‘Annoying but helpful…’: action research examining secondary students’ active reading of assigned texts

References

• Aas, M. 2014. “Towards a Reflection Repertoire: Using a Thinking Tool to Understand Tensions in an Action Research Project.” Educational Action Research 22 (3): 441–454. doi:10.1080/09650792.2013.872572.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, G. L., and K. Herr. 1999. “The New Paradigm Wars: Is There Room for Rigorous Practitioner Knowledge in Schools and Universities?” Educational Researcher 28 (5): 12–40. doi:10.3102/0013189X028005012.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, G. L., and K. Herr. 1999. “The New Paradigm Wars: Is There Room for Rigorous Practitioner Knowledge in Schools and Universities?.” Educational Researcher 28 (4): 12–40.
   Google Scholar
• Bean, T.W., and FL. Steenwyk. 1984. “The Effect of Three Forms of Summarization Instruction on Sixth graders’ Summary Writing and Comprehension.” Journal of Reading Behavior 16: 297–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biancarosa, G., and C. E. Snow. 2004. Reading Next – a Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., V. Clarke, E. Bouton, L. Davey, and C. McEvoy. 2020. “The Online Survey as a Qualitative Research Tool.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 24 (6): 641–654. doi:10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, S. 2015. “Does Personal Social Media Usage Affect Efficiency and Well-Being?” Computers in Human Behavior 46: 26–37. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brozo, W. G., G. Shiel, and K. Topping. 2007. “Engagement in Reading: Lessons Learned from Three PISA Countries.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 51 (4): 304–315. doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.4.2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, L. 1999. Critical Literacy: Teaching Reading, Writing, and OutrageCritical Literacy: Teaching Reading, Writing, and Outrage. Ed., C. Edelsky, Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English 209–225
   Google Scholar
• Cochran-Smith, M., and S.L. Lytle. 2009. Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ewert, G. 1991. “Habermas and Education: A Comprehensive Overview of the Influence of Habermas in Educational Literature.” American Educational Research Association 61 (3): 345–378. doi:10.3102/00346543061003345.
   Google Scholar
• Flick, U. 2004. “Triangulation in Qualitative Research.” In A Companion to Qualitative Research, edited by U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, and I. Steinke, 178–183, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Friend, R. 2000. “Teaching Summarization as a Content Area Reading Strategy.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 44 (4): 320–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C. 2007. “An Introduction to Strategic Reading Comprehension.” In Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies, edited by D. S. McNamara, 3–26, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 105–117, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T. 2008. “Reading Motivation and Engagement in Middle and High School: Appraisal and Intervention.” In Engaging Adolescents in Reading, edited by J. T. Guthrie, 1–16, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., S. Alao, and J. M. Rinehart. 1997. “Literacy Issues in Focus: Engagement in Reading for Young Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 40 (6): 438–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., and M. H. Davis. 2003. “Motivating Struggling Readers in Middle School Through an Engagement Model of Classroom Practice.” Reading & Writing Quarterly 19: 59–85. doi:10.1080/10573560308203.
   Google Scholar
• Hamston, J., and K. Love. 2003. “Tennage boys’ Leisure Reading Dispositions: Juggling Male Youth Culture and Family Cultural Capital.” Educational Review 55: 161–177. doi:10.1080/00131910303255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussein, J. W. 2006. “Hopes and Challenges in Using Action Research: The Outcome of Attempting to Help In-Service Teachers Learn How to Design, Evaluate and Use Reading Comprehension Questions Collaboratively.” Educational Action Research 14 (3): 377–393. doi:10.1080/09650790600847677.
   Google Scholar
• Kember, D., T. Ha, B. Lam, and A. Lee. 1997. “The Diverse Role of the Critical Friend in Supporting Educational Action Research Projects.” Educational Action Research 5 (3): 463–481. doi:10.1080/09650799700200036.
   Google Scholar
• Kemmis, D., and R. McTaggart, Eds. 1988. The Action Research Planner. New York, NY: Deakin University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kivunja, C., and A. B. Kuyini. 2017. “Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts.” International Journal of Higher Education 6 (5): 26–41. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26.
   Google Scholar
• Kojo, D. B., B. O. Agyekum, and B. Arthur. 2018. “Exploring the Effects of Social Media on the Reading Culture of Students in Tamale Technical University.” Journal of Education and Practice 9 (7): 47–56.
   Google Scholar
• Lenters, K. 2006. “Resistance, Struggle, and the Adolescent Reader.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 50 (2): 136–146. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.2.6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna, M., D. Kear, and A. Ellsworth. 1995. “Children’s Attitudes Toward Reading: A National Survey.” Reading Research Quarterly 30 (4): 934–956. doi:10.2307/748205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Y. Ozuru, R. Best, and T. O’Reilly. 2007. “The 4-Pronged Comprehension Strategy Framework.” In Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies, edited by D. S. McNamara, 465–497, New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S.B., and E.J. Tisdell. 2016. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 4th ed. Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M.B., A.M. Huberman, and J. Saldana. 2020. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4th ed. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• National Assessment for Educational Progress 2005 The Nation’s Report Card: Reading https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/ Accessed 25 July 2022
   Google Scholar
• Norris, N. 1997. “Error, Bias and Validity in Qualitative Research.” Educational Action Research 5 (1): 172–176. doi:10.1080/09650799700200020.
   Google Scholar
• Rapp, D. N., and P. van den Broek. 2005. “Dynamic Text Comprehension: An Integrative View of Reading.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 14 (5): 276–279. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00380.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves, A. R. 2004. Adolescents Talk About Reading: Exploring Resistance to and Engagement with Text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Strommen, L. T., and B. F. Mates. 2004. “Learning to Love Reading: Interviews with Older Children and Teens.” Journal of Adolescent Literacy 48 (3): 188–200. doi:10.1598/JAAL.48.3.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsafos, V. 2009. “Teacher–Student Negotiation in an Action Research Project.” Educational Action Research 17 (2): 197–211. doi:10.1080/09650790902914175.
   Google Scholar
• Twenge, J. M., G. N. Martin, and B. H. Spitzberg. 2019. “Trends in U.S. adolescents’ Media Use, 1976-2016: The Rise of Digital Media, the Decline of TV, and the (Near) Demise of Print.” Psychology of Popular Media Culture 8 (4): 329–345. doi:10.1037/ppm0000203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P. 2011. “Integrating Memory-Based and Constructionist Processes in Accounts of Reading Comprehension.” Discourse Processes 39 (2–3): 299–316. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651685.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, J. 1993. “Educational Research as a Full Participant: Challenges and Opportunities for Generating New Knowledge.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 6 (1): 3–18. doi:10.1080/0951839930060102.
   Google Scholar