Reading for Pleasure: National Curriculum and Instruction

This essay delves into the significance of reading for pleasure within the National Curriculum, investigating its role and potential for explicit instruction. It begins by defining 'reading for pleasure' and explores its various benefits, including immersive, intellectual, identity-related, and work-related enjoyment. The essay then examines different approaches to reading instruction, such as the bottom-up, top-down, and interactive models, discussing their strengths and weaknesses. It emphasizes the importance of a balanced approach that integrates phonics with engaging texts to foster a love of reading. The essay also addresses the historical debate in the educational community regarding reading instruction, analyzing the contributions of different theorists and models. The essay concludes by highlighting the importance of creating a rich literacy environment to promote reading for pleasure and its overall impact on children's cognitive and social development.

Topic: Where does Reading for Pleasure sit
within the National Curriculum and can it
be explicitly taught?

Introduction
Does the National Curriculum include reading for pleasure, and if so, where does it fit
in? Can it be formally taught? was a year-long study that examined the methods used
by Writing for Pleasure teachers to deliver writing instruction that is both highly
successful (producing higher progress than the norm) and impactful (pertaining to
positive dispositions and feelings). This study was conducted at a time when there is a
significant underachievement in writing and a rise in the apathy or distaste of writing
among young people.
I don't recollect how I initially learned to read in elementary school or who my first
teachers were, but what I do remember is the embarrassment I felt while reading my
favorite collection of Horrible Histories books or Beano Comics in the presence of
other kids who were proudly reading their latest copies of "The Famous Five" in front
of the class. Though the reading material was equally entertaining, there was a clear
distinction between the more "popular literature" that was viewed as having a
negative impact on readers like me and the more serious "children's classics." I seem
to recall that reading novel fiction was considered a frivolous waste of time, and I
frequently thought that the books I was reading did not qualify as "serious reading."
My folks had strong feelings about the text I chose and frequently pushed me to
attempt something a little "more serious." In fact, going to the library was seen as
more of an instructive excursion than an enjoyable one.
Any type of material can be read for pleasure, including novels, magazines, comic
books, and electronic texts. Reading for Pleasure shouldn't merely be reserved for
literary fiction. Furthermore, it may occur everywhere, both inside and outside of
schools, at homes, at libraries, or even in parks. According to Nell (1998), a teacher
has a duty to combat the elitist belief that popular fiction is bad for students since they
are the "gatekeepers of literacy culture." Due to this, I've decided to investigate why
it's crucial to make Reading for Pleasure the centerpiece of the National Can specific
instruction in reading for pleasure be provided? Where does reading for pleasure fit
into the National Curriculum? Word Count 4,865 3 Curriculum and the advantages
that it may provide to a child's education when specifically taught.
What does it mean to read for enjoyment?
Establishing the definition of "reading for pleasure" is crucial before going any farther
with this idea. When used interchangeably, the phrases "reading for pleasure" and
"reading for enjoyment" convey the idea that reading is a pleasurable activity. Similar
words, such as "free voluntary reading" or "independent reading," are also used in the
United States of America to emphasize the reader's choice to participate in the
activity. Reading for Pleasure is sometimes known as "recreational reading," which
emphasizes that it is a leisurely pastime. Reading for Pleasure is defined by Clark &
Rumbold (2006a, p. 6) as "reading that we do of our own free will, anticipating the
gratification that we will gain from the act of reading," which reflects the various
language used in the field. I shall define Reading for Pleasure as "independently
selecting to read in order to produce a feeling of satisfaction" for the sake of this
assignment, reflecting on the language described above.

Benefits of reading for enjoyment
The term "pleasure reading" refers to reading that is selected at the reader's discretion
or that is continued voluntarily and joyfully after being assigned. As with all other
people, our kids only engage in activities that they enjoy. You master what you
practice, and as a result, you intentionally expand your interests and abilities to other,
related fields.
According to our research, there are several ways to enjoy reading, and each one has
its own advantages.
 The act of losing oneself in a book is known as play delight or immersive
pleasure. The ability to engage and immerse oneself, imagine meanings, relate to
characters, and participate in the creation of meaning is developed via this, and it
is a necessity for enjoying all other joys.
 A reader has intellectual enjoyment when they actively consider what things
mean and how texts are written to communicate meanings and consequences.
Benefits include acquiring in-depth knowledge, initiative, resiliency, and grit.
 When a reader explores and stakes out their identity, they are able to relate to
writers, characters, other readers, and themselves. This enjoyment enhances our
ability to see the world from diverse perspectives, to understand and value those
who are different from us in terms of time, location, and experience, and to
empathize with, attention to, and assist those who are not like us.
 The reader experiences work joy when they create a tool to do a task that is
useful; this encourages the use of these tactics and insights in real life.
 Readers experience inner work joy when they vicariously play out their lives,
reflect on the kind of people they aspire to be, and explore how they may connect
with something bigger or try to be someone better. They demonstrated a
development attitude and a sense of societal and personal possibilities when our
study participants engaged in this enjoyment.
If these pleasures are considered as a whole, they help to explain why reading for
pleasure fosters social and cognitive development, as well as a certain level of
knowledge and completeness, and, in a broader sense, the democratic project.
From a theoretical standpoint, what can we infer about how children should be
taught to read from a larger body of research?
Reading instruction continues to be divisive in the educational community. In the
past, there has been a great deal of disagreement among theorists about whether
reading instruction should concentrate on letter-to-sound correspondence, examining
the knowledge of words and how they function in sentences (bottom-up approach), or
if texts should be viewed holistically, concentrating on the meaning of written words
to ensure that a text is fully understood (top-down approach).
A more "balanced" perspective of reading using the interactive model

The bottom-up and top-down reading strategies are not mutually exclusive, despite
what has been implied throughout. It may be harmful to think of them as such. The
"interactive model," also known as "the balanced perspective" of reading, is a result of
this and unites the two paradigms of reading education, putting an end to the
controversy over the "reading wars."
In contrast to the linear model of reading, which assumes that information can only
flow in one direction, the interactive model of reading recognizes the ongoing
interaction between the two types of processing and permits information from higher
levels of processing to influence the analysis at lower levels of processing. When
presented with an unfamiliar word in a book, for instance, a youngster may utilize
surface-level abilities like phonetic knowledge to decode the word, but a peer may use
a higher-level ability like semantic knowledge to determine the meaning of the same
word. There should be no conflict between the two strategies because both may be
beneficial, and the interactive model explicitly acknowledges that each person creates
connections and processes information in various ways. According to Adams (1990,
p. 422), "Phonological awareness, letter recognition ability, familiarity with spelling
patterns, spelling-sound relations, and individual words must be developed in concert
with real reading and real writing and with deliberate reflection on the forms,
functions, and meanings of texts." Children get the ability to pick up a book on their
own by integrating phonics teaching with engaging 10 material. At the same time,
they make delightful interactions with texts and grow to love reading.
Underside strategy (cognitive-psychological perspective)
The fundamental ability of associating letters, syllables, and words with sounds is
emphasized in the bottom-up method. It is believed that reading is a sequential
process in which the reader takes the letters and assembles them into sounds, and then
those sounds create words, phrases, and sentences (Gough, 1985). This form of
instruction is most frequently linked to "phonics," which calls for students to match
letters to sounds in a predetermined order. The method recommends that before
students can acquire understanding, they must first learn how to decipher words. The
behaviorist method, which contends that learning occurs via the repeated association
of a stimulus with a response, has an impact on the bottom-up approach to reading.
Therefore, teaching phonics calls for a heavy emphasis on repetition and practice
using the sounds that make up words.
According to bottom-up processing proponent Johnson (1998), phonological
knowledge and skills are "the building blocks of reading." Readers feel more
empowered as a result of learning how to decode since they now have the practical
information and abilities needed to take up a text on their own and read it for
themselves. In fact, according to Bindman et al. (1997), youngsters cannot develop
into proficient readers and consequently lack the self-assurance and drive to take up a
text on their own since they are less accessible. But the bottom-up method of reading
has drawn a lot of flak for being robotic and passive. With little attention paid to
textual understanding, reading is only treated as a word-recognition reaction to written
words on a page. This is evident in classrooms when phonics courses are frequently
taught in an uninteresting way and students are limited to short texts that connect to
certain sounds and frequently have little emphasis on understanding. In the worst-case

scenarios, kids aren't even allowed to access a whole text until the fundamental
sounds are taught, which might ruin the delight and enjoyment of reading. English is
also the least phonetic language in Europe, which is an unavoidable fact. As many
frequently used words cannot be obtained by the use of phonics, beginning readers
may feel frustration and a lack of interest. The systematic synthetic phonics (SSP)
approach is unlikely to be universally adopted due to the complexity of the English
language, and children may need to use different learning techniques in order to read
and access books for enjoyment on their own.
The top-down method, in contrast, views reading as more than just extracting
meaning from a book and instead emphasizes connecting what the reader contributes
to the text with the information that is already present. As reading requires both
language and mental interaction, Goodman (1967) refers to this method as a
"psycholinguistic guessing game." Children's prior knowledge, expectations, and
linguistic expertise influence their information intake to aid in their ability to deduce
the meaning of what they have read. This process may be summed up as "a dialogue
between the reader and the text," according to Grabe (1988, p. 56). Cognitivists who
recognized a difference between meaningful learning and rote learning had a
significant impact on the top-down approach to reading. Meaningful learning takes
place when knowledge is provided in a relevant context and is connected to what the
learner already knows, whereas rote learning only necessitates memorization of words
and rules, which results in information becoming lost. Because of this, the top-down
approach concentrates on methods that take the learner's background knowledge and
experience into account.
By encouraging students to use syntactic and semantic cues to determine the meaning
of new words, the top-down approach to reading moves away from perceiving reading
as a basic skill of decoding. Actually, according to study by Birch (2002, p. 60),
"excellent readers basically pass their eyes swiftly across the text, focusing on a few
letters or words here and there and formulating predictions based on previous
information." In a similar vein, Smith (1973) concurred that readers pay little
attention to the words' visual information and instead rely on what they already know
to infer the meaning of the text. As a result, the top-down approach to reading lays a
strong emphasis on educating children to read by using full texts for real-world
reasons and giving them access to a rich literacy and language environment. Unlike
the "batterybooks" that are utilized by many reading programs, these texts, according
to Waterland (1988), are "freerange" and meant for kids to relax and enjoy. Children
learn about vital issues like their rich cultural history and other important topics
through being exposed to a wide variety of texts, which helps them make sense of the
cues in their surroundings. Children feel more empowered as a result, as they
encounter a more meaningful and pleasant literacy experience that may encourage
them to read on their own initiative.
In spite of this, the top-down reading method mainly relies on the reader's own
concepts and background knowledge. Reading is essentially considered as a
"constructive activity" since the reader develops both the text and the meaning; as a
result, the background information the reader brings to the text is just as significant as
what is included therein. This is problematic because it gives no thought to what
might transpire if the reader lacked sufficient prior information or experience. This is
especially true for the youngest readers, who haven't had a lot of life experience or

information that may help them understand what they're reading, thus making them
lose interest in it. Further indicating that it could only be a suitable method of reading
instruction for readers with a secure level of decoding, Carrell and Coady also claim
that top-down processing requires a minimum vocabulary knowledge of 5,000 words
in order to be successful. Furthermore, Juel's (1991) research revealed that only 10%
of content-9 words are predictable, necessitating decoding. This lends more credence
to the idea that a single reading training approach might not be widely adopted.
The Situation Currently
What is the policy's language?
The argument about the most effective method of teaching reading prompted Jim
Rose to conduct an Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading (Rose,
2006). Word recognition and language comprehension are two processes that are
necessary for proficient reading, according to the "Simple View of Reading"
(Appendix A) proposed by the "Rose Review." Language Comprehension refers to
the ability to comprehend literature as a whole, whereas Word Recognition refers to
the capacity to apply phonetic principles and read words smoothly. In an effort to
address the problems raised by the "reading wars" argument, this model was not a
novel idea; rather, it was built from a strategy described by Gough and Tunmer in
1986. Word Recognition and Language Comprehension are viewed under the model
as two "separable characteristics of reading." This is particularly helpful since it
recognizes that children do not always make similar development in both "strands" of
reading. This promotes evaluation and enables instructors to identify which aspect of
reading a kid may need particular attention on.
The paper notes that while both processes are considered to be crucial, a greater
emphasis should be given on teaching phonics during the early stages of reading since
this is a "time-limited endeavor" whereas language comprehension "continues to
develop 11 throughout the lifespan." It's encouraging to see that, despite the review's
heavy emphasis on SSP-based reading instruction for young children, it also
recognized that this approach does not address all literacy needs and that there is a
fundamental need to encourage young children to develop a love of reading and books
in general. The evaluation made a compelling case for "the inclusion of a powerful
phonics program...securely entrenched within a wide and language-rich curriculum...
that fosters attention, application, and enjoyment." In addition to supporting the
"interactive model of reading" viewpoint and recognizing the benefits of both a top-
down and bottom-up approach to reading instruction, this places Reading for Pleasure
and the center of reading instruction, recognizing the necessity for kids to develop a
love and enthusiasm for reading.
The current difficulty facing instructors is how to include a rigorous phonics program
into a broad, linguistically rich reading curriculum that includes "actual books."
Along with the additional strain of adhering to a phonics program "fidelity," it is
expected that by the end of Year 1 children can decode to an age-appropriate
standard. Children who are adept decoders but are "put off" by Reading for Pleasure
may be developed through a rigorous and hurried phonics training. No matter how
proficient they are with their phonics, it is unclear why or how youngsters who are
among the millions who aren't persuaded that reading is fun or cool will want to

persist in it. This is according to Children's Laureate Michael Rosen. According to
The Rose Review (2006), "simple sentences in several well-known favorite children's
books can fulfill much the same purpose as that of decodable books." Thus, it would
be conceivable to utilize these texts in conjunction with or in instead of them.
Combining genuine books with scheme books is the key in this situation since it
preserves the chance for wider reading and helps kids fall in love with reading.
What do the National Curriculum's reading objectives entail?
The aforementioned studies, along with the opinions of subject matter experts and
comparisons of worldwide best practices, have significantly shaped and affected the
current NC (DfE, 2014) used in maintained Primary Schools in England.
The fact that the NC for Reading adopted the Rose Review's (DfES, 2006)
recommendation that reading has two dimensions—word reading and comprehension
—comes as no surprise. The fact that it recognizes that "different forms of training are
needed for each" and that students "need competency in both strands" is particularly
satisfying. This affirms the principles of the interactive model of reading. The most
heartening thing to observe, however, is that the law requires all schools to "promote
students to read widely... to improve their understanding of themselves and cultivate a
respect and love of reading." For the first time, Reading for Pleasure has a solid
foundation in the NC's objectives. In addition to emphasizing the value of
"empowerment," this statement highlights how books may help kids get a deeper
awareness of both themselves and the world they live in, which makes reading a more
fulfilling and joyful activity. In the new Ofsted Inspection Framework, where a
judgment is made on how "instruction of reading increases learners' confidence and
enjoyment in reading," the relevance of Reading for Pleasure is also emphasized,
creating a precedent that schools must proactively encourage students to Reading for
Pleasure.
While it is admirable that the framework recognizes the need of fostering Reading for
Pleasure, it does indicate that "Pupils should be taught to acquire joy in reading,"
implying that fostering Reading for Pleasure may be required. If proving that
instructors are teaching Reading for Pleasure is a legal obligation, there is a chance
that this will just be a checkbox exercise. The act of renovating the learning
environment in the classroom by instructors to publicly communicate to observers
that it prioritizes Reading for Pleasure is referred to by Cremin (2016) as "institutional
window dressing." Reading for pleasure should be child-led and focus on reading for
intrinsic motivation, rather than reading for the instrumental advantage of reaching
goals, which is undermined by the emphasis on Reading for Pleasure having a
quantifiable consequence. Children cannot be forced or forced to read for pleasure,
but we can encourage and nurture them to find delight in books and share our own
enthusiasm of what we are reading in order to create a community of engaged readers.
The National Literacy Trust's (NLT) annual survey results for 2019 revealed that just
53% of children reported enjoying reading, which is the lowest level of reading
enjoyment among youngsters since 2013. This is cause for additional concern. This
result is consistent with that of the Programme for Overseas Student Assessment,
which showed that English students had a more unfavorable attitude toward reading
than their international counterparts. This is troubling since a child's attitude about

reading is a crucial determinant of whether they opt to Reading for Pleasure.
According to the aforementioned data, students' attitudes about reading are still
declining, despite Reading for Pleasure being firmly enshrined in the NC's broad
goals. It is also debatable if schools are using the proper pedagogical strategy to
properly instill a culture of Reading for Pleasure.
The Instructional Program at School X
The Reading and Phonics Policy established at School X is described in detail in
Appendix B. The policy explicitly mentions in the justification that the school's
reading strategy is "informed by research." This is the reason the paper "outlines (a)
plan to give all children with the high-quality early reading teaching" while also
"charted with a moral obligation to encourage children to love reading and to read for
pleasure." These quotes unequivocally demonstrate how the NC's objectives, which
include integrating SSP and cultivating a love of reading, strongly influence policy at
School X.
Infancy and Key Stage One should read
Given that teaching phonics in the beginning stages of reading is a time-limited
endeavor, it is recommended by the Rose Review (DfES, 2006) that a strong
emphasis be made on this area. For the purpose of implementing SSP, School X has
chosen the Read Write Inc. (RWI) program. From the summer semester in the nursery
until the fall semester in year two, this is utilized formally. Depending on their
decoding skills, children are divided into groups and undergo daily 45-minute phonics
lessons. A cumulative increase in phonics knowledge is included in the books within
RWI, which are carefully arranged. Children are encouraged to read properly,
fluently, and with strong understanding, which is a need for any successful reader,
according to the program's mission statement.
However, the Reading Policy does acknowledge the necessity of "giving children the
abilities and nurturing the attitudes essential for them to become life-long readers."
For this reason, students at School X are given access to a broad variety of reading
materials throughout continuous provision time, daily story times, chances for book
discussions, and a rich reading environment. In addition, students are allowed to take
home two books each week, one of which closely matches their phonics sound and
the other of which they can independently select to read for pleasure, recognizing the
benefits of both types of reading.
Our goal is for students to finish the phonics program as rapidly as possible, the
policy states, which is a moving statement. The sooner they finish it, the sooner they'll
be able to pick novels they'll enjoy and understand. This clearly illustrates Johnson's
(1998) point of view, according to which SSP serves as the "building blocks of
reading," equipping kids with the practical knowledge they need to take up a book on
their own and fostering their sense of empowerment through Reading for Pleasure.
Key Stage 2 reading
Reading instruction in Key Stage 2 is given through whole-class reading. Every half-
term, each class has a distinct core text that serves as the inspiration for both reading

and writing courses. The selected texts are works of outstanding literature by prize-
winning authors. They are ambitious in their language choices and cover a wide
variety of subjects and diverse subject matter, all of which "help children's personal,
social, and emotional growth and the knowledge of the world and others." This
strategy supports the top-down perspective on reading, which contends that using full
texts might produce a more engaging and meaningful experience that can encourage
kids to read on their own initiative.
The Key Stage Two English Reading Test 16 Framework's topic areas serve as the
basis for the reading lessons' unique format, which is highly formulaic. Vocabulary,
Inference, Prediction, Explanation, Retrieval, and Summarization (VIPERS) are the
explicit skill sets that are the emphasis of each session. This is in recognition of the
significance of the explicit teaching of reading comprehension in Key Stage 2, as
recommended by the NCTE (2014). Daily sessions are held, with lessons on Monday
and Friday based on the entire class text and the days in between concentrating on
shorter excerpts related to a subject in the main text.\
Achieving the lofty but ambiguous goals outlined in the national curriculum is
challenging, as is inspiring pupils to desire to read. Teachers work to achieve these
goals, to develop pupils' moral character and self-awareness, in the hopes that this
would enrich and educate them. It is also anticipated that children would see the value
of English both inside and outside the classroom and that they will wish to read books
in English in the future. However, in practice, teachers are more concerned with
honing students' fundamental language abilities and are content when a student
merely agrees to read a book.
Conclusion
The main lesson to be learned from this project is that Reading for Pleasure may
significantly affect a child's academic progress as well as their personal growth. It is
one of the best methods for leveraging societal change, in fact (OECD, 2002).
Nevertheless, cultivating students' love of reading might be seen as discretionary by
instructors who operate in a climate of strong responsibility; it is an aim rather than a
mandate. Heavy emphasis is put on reading teaching rather than encouraging
children's enjoyment of reading since there is pressure to improve kids' reading
abilities in order to pass the end-of-Key Stage exams.
According to the research discussed above, Reading for Pleasure should not be
considered to be superior than reading instruction. Reading motivation and cognitive
skills are mutually reinforcing, therefore schools must target both at once, according
to the OECD (2002b, p. 19). Students who don't follow this rule may have the reading
abilities they need but lack the motivation to use them.
The teaching of 18 reading lessons with Reading for Pleasure is openly acknowledged
and encouraged by the curriculum at School X. This "written curriculum" is
important, but it does not necessarily correspond to what is actually taught. Priestley
(2019) makes a distinction between the "received curriculum," which refers to what
students really learn, and the "taught curriculum," which refers to what instructors
claim they teach and what they are seen to teach. Developing children's love of
reading is not yet established in the culture of School X, despite the fact that time is

set aside to encourage Reading for Pleasure there. At times, this might appear
"tokenistic." The "hidden curriculum," as described by Preistley (2019), is another
method a school's curriculum may be shown to be effective in achieving its goals and
objectives. This encompasses all non-subject-related factors, such as the physical
environment, the social environment, the unintentional teaching, and the attitude,
values, and culture that the school has cultivated.
In the future, School X must make sure that there is a strong reading culture in place
that is an integral part of the school's identity. To guarantee that a thriving atmosphere
is developed where Reading for Pleasure is actively promoted, supported, and
respected, this is not a simple undertaking and will require a full school effort. How is
reading honored in School X? is one of the main issues I need to think about and
investigate moving ahead. Do instructors have a same love of reading as they do? Do
kids get the chance to "control" what they read? Does the day include time set out for
discussing books? Does the area provide a comfortable setting for kids to read a
book? In order to create a culture and community of students who Reading for
Pleasure, School X may apply effective approaches and pedagogy, and this project
has motivated me to do study on these topics.

References
Hempel‐Jorgensen, A., Cremin, T., Harris, D., & Chamberlain, L. (2018). Pedagogy
for reading for pleasure in low socio‐economic primary schools: beyond ‘pedagogy of
poverty’?. Literacy, 52(2), 86-94.
Alexander, C., & Weekes-Bernard, D. (2017). History lessons: Inequality, diversity
and the national curriculum. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(4), 478-494.
Ashman, A. F., & Conway, R. N. (2017). Using cognitive methods in the classroom.
Routledge.
Kucirkova, N., & Cremin, T. (2020). Children reading for pleasure in the digital age:
Mapping reader engagement. Sage.
Woods, P., & Jeffrey, B. (2019). Teachable moments: The art of teaching in primary
schools. Routledge.
Lambert, K., & Penney, D. (2020). Curriculum interpretation and policy enactment in
health and physical education: Researching teacher educators as policy actors. Sport,
Education and Society, 25(4), 378-394.
Gamble, N. (2019). Exploring Children′ s Literature: Reading for Knowledge,
Understanding and Pleasure. Sage.
Farrell, T. S., & Jacobs, G. M. (2020). Essentials for successful English language
teaching. Bloomsbury Publishing.
de Jong, P. G., Pickering, J. D., Hendriks, R. A., Swinnerton, B. J., Goshtasbpour, F.,
& Reinders, M. E. (2020). Twelve tips for integrating massive open online course
content into classroom teaching. Medical Teacher, 42(4), 393-397.
Bleazby, J. (2020). Fostering moral understanding, moral inquiry & moral habits
through philosophy in schools: a Deweyian analysis of Australia’s Ethical
Understanding curriculum. Journal of curriculum studies, 52(1), 84-100.
Underwood, P. R. (2017). Challenges and change: Integrating grammar teaching with
communicative work in senior high school EFL classes. SAGE Open, 7(3),
2158244017722185.

Birketveit, A., & Rimmereide, H. E. (2017). Using authentic picture books and
illustrated books to improve L2 writing among 11-year-olds. The Language Learning
Journal, 45(1), 100-116.
Lähdemäki, J. (2019). Case study: The Finnish national curriculum 2016—A co-
created national education policy. In Sustainability, human well-being, and the future
of education (pp. 397-422). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
McLachlan, C., Fleer, M., & Edwards, S. (2018). Early childhood curriculum:
Planning, assessment and implementation. Cambridge University Press.
Carter, J. (2020). The assessment has become the curriculum: Teachers’ views on the
Phonics Screening Check in England. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3),
593-609.