An investigation into the effects of fiction reading on critical thinking
Creators: name: Hollis, Helena
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Information Literacy
subject: Arts and Humanities
subject: Library and Information Science
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology

description: General information 1. Project title: Readers’ experiences of fiction and nonfiction reading and critical thinking 2. Authors and Afﬁliations: Helena Hollis, University College London Department of Information Studies 3. Contact details: helena.hollis.14@ucl.ac.uk 4. Author’s credentials: Current position: PhD candidate. Highest obtained educational qualification: MSc. Previous experience or training: workplace experience of focus group design and facilitation. 5. Abstract and research question(s): This study aims to investigate how the different kinds of reading individuals engage in impacts their critical thinking. This will be a qualitative follow-up study seeking to elucidate findings from previous quantitative studies. In this study, reading group members will be interviewed as focus groups. Additionally, some reading group members who volunteer will be asked to keep a daily diary over a two week period making notes about their reading and how they think critically. Existing research has shown that higher levels of reading are associated with a greater knowledge base (Stanovich &amp; Cunningham, 1993). Furthermore, reading fiction has been shown to improve social skill (e.g. Mar, Oatley, Hirsh, dela Paz, &amp; Peterson, 2006). Finally, fiction reading has been found to be associated with greater ‘counterfactual thinking’, or considering alternatives and imagining how things could be otherwise than they currently are (Black, Capps, &amp; Barnes, 2017). Reading is thought to have these effects due to the way that narrative transports the reader, and how they mentally model the characters and scenes described. In our previous quantitative studies, we found that fiction readers had greater disposition towards critical thinking than nonfiction readers. Additionally, fiction readers were more evaluative about how judgements can be reached, while nonfiction readers were more absolutist. Narrative transportation was also found to play an important role, both directly and mediating the effects of reading. As reading and critical thinking are highly individual and diverse activities, we aim to follow up our quantitative studies with a qualitative approach. This will have two aspects: reading group interviews, and narrative reading diaries. This combination will allow for different perspectives to be gathered through discussion, as well as for individual experiences to be captured, reflecting the personal and social facets of reading and critical thinking. Research Questions: a. In what ways do readers consciously experience an influence of what they read on the way they think critically? b. Are there ways in which members of nonfiction and fiction reading groups have different understandings and experiences of what it means to think critically? i. Do they differ in their epistemological orientations? c. How do readers’ experiences of narrative transportation relate to the ways in which they think critically about a text? i. Does this relate to their critical thinking approaches beyond the specific text read? d. Are associations between different experiences of reading relate and ways in which readers think critically on a daily basis? e. How are experiences of reading fiction or nonfiction related to critical thinking approaches on a daily basis? 6. Project start date: 01/05/2020 a. Estimated project end date: 01/09/2020 7. Should this study be gated? No a. If yes, until when? NA b. Has this research received approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethical board? Yes c. If yes, please name date and institution of approval: UCL Ethics committee approval number15397/003, date 29/04/2020 Research design speciﬁcs 7. Please describe the data generating process of the study: Data will be generated through two stages: 1) Focus groups Reading groups and book clubs will be contacted by the researcher, and focus group discussions on reading and critical thinking will be held with them online. The researcher will collect data with participating groups twice. In the first session, the researcher will discuss reading experiences and critical thinking with the group. The researcher will also send out some questions about critical thinking for group members to think about while they read their next group text. The group will then read their selected text as per usual. In the second session, the researcher will ask the group about how they thought critically about that text, and what impacts they felt it had on their thinking process. The researcher will also ask about how reading that set text influenced group members critical thinking approaches more broadly, and whether they felt it impacted their thinking on other topics also. 2) Reading diaries Members of the reading groups will also have the opportunity to sign up to keep a 14 day diary of their reading and critical thinking experiences. This diary will be online, to be completed in an open-ended format, with questions as prompts and free text entry fields for participants to write in. Each day, participants will write about the main item they read and how they experienced their reading. They will also write about the main case of critical thinking they undertook that day, describing how they went about it. 8. Please describe the unit of analysis of the study: Individuals will be the unit of analysis, with consideration given to context (i.e. reading group membership); whole reading groups will not be analysed as a unit. 9. Is this project hypothesis-testing or hypothesis-generating (or both)? This project follows on from quantitative studies that tested hypotheses, as part of a sequential and explanatory mixed methods research paradigm (Ivankova, Creswell, &amp; Stick, 2006; Subedi, 2016). In this study, those hypotheses (and the previous findings pertaining to them) will be explored and elucidated. However, this is not a hypothesis testing nor generating study; the aim rather is to use qualitative data to elucidate a causal explanation for the prior quantitative casual description (Shadish et al., 2002). 10. Please deﬁne and describe the outcome variable or concept in your hypotheses: Critical thinking (CT) is the outcome variable of this study. It is defined as: CT entails both trait and state manifestations of how one evaluates information, incorporating logical reasoning about its consistency and possible bias, with an openness and sensitivity to points of view, an ability to imaginatively simulate other viewpoints empathetically, as well as an internal reflective sensitivity to one’s own views and reasoning processes and epistemological beliefs. It also encapsulates broader creative and imaginative capacity to engage with and model alternative possibilities, actively and effortfully aimed towards a creative outcome that could be the generation of new information, behaviour change, or shift in belief. 11. Please deﬁne and describe the independent variables or concepts in your hypotheses: Fiction and nonfiction reading, narrative transportation, and epistemological orientation are the independent variables in this study. For the purposes of this study, the terms fiction and nonfiction will be used to describe print material such as books, articles, short stories, playscripts etc., inclusive of their performance in audiobook or similar formats. Fiction works fiction works are those presented in such a way that conveys the imaginative intention for the reader to make-believe their contents. Nonfiction works are those presented in such a way that conveys the intention of capturing reality and representing it as closely as possible so that the reader is invited to believe their contents. Narrative transportation is the immersive experience of being absorbed into a text, such that awareness of the external world is diminished and what is being read dominates one’s conscious experience. Epistemological orientation (EO) is one’s attitude towards what knowledge is and how it can be formed. EO has been commonly categorised as “absolutist”, entailing a belief that statements are either true or false; “multiplist”, entailing a belief that statements reflect an entirely subjective reality; “evaluativist”, entailing a belief that statements can be judged based on some evidence and criteria (McGinnis, 2016). However, for the purposes of this study these categories will not be strictly adhered to; other forms of EO may emerge from the data. 12. Does this project involve ﬁeldwork? No a. If yes, where? 13. Does this project involve archival work? No a. If yes, where? NA b. If yes, what are the archival sources you will use? NA 14. Does this project involve interviews or focus groups? Yes a. If yes, please describe the target population: Adult readers who participate in book clubs and reading groups in the UK. b. If yes, what is the targeted sample size? Focus groups: 40 participants in total is an estimated target, with half in nonfiction reading groups, and half in fiction reading groups. Reading diaries: 20 participants, half identifying as mainly nonfiction readers and half as mainly fiction readers. 40 participants in total, split across several focus groups (with groups expected to have between 5-10 participants each), is predicted to be sufficient for saturation. However, additional groups may be added if saturation is not reached with this target sample size. Similarly, 20 participants’ diary entries for a period of 14 days ought to yield sufficient data for saturation to be reached. c. If yes, please describe the recruitment/sampling strategy? Pre-existing reading groups/book clubs will be approached with information about the study, inviting them to participate. Information will be sent in a clear study outline sheet, and the researcher’s email address will be provided for those groups who wish to take part to get in touch. The researcher will not have any other prior contact with groups, other than to invite them to participate and answer queries about participation. An equal number of fiction and nonfiction groups will be included. For the reading groups, the only characteristic of interest is whether they read fiction or nonfiction works as part of their group reading. For the reading diaries, the only characteristic of interest is whether participants identify themselves as mainly fiction or nonfiction readers. No other characteristics will be used for participant selection. d. If yes, please attach a sample questionnaire or sample guidelines: See Appendix attachments e. If yes, please attach a copy of your subjects’ informed consent form See Appendix attachments 15. Where will the data be collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace Focus groups will be conducted online using a video conferencing platform. The reading diary will be conducted online using a survey platform. 16. What will be the duration of the interviews or focus group? Each focus group session will last no longer than 45 minutes. 17. Does this project involve causal process tracing? This study will look at possible associations between reading experiences and approaches to CT. a. If yes, please describe possible outcome causal processes: Though there will be no causal processes as outcomes of this study, there may be associations between the variables of interest. For example particular experiences of transportation in reading may be associated with certain CT strategies. These will be derived from the data, and will not be pre-determined. 18. Does this project involve case studies? No a. If yes, please describe the selection process and criteria for your cases: NA 19. What will the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research Participants will be informed that the researcher is conducting this study as part of her PhD. They will also be informed that the researcher is a former librarian, and that she has previously taught critical thinking classes. The researchers’ personal interest in books and reading will also be disclosed. The researcher will explain the aim of the study is to better understand how fiction and nonfiction reading may have different influences on our critical thinking approaches. 20. What characteristics will be reported about the interviewer/facilitator? e.g. Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic The interviewer’s background as a librarian, and as a lecturer in research methods who has taught critical thinking, has shaped her assumptions about the research topic. This background will be disclosed to participants, and it will also be reported in any output from this study. Analysis 21. Please describe the analytical tools you use for this project: The theoretical framework underpinning the research approach of this study is critical realism. Thematic analysis will be used for data analysis. 22. How many data coders will code the data? One coder will code the data. 23. Will the authors provide a description of the coding tree? A description of the coding tree will be provided with any output from this study. 24. Will themes identified in advance or derived from the data? Themes will be solely derived from the data. 25. Will participants review transcripts and/or provide feedback on the findings? Participants will not review transcripts or give feedback on the findings. 26. Does this project involve computer assisted qualitative data analysis? Yes a. If yes, what software package do you use? NVivo 27. Does this project involve active citation? No a. If yes, give a speciﬁc example for how you employ active citation NA b. If yes, is this project registered with the Qualitative Data Repository? NA 28. Does this project involve sensitive data you cannot share? Yes a. If yes, please describe the nature of this data and why you cannot share it: As participants will be free to divulge sensitive information, and some of the details they describe may be used to identify them, any such information will not be included in published data. For example, a participant may describe their reading and critical thinking about a rare medical condition, which alongside the fact they are a reader and reading group member, could make them identifiable – this type of information will be omitted in published transcripts. 29. Do you use any other kind of methodology in your study? (quantitative data, experiments, etc.) a. If yes, please specify. This study follows on from quantitative studies: https://osf.io/97pmj https://osf.io/r8wmt Logistics 26. Please deﬁne stages in the research process at which you would like to update your registered design: Focus groups will be attempted using online video conferencing. However, if having a group conversation through online means proves to be ineffective (i.e. if participants struggle to participate in conversation and express themselves through this medium), the design of the research will be updated. The alternative plan should online focus groups not prove to be comfortable for participants is to conduct one-to-one online interviews utilising the same questions and topics as planned for the focus group with book club members. Alongside this, a text-based online discussion forum will be used for book club members to post their responses to each other’s views. This will allow for both individual expression, and also for some group interaction. 27. If applicable, please name the policy organizations collaborating with you on the project: NA 28. If applicable, please name the source of funding for your project: UCL Department of Information Studies 29. If applicable, please detail the research budget of your project: Each participant to complete a reading diary will be given a £30 National Book Token book voucher. As a target of 20 participants is aimed for, this amounts to £600 in total. 30. Please indicate the type and number of outputs and publications planned for this project: The primary output from this project will be a PhD thesis. Anonymous data will be shared through the UCL research data repository. Findings from the anonymous data will be published in academic outlets and presented at conferences. 31. Please provide any additional comments on the registration of your research project: NA 32. Please provide any other supporting documents: See appendixes for focus group topic guides and reading diary questions. Certification I hereby register my research project and supplementary materials. I conﬁrm that I own the rights to release these materials into the public domain Helena Hollis 29/04/2020 References Black, J. E., Capps, S. C., &amp; Barnes, J. L. (2017). Fiction, genre exposure, and moral reality. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000116 Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., &amp; Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260 Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsh, J., dela Paz, J., &amp; Peterson, J. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 694–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.002 McGinnis, D. (2016). Epistemological orientations and evidence evaluation in undergraduates. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.01.002 Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., &amp; Campbell, D. T. (Donald T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin. Stanovich, K. E., &amp; Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211–229. Subedi, D. (2016). Explanatory sequential mixed method design as the third research community of knowledge claim. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 570–577. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-4-7-10 This pre-registration document was based on the templates in: Kern, Florian &amp; Skrede Gleditsch, Kristian. (2017). Exploring Pre-registration and Pre-analysis Plans for Qualitative Inference. 10.13140/RG.2.2.14428.69769. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., &amp; Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042