Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Impact of Self-Directed Learning with Interactive Notebooks on Students’ Experiences in a Chemical Thermodynamics Exercise
Previous Article in Journal
Students’ Perspectives on Social Sustainability: Developing an Integrated Higher Education Framework
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/educsci15101333
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Do Future Educators Read and How Do Certain Factors Influence Their Reading Habits: Evidence from Slovenia

by
Mojca Kovač Šebart
1,
Jasna Mažgon
1,* and
Miha Kovač
2
1
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Department of Library and Information Science and Book Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(10), 1333; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101333
Submission received: 5 September 2025 / Revised: 17 September 2025 / Accepted: 29 September 2025 / Published: 9 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Teacher Education)
Versions Notes

Abstract

In this paper, we present selected findings from a 2024/2025 study on the reading habits of students from two major Slovenian universities enrolled in teacher education programs and compare them with data from a similar study conducted in 2017/2018. Understanding the reading practices of future educators is essential for improving reading engagement in schools and society as a whole. The data obtained from a selected student sample corroborate previous research indicating that early reading socialization—particularly childhood reading within the family, maternal education, and attendance in preschool—are factors positively associated with the number of books read in adulthood. The findings also highlight the important compensatory role of preschools and schools in fostering adult readers, especially in cases where family support for reading is lacking. In certain respects, the reading habits of students have deteriorated compared to the initial study: the time devoted to reading has decreased, and students more frequently choose less demanding texts. Female students read a greater number of books than male students, though their chosen texts tend to be less demanding, while male students more often select more challenging texts. Reading for pleasure and intrinsic motivation to read significantly influence the number of books read.

1. Introduction

This paper presents selected results from a study conducted in the academic year 2024/2025, which investigated reading culture among students enrolled in teacher education programs at the University of Ljubljana. Studies on university students leisure reading habits are relatively rare (see, for example, Nicolosi & Reiter, 2024; Brookbank, 2023).
Some of the results are compared with those from the 2017/2018 study (Mažgon et al., 2020) that examined the recreational reading habits of students enrolled in the same programs, and compared them with national survey data. Results showed that students read more than the general population but less than expected for future educators, with 16% identifying as non-readers. Daily reading and engagement with demanding texts were rare, while foreign-language reading was far more common than in the general population. The study also confirmed the strong influence of family reading practices, especially the mother’s education, on students’ later reading habits.
The focus of 2024/2025 study is on factors that positively influence the development of reading culture, such as childhood and adolescent reading within the family, maternal education and preschool attendance in preschool. The study also examined the time students devote to reading and the trend of its increase or decrease during the period of both studies. Based on the titles of the books they read, we determine whether they read more demanding or less demanding literature that requires more or less intellectual effort, and also whether reading habits changed over the time frame of both surveys. Particular attention is given to whether the choices of reading diet have shifted since the earlier study. The research study also explored gender differences in both the quantity and the type of reading, as well as the relationship between intrinsic motivation, reading for pleasure, and the number of books read.
Research indicates that reading occupies a smaller place in everyday life than in the past, and that young people often perceive reading activities as boring (Twenge et al., 2019; Webber et al., 2024).
This study addresses the broader research problem of understanding the factors influencing reading habits among future teachers, school counsellors, and (school) librarians, and how these habits have evolved over time, given growing concerns about a decline in reading culture. Accordingly, the general research question guiding this study is as follows: what factors influence the reading habits of students in teacher training programs, and how have these habits changed between the 2017/2018 and 2024/2025 academic years?
The findings of the study conducted in the 2017/2018 academic year were not encouraging, particularly considering the sample of students preparing for professions such as teaching, school counselling, and librarianship, which have a significant impact on the reading habits of young people.
In the 2024/2025 study we were therefore interested in whether future educators read longer texts, how much time they devote to reading, and which book titles they reported having read. This focus stems from educational and transfer mechanisms, including the processes of identification between children/pupils/students and their teachers (Kovač Šebart & Krek, 2009), which substantiate the expectation that educators who do not or rarely read themselves and/or read primarily lighter genres, are not motivated to foster reading habits among their students, nor do they set expectations regarding engagement with more demanding texts (Applegate & Applegate, 2004; Applegate et al., 2014). It can also be expected that non-reading educators are more likely to adopt the attitudes highlighted by Pečjak and Košir (2006), namely, that reading is essentially the responsibility of students, their families, or teachers of other subjects. As found by Pečjak and Košir, at the declarative level such educators may indeed affirm reading and reading goals as crucial for learning, personal development, and academic achievement, yet in their classroom practice they do not systematically pursue these declared aims.
The results of the 2017/2018 study already indicated that family reading practices had a significant influence on respondents’ reports of the number of books read (Mažgon et al., 2020). This finding is consistent with other studies that highlight the importance of family reading for the development of children’s reading habits (Evans et al., 2010; Sikora et al., 2019). In families with highly educated parents, the child’s environment is more conducive to learning and development, partly because it contains a greater number of books and other printed materials. Moreover, such parents more frequently and more effectively stimulate their children’s speech, engage in verbal interaction, and model more elaborated language use; through their own reading and writing practices, they provide an encouraging example for children’s literacy development.

2. Literature Review: The Role of Parents, Preschool Institutions, and Reading Habits

Maternal education in particular shows a significant positive correlation with various dimensions of young children’s language skills, such as vocabulary, grammar and pragmatic competence, phonological awareness, and print awareness (K. A. Burgess, 2000; Niklas et al., 2020). Furthermore, the way mothers converse with their children during play and other activities—such as the frequency of conversations, reading stories that include descriptions of mental states, and supportive communication strategies—has been shown to be positively associated with children’s performance on theory of mind tasks. These results point to the role of specific experiences and supportive practices in the family environment, as well as the social and emotional support that parents provide to their children (DeBaryshe et al., 2000; S. R. Burgess et al., 2002; Foy & Mann, 2003; Bingham, 2007; Roseberry-McKibbin, 2010; M. L. Rowe et al., 2016; Kapengut & Noble, 2020; Marjanovič Umek et al., 2020).
Further, when analysing the findings of the two studies mentioned above, it is crucial to note that shared reading from early childhood onward is a significant predictor of children’s early and later language development, as well as their emergent and academic literacy and reading comprehension skills. In other words, practices of adults—particularly the child’s first significant Others (in our culture most often the mother) who frequently engage in shared reading with the child, are positively associated with parental education levels (Bus, 2003; Vander Woude et al., 2009; Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010; Malin et al., 2014; Salo et al., 2016).
Prior knowledge naturally plays an important role in comprehension; however, familiarity with story structure is crucial for children’s ability to interpret, understand, and retell narratives (Crain-Thoreson & Dale, 1992; Sénéchal & Le Fevre, 2002; Miller & Pennycuff, 2008; Marjanovič Umek et al., 2012; Dawson et al., 2021; Green & Keogh, 2024). Children’s books also contain vocabulary that is rare in everyday communication, and they offer greater lexical variety compared to ordinary adult–child conversations. Their texts frequently include synonyms, figurative meanings, and examples that broaden children’s linguistic resources. Moreover, adults typically employ more complex speech when reading to children, exposing them to new sentence structures. In addition, when reading together with adults, children become familiar with print, which also stimulates their interest in it. All of this lays the foundation for a culture of reading in adulthood (Marjanovič Umek et al., 2020; see also Frijters et al., 2000; Silvén et al., 2003; Fletcher & Reese, 2005; Montag, 2019).
Given the persistently high proportion of the Slovenian population in the last half of a century that has not engaged in reading—as evidenced by consecutive studies conducted every few years and published in the Knjiga in bralci [Book and Readers] series (Kocjan, 1974; Žnideršič et al., 1999; Rupar, 2015, 2019; Gerčar, 2024)—our interpretation of the 2017/2018 study made it clear that the share of readers in Slovenia cannot be increased primarily by appealing to parents and emphasizing that the initiation of children into reading is their responsibility.
We emphasized that a considerable proportion of children in Slovenia attend preschool institutions from the age of one, and we assumed that an important distinction between the family and the preschool environment with regard to early reading lies in the fact that the educational process in preschool is guided by curriculum which typically includes objectives related to language and emergent literacy. The quality of the educational process thus depends on the extent to which preschool educators are familiar with curricular aims and are able to implement them in practice. This in turn is influenced by their knowledge of children’s language and literacy development, their use of metalinguistic talk, and their ability to plan and carry out diverse activities such as group discussions, storytelling, symbolic play, language games, and the frequency and quality of verbal and social interactions among children as well as between adults and children during both planned and routine activities. For many children, preschool represents the only environment in which they receive stimulation for developing higher levels of symbolic play (Marjanovič Umek et al., 2003; Dolya, 2010; Bodrova & Leong, 2015). Preschool classrooms and other facilities are appropriately arranged, and learning materials, both play-based and literary, are accessible to all children. Importantly, preschools also provide libraries for children and parents, who can borrow books to take home (D. Rowe, 2007; Rhyner et al., 2009). All this allows us to reflect on the compensatory role of preschool education, particularly in relation to early reading, which is closely connected to the cultivation of a reading culture among younger generations. Preschool educators must remain sensitive to the objective circumstances of children, such as the socio-economic and cultural status of their families, gender, or the child’s lack of proficiency in the language of instruction in preschool (Baquedano-López, 2003; Makin, 2003; Marjanovič Umek et al., 2018; Duran Yılmaz & Ömeroğlu, 2023).

Conceptual Framework of 2024/2025 Study

Since our concern is how to foster reading in early childhood in a way that will positively influence reading practices in adulthood—in other words, how to compensate for the absence of systematic early reading within the family—we included in the 2024/2025 study an additional question about respondents’ preschool attendance. We were particularly interested in the relationship between preschool attendance and the number of books read by students enrolled in teacher education programs.
In the 2024/2025 study we were also interested in differences in reading habits between male and female students. We sought to compare some of our findings with those of an international study (Garbe et al., 2010) conducted on a sample of 12–16 year olds in eleven European countries (Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Romania, and Switzerland). That study showed that gender differences exist in several dimensions of reading: in the quality and frequency of reading, with girls reading more frequently and spending twice as much time reading as boys; in the content they read, since girls read different books, newspapers, and electronic materials than boys; in reading modes and modalities, as girls read in ways that differ from boys; in reading enjoyment and perceived competence, with girls liking reading more, experiencing greater enjoyment in the process, and perceiving themselves as more competent readers; and in reading achievement, where girls performed better than boys, especially when reading more demanding texts.
Similarly, in our study we were interested in the relationship between reading motivation and the number of books read in the past year. We also examined whether the differences between male and female students in the time devoted to reading books, the content they read, and their motivation for reading—differences already observed in the 2017/2018 study—would recur in the somewhat younger population of students surveyed in 2024/2025.

3. Research Problem, Hypotheses and Methods

In the 2024/2025 academic year, we repeated the survey on the reading habits of students in teacher training programs from the 2017/2018 academic year and formulated the following hypotheses:
H1. 
More frequent exposure to reading in childhood is positively associated with a higher number of books read.
H2. 
Higher formal education of the mother predicts a higher number of books read.
H3. 
Enrolment in preschool is positively correlated with the number of books read.
H4. 
The reading habits of students have deteriorated over the years.
H5. 
Female students are more effective readers, read more books than male students, and the choice of literary genres differs between genders.
H6. 
Motivation to read (reading for pleasure or necessity) is positively correlated with the number of books read by respondents.

3.1. Sample

The studies were carried out in two academic years, 2017/2018 and 2024/2025, using a quantitative research approach. The study employed a repeated cross-sectional design, where data were collected at two time points (2017/2018, and 2024/2025) from independent samples of participants drawn from the same target population. This approach allowed us to track population-level trends over time, although individual-level changes could not be assessed since participants were not followed longitudinally. The research population included students from three faculties that educate future teachers, school counsellors, and (school) librarians—specifically, the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Education at the University of Ljubljana, as well as the Faculty of Arts at the University of Maribor.
Participants completed a structured questionnaire focusing on their leisure activities, reading habits, and study practices. A non-random sample of 871 students was included—429 from the 2017/2018 academic year and 442 from 2024/2025. Of these, 593 (68.1%) were enrolled in first-cycle programs, while 278 (31.9%) were second-cycle students. The average age of participants was 22 years. The sample was strongly feminized, with 86.8% women and 13.2% men, reflecting the actual gender ratio in the enrolled student population.

3.2. Data Collection and Instrument

Data collection for both cohorts of students was carried out using the same paper-and-pencil questionnaire, administered in the 2017/2018 academic year (from October to January) and again in the 2024/2025 academic year (same, from October to January). The anonymous printed questionnaire consisted of 34 closed-ended questions and one rating scale and was organized into three thematic sections: leisure activities, reading habits, and study practices. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire at the end of regular lectures and seminars. Participation was voluntary.

3.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis included both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Frequency and percentage distributions (f, f%) were used to present the results.
To test statistically significant differences between the two cohorts of students (2017/2018 and 2024/2025), the χ2-test was employed to examine associations between variables, and independent-samples t-tests were conducted to analyse differences in the means of metric variables. To assess relationships between variables, linear regression analysis was applied, allowing for the estimation of the effect of one or more independent (predictor) variables on a dependent variable. Additionally, the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was used to examine differences among more than two groups, and the Mann–Whitney U test served as a post hoc test to analyse pairwise differences.
All analyses were performed using the statistical software package SPSS (version 29), with the level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

4. Results

4.1. More Frequent Exposure to Reading in Childhood Is Positively Associated with a Higher Number of Books Read in Adulthood

Initially, students were asked whether they had read any books during the past year and, if so, how many. A total of 16.4% of respondents reported that they had not read a single book. If we also classify as non-readers those students (9.2%) who were unable to recall any book titles when asked to list the last three books they had read, the proportion of non-readers increases to 25.6%. Among students who reported reading books in the past year, the results indicate that slightly more than 60% read more than three books. The largest share of respondents (35.3%) reported reading between four and ten books per year.
Furthermore, we examined whether the frequency of book reading was positively associated with students’ responses regarding how often and until what age their parents had read to them (see Table 1). To address this research question, we conducted a linear regression analysis, supplemented with descriptive statistical data to provide additional context.
The model that includes two predictive variables—how long parents read to their children and frequency of reading in childhood—is statistically significant (F(2, 659) = 3.89, p = 0.021), although it explains only a small proportion of the variance (R2 = 0.012). An important finding is that responses about the frequency of reading by parents during childhood statistically significantly predict responses about the greater number of books read by students. (B = 1.72, p = 0.028). This means that the more often their parents read to them, the more books the respondents read today. The second variable—how long their parents read to them—did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.157).
The VIF and tolerance values indicate that there is no multicollinearity between the variables, so they were suitable for inclusion in the model. Descriptive statistics further confirm the regression findings (Table 2). According to the responses, the average number of books read increases with the frequency of reading by parents during childhood:
Both regression and descriptive analysis support the hypothesis of a positive influence of early reading socialization on reading habits in adulthood. In relation to the frequency of reading in childhood, the respondents’ assessments of who most influenced them to start reading books are also important (Table 3).
Table 3 shows that respondents cited their parents, relatives, and home environment (53%) as the factors that contributed most to their reading habits, followed by school and teachers, although the proportion of these responses was significantly lower (15.4%). It is perhaps interesting to note that the percentage of respondents who said that their family circle had the greatest influence on their reading habits is close to the percentage of readers in the general population according to Knjiga in bralci [Book and Readers] reading surveys conducted over several decades (Kocjan, 1974; Žnideršič et al., 1999; Rupar, 2015, 2019; Gerčar, 2024), namely slightly above 50%. The responses concerning teachers and the school context indicate that students in teacher education programs do not, to a large extent, identify teachers in their primary and secondary education as those who most contributed to their becoming readers. From this perspective, in educational system considerable potential remains for fostering a reading culture among those who lack encouragement and role models for reading in their home environment.

4.2. Higher Formal Education of Mothers Predicts a Higher Number of Books Read

Although the father’s education is also positively correlated with children’s reading habits and the provision of an early reading environment and the number of books read in adulthood, we were also interested in the relationship between the number of books read and the mother’s formal level of education in order to determine the early influences on the reading habits of adults. We started from the thesis that in Slovenia, mothers are the first significant other in most families. For instance, although paternity leave is legally available, it is rarely taken up. In 2021, 25,495 women and only 860 men used parental leave; similarly, women accounted for 82% of all days of leave taken for the care of a sick family member, while men accounted for only 18% (Resolution on the national program for equal opportunities for women and men, 2023–2030 (ReNPEMŽM30), 2023).
Table 4 shows the responses regarding the mother’s education (we have combined the levels of education into three subgroups: primary school or less, secondary education, and tertiary education), which clearly show that in the sample, the average number of books read by students increases with the mother’s level of education.
Due to the noticeable uneven size of the groups in terms of the mother’s education (the group with primary school education or less had only 23 units, while the other two groups were considerably larger), the assumptions for parametric analyses (ANOVA), such as normality of distribution and homogeneity of variances, were not met. Therefore, instead of ANOVA, we used the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test, which is more robust for unequal group sizes and does not require normal distribution. Its results showed statistically significant differences in the relationship between the number of books read and the mother’s education (H(2) = 7.659, p = 0.022). As a post hoc test, we performed the Mann–Whitney U test, which showed a statistically significant difference in responses regarding the number of books read between the primary school and tertiary education groups (U = 3133.5, Z = −2.525, p = 0.012). The difference remains statistically significant even after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (p < 0.0167).
In short, the results show that the higher the mother’s level of education, the better the reading habits of students.

4.3. Preschool Attendance Is Positively Correlated with the Number of Books Read

Based on our conclusions in the 2017/2018 survey (Mažgon et al., 2020) and in line with the introductory rationale, we included an additional question in the 2024/2025 survey to examine the impact of early preschool attendance in relation to the number of books read in adulthood. To check out the difference between students who went to preschool as kids and those who didn’t, we did a t-test for independent samples. To equalize the influence of the groups in the analysis, we assigned a weight (×9) to participants from the smaller group (only 38), which simulated a more balanced group size in the statistical calculation. The results thus reflect a situation where the groups are equal in terms of influence, but not in terms of actual size in the population (according to the latest SURS data (school year 2024/2024), 85.6% of children in both age groups attend preschool).
The results show that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups: t(628) = 2.09, p = 0.037 (Table 5). On average, those who attended preschool responded that they had read 12.53 books in the last year before the survey, while those who did not attend preschool responded that they had read 9.8 books.

4.4. The Reading Habits of Students Have Deteriorated over the Years

Although no statistically significant differences were found between the two student generations included in the samples (t(696) = 1.502, p = 0.133), the results show that, on average, the 2024/2025 cohort reported reading more books (just over 12) than their peers seven years earlier (10.5 books). However, responses regarding the amount of time devoted weekly to reading books revealed a statistically significant higher average number of reading hours per week among the 2017/2018 cohort (t(311.974) = 5.10, p < 0.001). While in 2017/2018 students reported spending slightly more than 8 h per week on book reading, in 2024/2025 they devoted only about 5 h. Furthermore, according to their responses, the latter group statistically significantly more often opted for less demanding literary genres.
The responses of participants in the 2024/2025 study indicate that they read more books within a year than those included in the 2017/2018 survey. However, given that the 2024/2025 cohort devoted significantly fewer hours per week to reading and that a considerably larger proportion of them chose less demanding genres, this most likely suggests that they either read faster because the texts were less demanding, or that they did not finish the books or just skimmed them. Considering that these students are being trained for teaching professions—roles that include fostering reading and academic literacy in future generations—this is a troubling indicator of their capacity to assume responsibility for cultivating readers capable of reading and comprehending more demanding texts.

4.5. Female Students Are More Effective Readers, Read More Books than Male Students, and the Choice of Literary Genres Differs Between the Genders

When asked whether they had read any books in the last year (Table 6), a statistically significantly higher percentage of female students answered affirmatively (85.7%) than male students (just under 70%) (χ2 = 18.274; df = 1, p < 0.000). A good 30% of male students responded that they do not read books at all, while among female students the percentage was just under 15%.
Although not statistically significant (p = 0.117), there is also a difference between male and female students in their responses regarding the average number of books read. Female students reported reading an average of 11.6 books in the year prior to the survey, while male students reported reading an average of 8.9 books.
Statistically significant differences (χ2 = 15.881; df = 5, p = 0.007) were also found in the titles of the books students listed as read by them in the last 12 months, from which we determined the types of literature they read (Table 7): the students’ answers show that they mostly go for easier and popular contemporary fiction and personal growth books (56.4%), while male students’ responses indicate that they read more demanding popular literary and essayistic works that require intellectual effort when reading (47.8%). (We divided the books into these categories according to publishers’ descriptions, the rewards they received and their appearances on bestseller lists).
Based on this and the finding that both groups read an average of approximately 5.5 h per week, we can assume that the smaller number of books read by male students in the last year compared to female students is also a result of more in-depth reading by male students, which takes more time than reading lighter fiction.

4.6. Motivation to Read (Reading for Pleasure or Necessity) Is Positively Related to the Number of Books Read

To test hypothesis H5, we conducted several independent t-tests between groups of students who are motivated to read (e.g., they enjoy reading, feel the need to read, etc.) and those who are not (Table 8).
The results (Table 8) show that students who chose the answer that they feel the need to read, read statistically significantly more books on average (M = 17.14, SD = 18.59) than those who did not choose this answer (M = 9.54, SD = 12.10); t(210.39) = 4.949, p < 0.001). Students who chose the answer that they enjoy reading read much more books (M = 14.57, SD = 16.16) in comparison compared to those who answered that they do not enjoy reading (M = 6.23, SD = 8.38); t(675.36) = 8.939, p < 0.001). Those who chose the answer that reading enriches their lives, read more books (M = 12.82) than those who didn’t choose this answer (M = 10.48); the difference is statistically significant (t(449.28) = 1.978, p = 0.048). Students who responded that they read books because they look for answers to questions that interest them read fewer books on average (M = 9.04) than those who did not choose this answer (M = 12.07); t(285.49) = 2.454, p = 0.015).
Reading for pleasure has the strongest effect on the reading activity of the students included in the study—those who reported it were almost twice as active readers as those who did not. Likewise, responses indicating an inner need to read and the pursuit of enrichment in life through reading also show a positive correlation with the reported average number of books read.
An exception is the choice of the answer ‘I am looking for answers to questions’, which is negatively correlated with the answers about the number of books read, indicating that the motivation for such a reading may be more goal-oriented, specific, or less frequent. Given the population included in the survey, the question arises as to the expectations that higher education teachers place on students in the study process and in the assessment of knowledge. One would expect that such motivation among students would be particularly pronounced in their search for answers related to their studies and professional preparation.
The responses also showed that a statistically significant majority of female students responded that they enjoy reading (63.2%:36.7%; (χ2 = 20.627; g = 1, p < 0.001) and that reading enriches their lives (38.2%:24.1%; (χ2 = 6.066; df = 1, p = 0.014). Male students, however, were statistically significantly more likely to state that they seek answers to questions of personal interest in books (44.3% vs. 21.9%; χ2 = 19.187; df = 1, p < 0.001), suggesting, as already noted above, that male students tend to read in a more in-depth manner.

5. Discussion

This study set out to explore the factors that shape the reading habits of students enrolled in teacher education programs and to examine how these habits have evolved between 2017/2018 and 2024/2025. Our findings provide and confirm evidence that early childhood experiences, family background, and intrinsic motivation play a crucial role in shaping reading culture among future educators.
The results confirm that students whose parents read to them frequently during childhood tend to read more books as adults. This supports theories of intergenerational transmission of literacy, which emphasize that literacy-related reading practices are learned behaviours passed down through family interactions (Evans et al., 2010; Sikora et al., 2019). The nearly identical percentage of students who cited their family as the main influence on their reading initiation (53%) and the long-term percentage of readers in the Slovenian population suggests that the family remains a key driver of reading culture. However, it also highlights a structural limitation: relying solely on families to foster reading will not significantly increase the proportion of readers at the societal level. This underscores the compensatory role of preschools and schools, which must actively encourage reading habits, particularly among children from less supportive home environments. For instance, Gür Tekin and Pınar (2023), drawing on PISA data from Turkey, showed that early preschool attendance, parental education level, and the number of books at home significantly predicted adolescents’ reading achievement. This is consistent with the results obtained from our Slovenian sample.
We also confirmed a strong correlation between maternal education and the number of books read by students. Mothers often act as primary caregivers in Slovenian families, which aligns with national statistics showing that women assume the majority of childcare responsibilities. This finding reinforces prior research indicating that parents with higher educational attainment are more likely to create rich literacy environments and model reading behaviours for their children (Niklas et al., 2020; M. L. Rowe et al., 2016). For teacher education programs, this suggests the need to provide targeted interventions for students from families with lower educational backgrounds, as these students may require additional support to develop the reading practices they will later model in their professional roles.
A concerning trend emerging from the comparison between the two study periods is the decline in weekly reading time and the increasing preference for lighter, less demanding texts. Although the 2024/2025 cohort reported reading slightly more books per year than their peers in 2017/2018, they devoted fewer hours to reading overall and were more likely to select popular fiction and self-help genres. This pattern suggests that students in the second study may indeed read more quickly, but most likely because the texts were less challenging, or because they read them more superficially, or just skimmed them. Such a shift has significant implications for teacher preparation: educators who primarily engage with lighter literature may struggle to foster advanced literacy skills and critical thinking among their future students.
The findings regarding gender differences are particularly noteworthy. Female students were more likely to read books and reported higher reading frequency overall, yet their chosen texts tended to be less demanding. In contrast, male students who did read were more likely to engage with challenging literature but constituted a much smaller proportion of the total sample, with nearly one-third reporting that they do not read books at all. This aligns with previous research by Garbe et al. (2010) showing gender-based differences in both reading frequency and reading content. Such disparities may reflect broader societal norms related to gender and literacy, as well as differences in motivation and self-perception as readers. Future research should explore these underlying factors in more detail, as understanding them could inform strategies for promoting reading engagement among male students, who represent a minority in teacher training programs but play a vital role in diversifying the teaching workforce.
Reading motivation emerged as an important factor influencing the number of books read. Students who reported reading for pleasure read nearly twice as many books as those who did not, highlighting the importance of fostering intrinsic motivation. This aligns with self-determination theory, which emphasizes the role of autonomy and enjoyment in sustaining engagement in complex cognitive activities such as reading. Conversely, students who reported reading primarily to seek answers to specific questions tended to read fewer books overall, suggesting a more utilitarian and episodic reading pattern. For teacher education programs, these findings point to the need to design curricula that not only require reading for academic purposes but also cultivate personal enjoyment and appreciation of reading as a lifelong habit.
From a broader perspective, the study’s results have societal implications. Slovenia has historically struggled with a relatively low proportion of active readers, a trend documented consistently in national surveys over the past five decades (Gerčar, 2024). The reading behaviours of future educators are therefore critical, as these individuals will shape the reading habits of the next generation. If teacher education students themselves lack strong, diverse reading practices, they may inadvertently perpetuate a cycle of low reading culture in society. Addressing this challenge requires systemic changes, including integrating demanding and reflective reading into teacher training programs, and implementing national policies that prioritize reading promotion at all educational levels.
Finally, while this study offers significant insights, it also has limitations. Its cross-sectional design prevents us from tracking individual changes over time, and the sample is limited to two universities in Slovenia, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Future longitudinal and cross-national studies could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how reading habits develop across different educational contexts and cultural settings. An additional limitation of the present study is also that it relies exclusively on quantitative survey data. Future mixed-methods research, incorporating qualitative approaches such as interviews or focus groups, could provide incremental insights into students’ reading habits and motivations.

6. Conclusions

The results of the study confirm the significant influence of a supportive reading environment in childhood on the later reading habits of future teachers, school counsellors, and (school) librarians. Educational institutions, especially preschools and schools, should take greater responsibility for encouraging reading and reading habits among children from non-reading backgrounds and for promoting the reading of more demanding content. Given their future role in promoting reading among children, pupils, and students, it is worrying that students do not read much, that a large proportion of them do not read at all, that male students read less, and that female students more often choose less demanding content. We can assume that educators and teachers who do not read, or do not read more demanding content, are much less successful in shaping future readers. Our findings therefore lead us to conclude that reading literacy, with an emphasis on quality, in-depth reading and intrinsic motivation to read, should become a greater focus of educational programmes. Only in this way will it be possible to significantly influence the long-term improvement of reading culture in Slovenia, which has been poor for decades.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K.Š., J.M. and M.K.; methodology, J.M.; software, J.M.; validation, M.K.Š. and M.K.; formal analysis, J.M.; investigation, M.K. and M.K.Š.; resources, J.M., M.K.Š.; data curation, J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K.Š.; writing—review and editing, M.K. and M.K.Š.; supervision, J.M.; funding acquisition, J.M. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency, grant number P5-0174 and P5-0361. The APC was funded by University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts and Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Currently, there are no national guidelines on research ethics for other fields, despite requests from the research community in Slovenia for such a document. The Slovenian Research Agency does not mandate ethical clearance for research projects it finances, although researchers may opt to seek such clearance. In our study, all participants’ data were treated with strict confidentiality: no identifying information was collected, and the results are reported only in aggregate form to ensure the privacy of all individuals involved.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BaRBook and Readers

References

  1. Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The Peter Effect: Reading habits and attitudes of preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 554–563. [Google Scholar]
  2. Applegate, A. J., Applegate, M. D., Mercanti, M. A., McGeehan, C. M., Cobb, J. B., DeBoy, J. R., Modla, V. B., & Lewinski, K. E. (2014). The peter effect revisited: Reading habits and attitudes of college students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53(3), 188–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Baquedano-López, P. (2003). Language, literacy and community. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 66–74). Sage Publications. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311536420_Language_literacy_and_community (accessed on 13 March 2025).
  4. Bingham, G. E. (2007). Maternal literacy beliefs and the quality of mother–child book–reading interactions: Associations with children’s early literacy development. Early Education and Development, 18(1), 23–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2015). Vygotskian and post–Vygotskian views on children’s play. American Journal of Play, 7(3), 371–388. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brookbank, E. (2023). “It makes you feel like more of a person:” The leisure reading habits of university students in the US and UK and how academic libraries can support them. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 30(3), 53–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Burgess, K. A. (2000). An exploration of the associations among continuous naming speed tasks, phonological tasks, reading ability, and orthographic knowledge. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/e47d344e528f0e88325337ae26347dc1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  8. Burgess, S. R., Hecht, S. A., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Relations of the home literacy environment (HLE) to the development of reading–related abilities: A one–year longitudinal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 408–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bus, A. G. (2003). Social–emotional requisites for learning to read. In A. van Kleeck, & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 3–15). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early readers? Linguistic precocity, preschool language, and emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dawson, N., Hsiao, Y., Tan, A. W. M., Banerji, N., & Nation, K. (2021). Features of lexical richness in children’s books: Comparisons with child-directed speech. Language Development Research, 1(1), 9–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. DeBaryshe, B. D., Binder, J. C., & Buell, M. J. (2000). Mothers’ implicit theories of early literacy instruction: Implications for children’s reading and writing. Early Child Development and Care, 160(1), 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dixon-Krauss, L., Januszka, C. M., & Chae, C. H. (2010). Development of the dialogic reading inventory of parent–child book reading. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(3), 266–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dolya, G. (2010). Vygotsky in action in the early years: The ‘Key to Learning’ Curriculum. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  15. Duran Yılmaz, A., & Ömeroğlu, E. (2023). Cultural sensitivity scale for early childhood educators: Development and validation. Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal, 12(1), 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Evans, M. D. R., Kelley, J., Sikora, J., & Treiman, D. J. (2010). Family scholarly culture and educational success: Books and schooling in 27 nations. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 28(2), 171–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fletcher, K. L., & Reese, E. (2005). Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 25(1), 64–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Foy, J. G., & Mann, V. (2003). Home literacy environment and phonological awareness in preschool children: Differential effects for rhyme and phoneme awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 59–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Frijters, J. C., Barron, R. W., & Brunello, M. (2000). Direct and mediated influences of home literacy and literacy interest on prereaders’ oral vocabulary and early written language skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 466–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Garbe, C., Holle, K., & Weinhold, S. (Eds.). (2010). ADORE—Teaching struggling adolescent readers in European countries: Key elements of good practice. Peter Lang. Available online: https://www.peterlang.com/document/1136136 (accessed on 7 July 2024).
  21. Gerčar, J. (2024). Desetletna primerjava vprašanj iz raziskav KiB [Ten-year comparison of survey questions BaR]. In J. Gerčar, M. Kovač, A. Blatnik, & S. Rugelj (Eds.), Knjiga in bralci VII: Bralna kultura in nakupovanje knjig v Sloveniji v letu 2024 [Book and Readers VII: Reading culture and book purchasing in Slovenia in 2024] (pp. 13–36). UMco. Available online: https://www.jakrs.si/fileadmin/datoteke/Nova_spletna_stran/Zaloznistvo/Raziskave_in_analize/knjiga-in-bralci-vii-raziskava-2024-le%C5%BEe%C4%8De.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  22. Green, C., & Keogh, K. (2024). Vocabulary exposure to children is enhanced by using both informational and narrative picture books for read-alouds: A comparative modelling study using data science methods. Journal of Research in Reading, 47(4), 497–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gür Tekin, E., & Pınar, Y. (2023). Preschool attendance, school starting age and cultural-financial resources as predictors of adolescent’s reading comprehension: Evidence from PISA 2015 and 2018. SAGE Open, 13(4), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kapengut, D., & Noble, K. G. (2020). Parental language and learning directed to the young child. Future of Children, 30(2), 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kocjan, G. (1974). Knjiga in bralci [Book and readers]. Raziskovalni center za samoupravljanje RSZSS, Kulturna skupnost Slovenije [Research Center for Self-Management RSZSS, Cultural Community of Slovenia]. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kovač Šebart, M., & Krek, J. (2009). Vzgojna zasnova javne šole [Educational concept of public schools]. Center for the Study of Educational Theories, Faculty of Education. Available online: https://zalozba.pef.uni-lj.si/index.php/zalozba/catalog/download/38/89/76-1?inline=1 (accessed on 3 October 2024).
  27. Makin, L. (2003). Creating positive literacy learning environments in early childhood. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 327–337). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Malin, J. L., Cabrera, N. J., & Rowe, M. L. (2014). Low–income minority mothers’ and fathers’ reading and children’s interest: Longitudinal contributions to children’s receptive vocabulary skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Marjanovič Umek, L., Fekonja, U., & Hacin Beyazoglu, K. (2020). Zgodnja pismenost otrok [Early Childhood Literacy]. Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marjanovič Umek, L., Fekonja Peklaj, U., Grgić, K., Sočan, G., & Pfifer, A. (2012). Storytelling in middle childhood: Contributions of storybook exposure. Studia Psychologica, 54(1), 53–66. [Google Scholar]
  31. Marjanovič Umek, L., Fekonja Peklaj, U., Kranjc, S., & Lešnik Musek, P. (2003). The impact of reading children’s literature on language development in the preschool child. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11(1), 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marjanovič Umek, L., Hacin, K., & Fekonja, U. (2018). Zgodnja pismenost otrok: Učinek vrtčevskih in družinskih dejavnikov [Early Childhood Literacy: The Influence of Preschool and Family Factors]. Sodobna pedagogika [Journal of Contemporary Educationa Studies], 69(1), 10–27. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mažgon, J., Kovač, M., Kovač Šebart, M., & Vidmar, T. (2020). Books in the time of screens: The reading habits of Slovenian students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(9), 3916–3923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Miller, S., & Pennycuff, L. (2008). The power of story: Using storytelling to improve literacy learning. Journal of Cross–Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  35. Montag, J. L. (2019). Differences in sentence complexity in the text of children’s picture books and child-directed speech. First Language, 39(5), 527–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Nicolosi, G., & Reiter, L. (2024). The leisure reading habits of undergraduate business students. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 31(3–4), 79–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Niklas, F., Wirth, A., Guffler, S., Drescher, N., & Ehmig, S. C. (2020). The home literacy environment as a mediator between parental attitudes toward shared reading and children’s linguistic competencies. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pečjak, S., & Košir, K. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about reading in relation to their classroom practices and students’ reading motivation. Education and Training, 27(4), 27–33. [Google Scholar]
  39. Resolution on the national program for equal opportunities for women and men 2023–2030 (ReNPEMŽM30). (2023). Available online: https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MDDSZ/Enake-moznosti/ReNPEMZM2030/ReNPEMZM23-30_EN.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2025).
  40. Rhyner, P. M., Haebig, E. K., & West, K. M. (2009). Understanding frameworks for the emergent literacy stage. In P. M. Rhyner (Ed.), Emergent literacy and language development (pp. 5–35). The Guilford Press. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235436167_Understanding_Frameworks_for_the_Emergent_Literacy_Stage (accessed on 26 November 2023).
  41. Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2010). Increasing language skills of students from low–income backgrounds. Plural Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rowe, D. (2007). Bringing books to life: The role of book–related dramatic play in young children’s literacy learning. In K. A. Roskos, & J. F. Christie (Eds.), Play and literacy in early childhood (pp. 37–64). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315089720-3/bringing-books-life-role-book-related-dramatic-play-young-children-literacy-learning-deborah-wells-rowe (accessed on 22 March 2021).
  43. Rowe, M. L., Denmark, N., Harden, B. J., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016). The role of parent education and parenting knowledge in children’s language and literacy skills among White, Black, and Latino families. Infant and Child Development, 25, 198–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rupar, P. (2015). Primerjava vprašanj iz raziskav KiB IV in KiB V [Comparison of questions from BaR IV and BaR V]. In M. Kovač, A. Blatnik, S. Rugelj, P. Rupar, & R. Gregorin (Eds.), Knjiga in bralci V: Bralna kultura in nakupovanje knjig v Sloveniji [Book and readers V: Reading culture and book purchasing in Slovenia] (pp. 13–30). UMco. Available online: https://www.bukla.si/doc/product/knjiga-in-bralci-v.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2020).
  45. Rupar, P. (2019). Primerjava vprašanj iz raziskav KiB V in KiB VI [Comparison of questions from KiB V and KiB VI]. In P. Rupar, A. Blatnik, M. Kovač, & S. Rugelj (Eds.), Knjiga in bralci VI: Bralna kultura in nakupovanje knjig v Sloveniji v letu 2019 [Book and readers VI: Reading culture and book purchasing in Slovenia in 2019] (pp. 11–33). UMco. Available online: https://www.jakrs.si/fileadmin/datoteke/Nova_spletna_stran/Novice_in_dogodki/Knjiga_in_bralci_VI_raziskava_lowres.pdf?utm (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  46. Salo, V. C., Rowe, M. L., Leech, K. A., & Cabrera, N. J. (2016). Low–income fathers’ speech to toddlers during book reading versus toy play. Journal of Child Language, 43(6), 1385–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sénéchal, M., & Le Fevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(6), 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Sikora, J., Evans, M. D. R., & Kelley, J. (2019). Scholarly culture: How books in adolescence enhance adult literacy, numeracy and technology skills in 31 societies. Social Sciences Research, 77, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Silvén, M., Ahtola, A., & Niemi, P. (2003). Early words, multiword utterances and maternal reading strategies as predictors of mastering word inflections in Finnish. Journal of Child Language, 30(2), 253–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2019). Trends in US 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vander Woude, J., van Kleeck, A., & Vander Veen, E. (2009). Book sharing and the development of meaning. In P. M. Rhyner (Ed.), Emergent literacy and language development (pp. 36–77). The Guilford Press. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277711532_Book_sharing_and_the_development_of_meaning (accessed on 7 July 2024).
  52. Webber, C., Wilkinson, K., Duncan, L. G., & McGeown, S. (2024). Adolescents’ perspectives on the barriers to reading for pleasure. Literacy, 58(2), 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Žnideršič, M., Podmenik, D., & Kocijan, G. (1999). Knjiga in bralci IV [Book and Readers IV]. Oddelek za bibliotekarstvo, Filozofska fakulteta. Department of Library Science, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Linear regression results in predicting the number of books read based on parents’ reading habits in childhood.
Table 1. Linear regression results in predicting the number of books read based on parents’ reading habits in childhood.
PredictorBBetap
(Constant)2.629–0.416
Until what age did your parents read to you?1.7680.0550.157
Frequency of reading in childhood1.7190.0860.028
Table 2. Average number of books read according to parents’ reading frequency.
Table 2. Average number of books read according to parents’ reading frequency.
Frequency of Reading by ParentsM
They did not read to me7.44
They read to me occasionally8.28
They read to me several times a week11.31
They read to me every day12.48
Table 3. Who has had the greatest influence on reading habits.
Table 3. Who has had the greatest influence on reading habits.
Who Or What Had the Greatest Influence on You Starting to Read Books?ff%
Parents, relatives, home environment44453.0
School (teachers, professors)12915.4
No one has had a decisive influence on me9010.8
I don’t remember779.2
Friends and acquaintances364.3
Extracurricular activities (reading, drama clubs, etc.)293.5
The environment in which I have lived for a long time, where I live192.3
Someone else131.6
Total837100.0
Table 4. Mother’s education and average number of books read.
Table 4. Mother’s education and average number of books read.
Mother’s EducationNMSD
primary school or less237.9114.40
secondary education27910.6613.80
tertiary level39612.0414.58
Total69811.3514.28
Table 5. Preschool attendance and average number of books read.
Table 5. Preschool attendance and average number of books read.
Attendance at PreschoolNMSDtdfTwo-Sided p
Yes31512.5315.462.0906280.037
No3159.8017.28
Table 6. Differences between male and female students in terms of reading books in the past year.
Table 6. Differences between male and female students in terms of reading books in the past year.
GenderHave You Read Any Books in the Last Twelve Months?Total
YesNo, I Don’t Read Books
Malef7834112
f%69.630.4100.0
Femalef635106741
f%85.714.3100.0
Totalf713140853
f%83.616,4100.0
Table 7. Differences between male and female students in terms of the types of books read.
Table 7. Differences between male and female students in terms of the types of books read.
Books by DifficultyGenderTotal
MaleFemale
Light contemporary fictionf8134142
f%11.623.822.5
Popular fiction, somewhat more demanding books for personal growthf15183198
f%21.732.631.4
Reading as an extracurricular leisure activityf135669
f%18.810.010.9
More demanding popular literary worksf22141163
f%31.925.125.8
Literary and essayistic works that require intellectual effort to readf114758
f%15.98.49.2
High-quality literature and demanding essaysf011
f%0.00.20.2
Totalf69562631
f%100.0100.0100.0
Table 8. Motivation to read and average number of books read in the past year.
Table 8. Motivation to read and average number of books read in the past year.
NMSDtdfTwo-Sided p
I feel the need to read.Yes16617.1418.594.949210.391<0.001
No5329.5412.10
I enjoy reading.Yes42914.5716.168.939675.357<0.001
No2696.238.38
Reading enriches my life.Yes26012.8216.311.978449.2760.048
No43810.4812.86
I look for answers to questions that interest me in books.Yes1659.0413.67−2.454285.4870.015
No53312.0714.40
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Šebart, M.K.; Mažgon, J.; Kovač, M. What Do Future Educators Read and How Do Certain Factors Influence Their Reading Habits: Evidence from Slovenia. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1333. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101333

AMA Style

Šebart MK, Mažgon J, Kovač M. What Do Future Educators Read and How Do Certain Factors Influence Their Reading Habits: Evidence from Slovenia. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(10):1333. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101333

Chicago/Turabian Style

Šebart, Mojca Kovač, Jasna Mažgon, and Miha Kovač. 2025. "What Do Future Educators Read and How Do Certain Factors Influence Their Reading Habits: Evidence from Slovenia" Education Sciences 15, no. 10: 1333. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101333

APA Style

Šebart, M. K., Mažgon, J., & Kovač, M. (2025). What Do Future Educators Read and How Do Certain Factors Influence Their Reading Habits: Evidence from Slovenia. Education Sciences, 15(10), 1333. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101333

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop