conditions the data would
have to be collected before 8am, since after this time peak periods of travel
would have prevented the researcher from free movement within the carriage.
At the best of times, the presence of a researcher attempting to conduct a
questionnaire, in the characteristic silence that commuters exercise on
London Underground trains, pointed to the possibility of a high rate of refusals
to participate from potential informants. Early pilot observations of literacy
activities on board trains, while developing the questionnaire and
methodology, revealed that the researcher’s note taking and observation of
commuters aroused the interest and suspicion of passengers close by. To
counteract any negative suspicion over the researcher’s activities and
minimise any potential problems, e.g., an observed subject’s perceived threat
of being approached by a stranger on the train; the researcher was clearly
labelled, wearing a badge stating: Researcher.
The length of journey time on each selected route presented another potential
problem. The average journey time into the financial district from the start
point of the observation is 17 minutes8, the second journey away from the
financial centre averaged 26 minutes9. Possible interruptions from embarking
and disembarking passengers, at the frequent station stops, and the
possibility that an informant’s journey might be shorter than the time taken to
conduct the observation and questionnaire were carefully considered.
Consequent piloting and adjusting of the questionnaire’s design and content
ensured that it could be completed with the minimum of inconvenience by the
researcher by circling or marking the informant’s preferred answer. The
format, of researcher completing the questionnaire, limits the inconvenience
factor for the interviewee, which, as noted, is expected to be an issue

8 9Average journey times quoted by Transport for London. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/

9

8
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

affecting data collection. It also enables the most effective use of time and
lessens the possibility of irrelevant data. Average completion time for the
questionnaire is within three minutes.

9
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Tasks
The questionnaire10 presents a two-tiered approach. In the first section, self-
reported data on reading practices and Internet usage is collected, from the
observed reader or non-reader. The questions on reading practices were
based upon the same method used in the NALS survey11 and relate to five
print categories: newspapers, magazines, books, personal documents
(referred to in this study as literacy practices at home) and work-related
documents. The questions on Internet use were constructed to appear similar
in style to the reading practices questions. Data is recorded on how often the
subject engages in the different types of reading activities and Internet use, to
produce scores for literacy practices at home (LH), literacy practices at work
(LW) and Internet practices (ICT).
The second section utilises the Recognition Test measures (West, Stanovich
& Mitchell, 1993) and acts as a check against the self-reported data. The tests
developed for this study: Literacy Recognition Test (LRT) and Information and
Computer Technology Recognition Test (ICTRT); use detection logic where
target items (real author names and real Internet related terms) are
embedded among foils (names that are not authors or Internet related terms).
The subject reads the list and selects those names known to be authors or
Internet terms. According to West, Stanovich & Mitchell (1993) there are a
number of advantages to this method:

First the signal detection logic makes the method immune to the social
desirability effects that major contaminants of self-estimates of socially valued
activities such as reading. Guessing is not an advantageous strategy
because it is easily detected and corrected for by examination of the foils
checked.

The recognition tests act as a validity check for the self-reported activity
assertions of the Literacy Home/Work and ICT scores.

10 A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix 2.

11 NALS survey as described in Smith (1994). See Bibliography/References.

10
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

11
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Self-reported measure of reading activities and Internet use

In the first question, subjects are asked to indicate how often they read a
newspaper using the following scale: everyday, few times a week, once a
week, less than once a week, or never. They were also asked to indicate up
to eight sections of the newspaper that they generally read: news, editorials.
Sport, arts/reviews, TV/radio, classified (advertisements), Travel, and
Advice/horoscopes. The second question, asks for the number of magazines
read during the course of a month, on the scale: 0, 1, 2, 3-5, 6 or more. The
third question gathers data for eight categories of books that the subject has
read during the last month: fiction, current affairs, religious/spiritual, history,
reference, manuals, science, and recreation/hobby. Subjects were then asked
(Question 4.) to indicate how often they read a series of different document
types, at home (personal use) and work, using the same frequency scale as
the first question: everyday, few times a week, once a week, less than once a
week, or never. There are six document types: Letters/memos,
journals/magazine articles, manuals or reference, instructions documents,
diagrams/schematics, and bills/invoices.
The next three questions (5, 6 and 7) are concerned with collecting data for
Internet usage. Question 5 asks the frequency of use: everyday, few times a
week, once a week, less than once a week, or never; and in which locations:
home, work, café, or other. Question 6 requests data for the number of hours
per day: less than 1, 1, 2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-10. Question 7 gathers data on which
functions and services the user is engaged: email, search engines, FTP (file
transfer protocol), shopping, web-browsing, news, blogging, e-books, games,
chat, work intranet access, and other.

Recognition Test measures

The last two questions (7 and 8) present the subject with two recognition
tests:
The Literature Recognition Test (LRT). This test comprises of 14 names, 9
authors and 5 foils (these items are listed in Table 8 and 9 in Appendix 1

12
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

together with their recognition percentage). In constructing the target list,

names were selected that were considered to be ‘best selling’ authors in a
variety of different fiction genres (e.g. science fiction, travel, romance, fantasy,
crime, etc…). Attention was also taken to include authors that had an
established body of work, over a number of years, to avoid the list being
skewed to a particular age group. The 5 foils were taken from the members of
staff connected to the School of Education at the University of East London.
The 14 names were listed in alphabetical order with the following instructions:
Below you will see an alphabetical list of 12 names. Some of the people in the
list are popular writers and some are not. Read the names and place a mark
next to those you know to be writers.12
The Information and Computer Technology Recognition Test (ICTRT). This
test comprised of 15 names, 10 named terms or acronyms connected with
using the Internet and 5 foils (these items are listed in Table 10 and 11 in
Appendix 1, together with their recognition percentage). In constructing the
target list, names selected were intended to be recognisable to low level
users (e.g. spam, firewall, cookie) as well as higher level users (e.g. Java, Wi-
Fi, phishing). The 5 foil names were taken from other technology areas. The
15 names were listed in alphabetical order with the following instructions:
Below you will see an alphabetical list of 12 names. Some of the people in the
list are popular writers and some are not. Read the names and place a mark
next to those you know to be writers.

The final information gathered related to the subject’s job (to determine their
NRS social grade); age group, using the following categories: 18-25, 26-35,
36-45, 56-65, >6513; and highest academic qualification to date14.

12 The questionnaire wrongly listed the instrument as comprising12 items, there were in fact
14 in the list.
13 The categories as used in West, Stanovich & Mitchell 1993.

14 The list comprised of: GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education –end of

compulsory education exam for 16 year olds); ‘A’ levels (Advanced Level, a General
Certificate of Education usually taken during Further Education and after GCSEs); Vocational
qualifications (situated in the work place); Diploma; Degree; Masters; and Doctorate.

13
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Scoring
Questions that used the frequency of use answers: everyday, few times a
week, once a week, less than once a week, or never; were scored 5, 4, 3, 2,
1, 0, respectively. For Question 4, the sum of the scores for Home was
divided by 6, being the number of document types, to produce a mean score
for reading literacy practices at home (LH), and similarly for the Work reading
literacy practices (LW). Using this method the mean scores would be in the
range of 0 to 5, where 0 represents no reading activity for all document types,
and 5 represents an everyday reading frequency in all document types.
A mean score was calculated for the sum of Question 5 (scored using the
same method as Question 4) and Question 6. (scored:1 -less than one hour;
2 -one hour; 3 -two hours; 4 –three to five hours; 5 –six or more hours). The
subsequent mean was the measure of Internet use (ICT) and is in the range
0-5, where 0 represents no Internet use, and 5 represents the highest level of
use measurable in the study-everyday for over 6 hours.
The scores are calculated, for the Recognition Test tasks (LRT and ICTRT),
by taking the sum of the selected target items and subtracting the sum of the
selected foils.

The data is categorised into five variables of: Literacy Home (LH) –the sum of
the scores collected for exposure to the different document types read in the
home (Question 4); Literacy Work (LW) –the sum of the scores collected for
exposure to the different document types read at work (Question 4); Internet
use (ICT) –the mean of the values collected for Questions 5 and 6; Literacy
Recognition Test (LRT) –the score for Question 8; and Internet Recognition
Test (ICTRT) –the score for Question 9. The results are variously analysed, to
test the direction and strength of the relationship between the variables
(Spearman's Rank Correlation), and assess whether the means of any two
particular variables are statistically different from each other (t-tests). Further
comparisons on the basis of background variables (age, gender, social class)
are also considered.

14
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Findings

There were a total of n=83 subjects observed, of which n=41 were willing to
participate in the survey and this represented a non-participation rate of just
over 50% (proximity to a disembarkation station was the most commonly cited
reason for non-participation). Of these, n=22 were readers (53%) and n=19
non-readers15 (47%). Table 1, below, shows the distribution of age and
educational levels for the readers and non-readers. The largest sample for
both readers and non-readers was from the 36-45 years old group, with non-
reader data almost exclusively concentrated in the age range 26-45 years.
Data collected for education levels was aggregated into three categories;
school; post school/vocational; and tertiary-degree or higher. The reader
group were marginally older (38.4 compared to 35.9 years 16) and had a
significantly higher level of education than the non-reader group (2.41
compared to 1.88)17. The highest scores for the variables: LH, LW, and LRT
were displayed by the 46-55 year old age group, with a trend across the
results showing that the older the age group the higher the scores across
these variables (see Table 7 in Appendix 1). ICT scores were broadly similar
across the age range groups. The difference in the mean of the scores for
literacy exposure measures (LH, LW and LRT) and ICTRT is proportionate
across the age range groups, with the exception of 56-65 years group18: 18-
25 Lm=2.86, ICTRT m=3.8 (difference=0.94); 26-35 Lm=3.40, ICTRT m=4.3
(difference=0.90); 36-45 Lm=4.0, ICTRT m=5.2 (difference=1.2); 46-55
Lm=4.26, ICTRT m=5.6 (difference 0.94); 56-65 Lm=3.86, ICTRT m=4.0
(difference 0.14).

15 For the purpose of this study non-reader is classified as not observed reading.
16 This figure is calculated by: selecting the mid-age of each age range category as the age of
the individual and dividing by the sample size for reader (n=22) and non-reader (n=19).
17 Education is scored: 1 for school qualification, 2 for vocation/diploma, and 3 for degree.

Figures quoted are means.

18 Lm being the mean of the LH, LW and LRT scores listed in Table 7, in Appendix 1.

15
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Table 1 Age and Education distribution

Variable Readers Non-readers

Age
18-25 3 1
26-35 4 8
36-45 9 8
46-55 5 1
56-65 1 1
>65
Education (level attained)
School qualification 6 6
Vocational/diploma 1 8
Degree 14 4

The data collected did not meet the intended target sample size of six
informants for each grade. The total sample (n=41) was classified as NRS
social grades: A-upper middle class (n=3); B-middle class (n=11), C1 -lower
middle class (n=16), C2 –skilled working class (n=7), D –working class (n=2),
and E –casual/lowest grade workers (n=2). A greater number of samples
(n=30) were gathered on the train journey (J1), into the financial centre, with a
social grade split comprising of: A (n=3), B (n=11), C1 (n=13), and C2 (n=3).
The samples were n=11 for the train journey (J2), out of the financial centre,
with a social grade split of: C1 (n=3), C2 (n=4), D (n=2), and E (n=2).

Analysis of the data from the survey concentrated on the five variables:
Literacy Home (LH); Literacy Work (LW); Internet use (ICT); Literacy
Recognition Test (LRT); and Internet Recognition Test (ICTRT). Results were
tabulated for each informant (see Appendix 1 for individual scores for the five
variables and gender and social grade breakdown) and then the results were
compared at field, social class, gender and reader/non-reader levels, using
Spearman Rank Correlation.

Field level correlations revealed that there was a moderately strong

correlation between LH and LW (r=0.621), which shows some correlation

16
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

between the home and work literacy scores. The LRT measure did not
strongly correlate with either the home or work literacy scores, but is more
strongly correlated to home than work scores: LH-LRT (r=0.522) moderate
correlation; and LW–LRT (r=0.394) moderately weak correlation. This is not
unexpected as the LRT measure relates to fiction authors and this genre is
more likely to be encountered in literacy activities taking place in a non-work
setting. A derived variable LH+LW correlates moderately with LRT, relatively
reducing the strength of LH-LRT and supplementing the weakness of LW-
LRT.
The ICTRT measure is not highly correlated with the ICT score (r=0.495,
moderate correlation). There is a moderate correlation for LH-ICT (r=0.459);
weak correlation for LW-ICT (r=0.174); and a moderately weak correlation for
the derived variable LH+LW (r=0.315). The ICT score correlates more
strongly with LH than LW.

The data collected did not meet the intended target sample size of six
informants for each social grade, so the As and Bs were merged (AB n=14)
and C1s and C2s conflated (C, n=28) to create two social groups for
comparison. The means of the AB and C groups were submitted to a series of
two-sample t-tests. There was no significant difference for LH, for either of the
social grades AB and C. However, the results for LW, AB-C were t=3.266,
p=0.0025 [<0.01], 34 df. Relevant means: AB 3.329 (sd 0.350); C 2.826 (sd
0.586). A comparison within the AB group of the means of LH and LW
showed: t=3.401, p=0.0047 [<0.01], 13 df. Relevant means: LH 2.850 (sd
0.407); LW 3.329 (sd 0.350). There was no significant difference for LRT AB
to C, ICT AB to C, and ICTRT AB to C.
Looking at the correlations for the variables of each of the social groups
produced the results set out in Table 2, below.

17
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Table 2 Correlations within conflated social groups: AB; and C

Variables AB C
r= correlation r= correlation
LH - LW 0.072 weak 0.739 moderately strong

LH – LRT -0.052 negative 0.593 moderate

LW - LRT 0.424 moderate 0.229 moderately weak

LH+LW - LRT 0.139 weak 0.359 moderately weak

ICT - ICTRT 0.527 moderate 0.596 moderately strong

LH - ICT 0.532 moderate 0.487 moderate

LW – ICT -0.027 negative 0.304 moderately weak

LH+LW - ICT 0.363 moderately weak 0.400 moderate

Males accounted for 65% (n=27) and females 35% (n=14) of the survey.
Among the male group the split between readers and non-readers was 56%
(n=15) to 44% (n=12), respectively. Among the female group the split
between readers and non-readers was equal at 50% (n=7, and n=7,
respectively). Table 3, below, lists the observed reading activities by category
and gender split.

There is a strong correlation for both males and females concerning home
and work literacy: LH-LW male r=0.618; LH-LW female r=0.629 (overall
r=0.621). The literacy activities results displayed noticeably stronger
correlations for males compare with females: LH-LRT: male r=0.556, female
r=0.264; LW-LRT: male r=0.611, female r= -0.079; LH+LW-LRT: male
r=0.593, female r=0.042. Correlation between LW and ICT was noticeably
weaker for males compared to females: LW-ICT male r=0.141, female
r=0.376. The percentage recognition figures for target items and foils in the
LRT and ICTRT measures reveal that females recorded a higher percentage
of foils than males (Tables 8 and 10, respectively in Appendix 1). There is a
significant difference between the mean scores of the male and female
groups in the LRT: male m=11.5 compared with m=6.64 for female. Similarly,
in the ICTRT measure mean scores; male m=9.87 compared with female

18
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

m=5.13.

Table 3 Percentage split for male, female and group reading choices.
Reading category Male % Female % Group %
Newspaper 60 - 45
Fiction 13.5 85 36
Non-fiction 6.7 14.5 9
Crosswords 6.7 - 4.5
Adverts 6.7 - 4.5
PDA19 6.7 - 4.5

The mean scores for readers and non-readers for all the variables are set out
in Table 4, below. Group means for LH, LW and LRT are all clearly superior.
The two-sample t-test for these variables show that LH and LRT for the
reader group are significantly higher than the means for the non-reader group
(LH t=3.634, p=0.0009, 35 df; LRT t=4.618, p=0.0001, 34 df) while LW is
approaching significant difference (LW t=2.050, p=0.0502 (ns), 27 df). There
is a similar if more modest, difference between the reader and non-reader
groups for the two-sample t-tests of the ICT and ICTRT variables: ICT
t=3.481, p=0.0014, 33 df; ICTRT t=3.563, p=0.0010, 38 df. The percentage
recognition figures for target items and foils in the LRT and ICTRT measures
reveal that readers have means scores approximately twice the size of non-
readers (LRT males m=11.5, females m=6.6; ICTRT males m=10.2, females
m=5.2), with the two-sample t-tests for these variables: LRT t=4.89,
p=0.00027, 13 df; ICTRT t=4.8, 0.00028, 14 df. In the LRT measure no foils
were recorded for non-readers, while the number recorded for each group in
the ICTRT was similar at Readers n=11, Non-readers n=10.

19 Personal Digital Assistant.

19
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Table 4 Summary report for variables in Reader and Non-reader groups

Variable Readers Non-readers t value
LH 2.94 (sd 0.47) 2.38 (sd 0.54) 3.64 p=0.0009, 35df
LW 3.08 (sd 0.60) 2.53 (sd 1.04) 2.050 p=0.0502, 27df
ICT 3.95 (sd 0.62) 3.16 (sd 0.82) 4.618 p=0.0001, 34df
LRT 7.32 (sd 1.76) 4.42 (sd 2.19) 3.481 p=0.0014, 33df
ICTRT 6.23 (sd 2.94) 3.05 (sd 2.76) 3.563 p=0.0010, 38df

Interpretation

The data collected for readers and non-readers shows that there are sufficient
correlates between variables to suggest that readers, encountered on
commuter trains, will have attained a higher level of education, read more at
home, achieve a higher LRT score and have a higher Internet use than non-
readers. The findings show that differential exposure to print is an indicator for
the levels, and characteristics, of other literacy practices; and supports the
hypothesis that engaging in literacy activities leads to the informal
development of new literacy skills (West, Stanovich & Mitchell, 1993; Smith
MC, 1994).
The data for the social groups revealed that AB s read more at work than C s
(LH AB to C t-test). Conversely, C s read more at home than AB s. The
results of the within group comparison of AB s show that they read less at
home than they do at work. The AB category covers higher and intermediate
managerial, professional, and administrative professions where a large
volume of reading activities in the work place may be assumed as normal.
This higher volume of reading at work probably reduces AB enthusiasm to
partake in reading activities at home. The inference from the data is that the
more an individual reads at work the less likely they are to read at home.
The correlations across gender showed similarly strong results concerning
correlations between home and work literacy. Males were observed reading a

20
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

broader spread of document types than females. However, differing scores for
the LRT show a gender skew which favours males. A tentative inference
points to a gender skew in the LRT instrument. This suggests the need for
greater piloting in the development of Recognition Test measures, devised for
this study, so that the instrument works equally well for females as males. At
field level the LRT measure is not informative and is more strongly correlated
with home than work literacy scores. The LRT features popular fiction author
names and is more useful as a broad definition of literacy, such as LH.
Consequently, the weak correlation with LW points to the need for the
development of a Recognition Test instrument to support the more narrow
definition of literacy presented by LW. Although the ICTRT measure did not
suffer from the same flaws, it should also be subjected to more rigorous
piloting prior to use in further studies.
Reading activities are correlated with age and education. There was a
significant relationship between age and literacy activities and Internet usage
scores. Despite the relative similarity in LH, LW, and ICT scores across the
age groups, the performance on the LRT and ICTRT was higher among older
ages, with 46-55 year old scoring highest and the scores dropping down
again for the 56-65 year old group. This inverted-U shaped relationship is
similarly documented in the results of West, Stanovich & Mitchell (1993),
where the 40-50 year old group achieved the highest print exposure scores.
The tentative explanation is that this is driven by the greater levels of print
exposure naturally encountered during the course of a longer life. Overall the
results suggest that age is a good predictor for scores across the five
variables. Similarly, print exposure is an indicator of education level, with
readers three times more likely to have a higher education qualification than
non-readers.
The sample is not homogenous. Selecting informants on a commuter train
does not produce a representative spread of data for all background
variables, although this is not entirely unexpected since informants were
selected on the basis of being observed as readers or non-readers. Male

21
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

reading practices accounted for two-thirds of the data collected and there is
an unrepresentative spread of data for all the social grades. Random
selection is not a reliable method for achieving the target sample of social
classes at this survey size and this lack of target spread led to analysis being
limited to the conflated groups of AB and C. However, the social class of
subjects encountered, on the two selected journeys, did conform to the
expected social spread outlined in the methodology, with Journey 1 returning
a majority of results for social grades A, B, and C1, while the data for Journey
2 was predominantly for grades C2, D and E. Journey 1 was expected to
present a greater opportunity to collect samples, since the number of
passengers travelling into the city centre was greater than those travelling out,
but the reduced numbers of potential informants on Journey 2 did represent
an obstacle to gathering sufficient data, especially when coupled with a 50%
non-participation rate. Despite the survey’s primary interest in reader and
non-reader data, any future survey for this setting should consider a longer
sampling period to ensure a homogenous sample for gender, social grades
and age group variables, since the limited analysis, in this study, of these
variables highlighted some interesting differences –most notably with AB work
and home reading activities. The questionnaire contained a number of
questions for which data was collected but not used in the analysis (Questions
1, 2, 3 and 7), given the time constraints of the observation setting, for the
administration of the Questionnaire, these could have been omitted without
prejudicing the results of the survey as a whole.

Being a reader suggests an individual is more likely to engage in other literacy

practices, such as Internet use, at a similarly proportionate level. Conversely,
non-readers are non-regular users of the Internet and achieve low scores on
the ICTRT. This points to the reciprocal nature between practice and skills, a
virtuous circle, where the more an individual reads the greater their
accomplishments and proficiency in complex reading tasks, termed “Matthew

22
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

effects” by Stanovich (1986) where the ‘rich get richer and poor get poorer’. 20
This study shows that subjects observed as readers significantly out-perform
non-readers across a range of literacy and Internet measures, and that
reading tends to support the notion of a development of cognitive skills.

References

ANGRIST J LAVY V (2001) New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil

Learning. IZA Discussion Paper No. 362 September 2001.
ftp://ftp.iza.org/dps/dp362.pdf
BARTON D & HAMILTON M (1998) Local Literacies: Reading and writing in one
community. London: Routledge.
BELL J (1999) Doing Your Research Project. Maidenhead. Open University
CUNNINGHAM A E AND STANOVICH K E (1998) What Reading Does for The Mind.
American Educator/American Federation Of Teachers, Spring/Summer 1998.
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring_sum98/index.html
GADBERRY, S. (1980). Effects of restricting first graders’ TV-viewing on leisure time
use, IQ change, and cognitive style. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1,
45–57.
GRADDOL, D., MAYBIN, J. AND STIERER, B. (eds.) 1994 Researching language and
literacy in context, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
HAYES & AHRENS (1988) Vocabulary simplification for children: A special case of
‘motherese’? Journal of Child Language, 15.
KERNAGHAN A Literacy as a social practice: a case study. Learning and Skills
Development Agency. Northern Ireland.
http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/lsda/NI/EssentialSkills/Literacy_as_a_social_practice.pdf
MAYBIN, J. (ed.) (1994) Language and literacy in social practice: a reader. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters with the Open University.
MILROY L (1987) Observing & Analysing Natural Language. Oxford. Blackwell.
MOSER, C.A. AND KALTON, K. (1971) Survey Methods in Social Investigation.
Aldershot, Hants: Gower
NEICE, D.C. (1998), Measures of Participation in the Digital Techno-structure; Internet

20 From West, Stanovich & Mitchell (1993)

23
J M R Quartley 022642 ED3000

Access, ACTS/FAIR Working Paper No.44, Brighton:SPRU, March.

SANKOFF G (1980c) A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative
competence. In Sankoff G (1980a) The social life of language. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. p47-79.
SAVILLE-TROIKE M (1982) The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford. Blackwell.
SCHON D A, SANYAL B AND MITCHELL W J (1998) High Technology and Low-
Income Communities (Prospects for the Positive Use of Advanced Information
Technology). Cambridge MA : MIT Press.
SMITH M C (1994) What Do Adults Read and Why Does It Matter? Northern Illinois
University. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational
Research Association, Chicago, October 1994.
http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~smith/Unpubs/mwera94_1.pdf
SMITH M C, ELLIOT K S AND HUTCHINSON K M (1994) Do Everyday Reading
Activities Promote Adults’ Cognitive Development. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, October 1994.
http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~smith/Unpubs/mwera94_2.pdf
STREET B (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development,
ethnography, and education. London: Longman.
SUBRAHMANYAM K et al (2001) The impact of computer use on children's and
adolescents' development. Applied Developmental Psychology Vol 22 7±30
http://www.cdmc.ucla.edu/impactcomputer.pdf
TROCHIM W (2002) Research Methods Knowledge Base.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/survtype.htm
WEST R F, STANOVICH K E AND MITCHELL H R (1993) Reading in the real world
and its correlates. Reading Research Quarterly, January/February/March 1993
International Reading Association.

24