Students’ Perceptions of the Benefits of Literary Reading in School and Leisure Contexts

Abstract

Literature education is often justified by its presumed cognitive, social, and developmental benefits. However, little research has explored how students themselves perceive the relevance of literary reading in both educational and leisurely settings. This study surveyed 1641 Dutch upper-secondary students (grades 10 to 12) across various academic tracks. A self-completion questionnaire was used to assess students’ justifications for mandatory literary reading and their evaluations of 20 benefits associated with reading literature. Most students supported the government mandate to read literature in school, primarily justifying it by functional benefits, such as improving language skills and general reading proficiency. Cultural, social, and psychological justifications (e.g., fostering empathy or enhancing political awareness) were deemed less persuasive. Significant group differences emerged, with girls, 12th-grade students, and frequent leisure readers finding the benefits of literary reading more compelling than boys, 10th-grade students, and non-readers. Teachers tended to underestimate the persuasiveness of certain justifications, particularly those related to concentration and complex interpretive skills. The study shows that students predominantly view literature education through a qualification-oriented lens, emphasizing its instrumental value. Hence, literature education could place greater emphasis on fostering ethical awareness and social understanding to counter students’ predominantly functional perceptions of literary reading. Moreover, this study confirms the divide students experience between school-based and leisure reading: even enthusiastic readers rarely attribute more personally oriented justifications, such as relaxation and escapism, to school-based literature reading.

1. Introduction

In recent years, a global decline in reading proficiency and reading motivation among young people has been documented. In authoritative surveys, increasing numbers of adolescents report that they read only when required to (for recent statistics in the Anglophone world, see Cremin & Scholes, 2024, p. 539; Webber et al., 2025, p. 2). It is therefore not surprising that in the context of school-based reading, there has been a growing emphasis on fostering reading enjoyment among students. This has been approached, on the one hand, through school-wide interventions, such as whole-school reading for pleasure programs (e.g., Collins et al., 2022; Bus et al., 2024) and, on the other hand, through in-class rhetoric and didactic choices of individual teachers, who, as evidenced by recent studies, increasingly regard the development of reading for pleasure as a significant goal of literature education (e.g., Ackermans, 2022; Fodstad & Husabø, 2021; Myren-Svelstad & Grüters, 2022).

In a time of declining reading motivation, however, it is far from self-evident that students find reading in school to be fulfilling or relevant, particularly when it concerns literary texts. Such texts are often associated with thematic and formal complexity, and thus harbor a certain resistance to decoding (Nikolajeva, 2010; Dera, 2024), requiring readers to truly focus and suspend their initial ideas about the text’s meaning (Koek, 2022). Moreover, the declining literary reading culture is not only linked to media developments that place pressure on book reading as a leisure activity, but also to a socio-political context in which the perceived utility of literature has been diminishing for decades (Marx, 2005).

Practitioners in literature education are compelled to engage with these challenges, as they encounter students who do not necessarily acknowledge the necessity of literature education or may even question its value. It is no coincidence, then, that Beach et al. (2006/2021) open their widely used handbook on literature education by asserting that teachers will not successfully promote literary reading unless they possess “deep reflective understanding of why you should engage students in the study of literature” (p. 3). In a questionnaire study on excellence in literature pedagogy, Witte and Jansen (2016) empirically corroborate this premise by demonstrating that students perceived their teachers as more excellent when the they could clearly articulate why their pupils needed to study literature in the first place.

This article positions itself within this complex landscape of the benefits and presumed value of literary reading in a time of declining reading engagement by foregrounding the student perspective on this issue. It investigates how students themselves perceive the necessity of literature education and queries how convincing they deem the often-asserted benefits of reading literature. Based on a survey of 1641 Dutch students from the 10th to 12th grades, this study identifies trends in student perspectives on the relevance of literary reading in both educational and volitional contexts, paying attention to differences based on gender, grade level, academic track, availability of books at home, and leisure reading habits.

2. Asking the Why-Question in Research on Literature Education

2.1. What Is Literature Education for? Qualification, Socialization, Subjectification

By prioritizing the question of the justification of literature education in terms of the presumed benefits of literary reading, this study positions itself within a longstanding tradition of research on the values of literature at both individual and societal levels (e.g., Roche, 2004; Vischer Bruns, 2011; Worth, 2017; Eaglestone, 2019). The theoretical foundations drawn from the work of Gert Biesta offer a productive framework for embedding such values within a conceptualization of educational outcomes. At the end of the first decade of this century, in response to what he perceived as an excessive focus on the measurement of student achievements, Biesta (2009) argued for “reconnect[ing] with the question of purpose in education” (p. 43). The fundamental question, What is education for?, is addressed by Biesta with reference to three distinct yet interrelated functions, which he argues should all be covered in curricula: qualification, socialization, and subjectification. Qualification, succinctly stated, entails providing students “with the knowledge, skills and understanding, and often also with the dispositions and forms of judgement that allow them to ‘do something’” (p. 39). Socialization pertains to “the many ways in which, through education, we become members of and part of particular social, cultural and political ‘orders’” (p. 40). Subjectification, by contrast, does not involve the internalization of existing social, cultural, and political values and expectations (as is the case with socialization), but emphasizes breaking away from these norms. As such, it concerns fostering “independence from such orders; ways of being in which the individual is not simply a ‘specimen’ of a more encompassing order” (Biesta, 2009).

Based on the plethora of benefits associated with literary reading as highlighted in scientific publications across both theoretically and empirically oriented fields (for an overview, see, for example, Merga, 2019; Cremin & Scholes, 2024; Dera, 2025b), the teaching of literary texts in schools can be legitimized with reference to each of Biesta’s functions. Literature education serves a qualifying function by contributing to language and vocabulary development (e.g., Cartwright, 2008; Mol & Bus, 2011; Pfost et al., 2013), cognitive development (Wolf, 2007; Dehaene, 2009; Willingham, 2017), and the acquisition of knowledge about both literary texts and the world more broadly (Gamble, 2019). It fulfills a socializing role when linked to citizenship education, for instance, by associating literary reading with fostering empathy (Zunshine, 2006; Mar & Oatley, 2008; Kidd & Castano, 2013; Koopman & Hakemulder, 2015; Mak & Willems, 2018) or developing a more complex worldview (Buttrick et al., 2022). Resting on the premise that it is desirable for education to produce empathetic and nuanced thinkers who contribute to society, such a socializing framework might conceptualize literature as an “imaginative rehearsal for the real world” (Gallagher, 2009, p. 66), while skilled literary reading is a vehicle to “extend the horizon of democratic possibility” (Fraser, 2023, p. 492). Building on the idea that societies also require citizens who dare to question the status quo, literature education can also be connected to Biesta’s subjectification function. Highlighting the emancipatory potential of literature and emphasizing the importance of critical readings “against” the text, such stances regard literature education as a form of equity-oriented sociopolitical action (Borsheim-Black et al., 2014; Choo, 2021).

2.2. The Why-Question and Motivation Theory

Hence, when considering the why-question, the benefits of literary reading can be linked to the overarching purposes of education itself. Nevertheless, the why-question is “notoriously neglected” in literature curricula worldwide (cf. Fialho, 2019, p. 3), although legislative descriptions of curricula often provide insight into the underlying functions of literature education across various geographical contexts, as well as the international differences in these functions (e.g., Witte & Sâmihăian, 2013; Gourvennec et al., 2020). Particularly in contexts where students’ motivation to read is declining, explicit attention to the relevance of literature education becomes a desideratum within the curriculum.

In various theoretical models of motivation, relevance is a pivotal concept. Keller’s (1987) ARCS model posits that students need to perceive a sense of relevance (the R in the acronym) to engage with a task. This relevance is derived from both the present worth and the future usefulness of the task. In the context of literary reading, the assessment of relevance is therefore intertwined with the question of what literature can offer students in both the present and the future. Similarly, in the expectancy-value model of achievement motivation (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), perceived relevance functions as a critical mechanism, with the constructs of incentive and attainment value as well as utility value explicitly forming part of students’ subjective task value. From this perspective, the key questions for literary reading become: what can I achieve through this, and how will it benefit me? Finally, in Ryan and Deci’s self-determination theory, widely regarded as the most authoritative theory of motivation, lack of value and non-relevance are particularly characteristic of amotivation, while personal importance and conscious valuing of activity serve as significant stepping stones toward intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2020, p. 2).

2.3. Articulating the Benefits of Literary Reading: What We Know So Far

Reasoning from such models of motivation development, it is imperative that teachers effectively articulate the importance and utility value of literary reading within the (societal and personal) contexts of their students. However, limited research exists on how teachers engage in this process of legitimization, and even less is known about students’ perceptions regarding the importance and utility value of literary reading. In Northern Europe, recent studies have explored how educators define the value of literature education, revealing a pronounced lack of consistent strategies for legitimizing literature instruction (Fodstad & Husabø, 2021; Myren-Svelstad & Grüters, 2022; Dera, 2025b).

Conversely, research aimed at enhancing students’ motivation for literature education through the prism of relevance has been scarce—although some scholars and educators have argued that a lack of enthusiasm for literary education might be linked to the limited relevance students perceive in the literary classics, which often take center stage in literature classes (e.g., Kittle, 2013; Pike, 2003). Usually, scholarship tends to focus on instructional practices designed to foster student engagement with reading tasks, such as facilitating dialogic activities (e.g., Allred & Cena, 2020), allowing for freedom of text choice (e.g., Cantrell et al., 2017), diversifying reading materials (e.g., Ivey & Broaddus, 2001), and linking subject-specific knowledge (e.g., on science) to reading, as in concept-oriented reading instruction (cf. Wigfield et al., 2004). While such studies provide insight into how task motivation for reading can be positively influenced, they offer little understanding of students’ perceptions of the intrinsic relevance of reading—particularly literary reading—as an activity in and of itself.

Empirical evidence convincingly demonstrates that most students aspire to become proficient readers (Tegmark et al., 2022). Yet, what value do they perceive this to hold for themselves? In the context of literature education, this question has thus far been examined only in the domain of English as a foreign language. When asked about the perceived benefits of reading literature in English, the overwhelming majority of students in Bloemert et al.’s (2019) study reported that it improved their acquisition of English vocabulary and grammar—essentially a narrowly qualification-oriented function, focused solely on language proficiency. In contrast, research conducted outside the school setting suggests that adolescents attribute a broader range of benefits to leisure reading in their first language. Interviews with 39 British students aged 15 and 16, 23 of whom identified as readers, led Wilkinson et al. (2020) to conclude that teenage readers primarily cited intrinsic motivations for reading: “to learn, to relax, for absorption and escapism, to develop empathy, for social capital, and/or for excitement” (p. 160). Extrinsic factors, such as achieving higher grades or reading to please a teacher, were notably absent from this study. Notably, recent research by Webber et al. (2024) suggests that the justifications commonly offered in school for reading—such as vocabulary expansion—may conflict with the personal reasons or goals that students have for engaging with texts. Hence, Webber et al. (2024) problematize the extent to which adult assumptions about students’ views on reading influence the design of reading curricula. This study builds on that premise by juxtaposing students’ perceptions of the benefits of literary reading with teachers’ assessments of these perceptions.

3. The Present Study: Research Context and Research Questions

3.1. Research Context

This study forms part of a broader research project examining literary education in the Netherlands. Within the Dutch educational context, the legally prescribed curriculum for literature education1 applies to the upper years of secondary education at the so-called havo and vwo levels. The havo track prepares students for universities of applied sciences, while completion of the vwo track grants access to research universities. This curriculum targets students aged approximately 15 to 18 years (grades 10 through 12), who engage in literature education as part of their studies in Dutch and English, irrespective of their academic track (either Culture & Society, Economy & Society, Nature & Health, or Nature & Technology). Depending on their chosen track, students may also study one or more modern foreign languages and their associated literatures, most commonly German, French, or Spanish.

Literature education is also typically offered in the lower years of both havo and vwo. However, in these earlier grades, the statutory curriculum refers to fiction rather than literature in the strict sense. Consequently, scholarly discussions on literature education within the Dutch context often concentrate on upper-secondary education (cf. Dera, 2020; Dera et al., 2023). Here, students are expected to report on their literary development based on the reading of either eight (havo) or twelve (vwo) literary works. They are also required to apply literary concepts to interpret texts and acquire a general understanding of Dutch literary history.

Hence, fostering reading enjoyment is not included in the formal Dutch curriculum for literature education, nor are students required to develop an understanding of the benefits that reading literature provides. However, the latest PISA reports reveal that Dutch 15-year-olds perform remarkably poorly in both reading enjoyment and reading proficiency, with scores declining both in comparison to previous Dutch cohorts and relative to international peers from other OECD countries (cf. Meelissen et al., 2023). For this reason, it is particularly pertinent within the Dutch research context to more precisely map the perceived relevance of literary reading among students.

3.2. Research Questions

To gain an initial understanding of students’ perceptions regarding the utility and necessity of reading literary texts, this study addresses the following interrelated research questions:

• RQ1: How do upper-secondary education students justify the statutory requirement to read literary texts in school?
• RQ2: Which arguments in favor of reading literature do students find compelling, and to what extent do differences emerge between reading in school and reading for leisure?
• RQ3: To what extent are there group-level differences among students in their justifications for literature education and their perceived persuasiveness of arguments for reading?
• RQ4: To what extent do literature teachers accurately assess how persuasive students find the arguments in favor of reading literature in school?

RQ1 focuses on upper-secondary education (students aged 15–18 years) due to the institutional context in the Netherlands, as described in Section 3.1. In RQ2, a deliberate distinction is made between school-based reading and voluntary reading, as prior research suggests that students apply different standards and expectations to these two domains (e.g., Webber et al., 2024; Siebenhüner et al., 2019), despite the complex and often reciprocal relationship between them (cf. Alvermann & Moore, 2011). RQ3 investigates specific variables for which group-level differences within the student population are anticipated based on earlier studies: gender (cf. Van Hek & Kraaykamp, 2023), grade level (cf. Lau, 2009), academic track (cf. Dera, 2019), availability of books at home (cf. Merga, 2015), and leisure reading habits (cf. Locher et al., 2019).

4. Methodology

To address the research questions, this study employed a self-completion questionnaire methodology. The study followed The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and was approved by the Ethics Assessment Committee Humanities of Radboud University (file number 2021-6368).

4.1. Participants

The questionnaire was administered across 21 schools located throughout the Netherlands, encompassing institutions situated in urban contexts as well as those in comparatively less densely populated areas (by Dutch standards). A total of 1817 students initiated the survey, of whom 1641 (90.3%) completed the questionnaire in its entirety and were included in the study’s sample. Regarding gender distribution, 44.5% of the participants identified as male, 53% as female, and 2.5% either identified otherwise or chose not to disclose their gender. Participants were drawn from various educational levels, with 20.9% enrolled in 4th-year havo (10th grade), 16.8% in 5th-year havo (11th grade), 21.3% in 4th-year vwo (10th grade), 21% in 5th-year vwo (11th grade), and 20% in 6th-year vwo (12th grade). Academic tracks were also well-represented, with 12.1% pursuing the Culture & Society track, 35.7% following the Economy & Society track, and 1.8% combining the two. Additionally, 21.9% were enrolled in the Nature & Health track, 11.5% in the Nature & Technology track, and 16.9% in a combination of these two science-oriented tracks.

4.2. Questionnaire Design

Due to the large sample size, a self-completion questionnaire was selected as the primary research instrument. To minimize the risk of high drop-out rates among students with low motivation for literature education, the survey was administered during a regular Dutch language class at school, under the supervision of a teacher. Given this specific context, the maximum completion time for the questionnaire was restricted to 15 min. Consequently, the questionnaire was primarily composed of closed-ended questions.

The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section, designed to address RQ3, collected relevant background characteristics of the participants. These included the demographic variables gender, age, grade level, and academic track. Additionally, participants were asked to estimate the number of books available in their household using an ordinal scale with the following options: fewer than 10, 11–25, 26–50, 51–100, and more than 100 (adapted from Cole et al., 2022). Finally, participants were asked to estimate the number of books they read annually during their leisure time (open-ended question).

The second section focused on the legal requirement to read literary texts in upper-secondary education, as outlined in RQ1. Participants were first presented with a statement on a 5-point Likert scale: “I believe it is justified that the government mandates the reading of literature in upper-secondary education (havo and vwo).” This was followed by an open-ended question: “Why do you think the government mandates the reading of literature as part of the Dutch language curriculum in upper-secondary education (havo and vwo)?”

In the third section, participants evaluated 20 potential benefits of reading literature, such as: “Reading literature improves your ability to concentrate”, “Reading literature helps you understand and relate to others (empathy)”, and “Reading literature contributes to your political awareness”. For each justification, participants were asked to rate, on a 5-point Likert scale, how convincing they found the argument for reading literature as part of the school curriculum, as well as for reading literature in their leisure time. A scale was chosen that avoided a neutral option, requiring participants to express their opinion on the persuasiveness of the presented justification (1 = not persuasive at all; 2 = not persuasive; 3 = slightly persuasive; 4 = persuasive; 5 = very persuasive).

A comprehensive overview of the justifications used in this section is presented in Table 2. The statements were derived from Dera (2025a), which surveyed 214 teachers working in Dutch upper-secondary education on how frequently they used these justifications in their teaching and how convincing they believed students would find them as justification for literature education. By presenting the same statements to students, teachers’ assumptions can be compared with students’ actual perspectives (RQ4).

Prior to distribution, the questionnaire was piloted at a school within the researcher’s network and reviewed for validity by a panel of eight students from various grade levels. This process resulted in several refinements to the phrasing of certain questions, such as adding an explanation of the term “empathy” in the aforementioned statement.

4.3. Procedure

The survey was conducted digitally using the Qualtrics application between February and April 2024. The survey link was shared with the researcher’s designated contact person at each participating school, who then disseminated it among colleagues within the school. Contact persons were instructed to administer the survey in one representative class per grade level, specifically a class with average performance in the subject of Dutch. Classes that were exceptionally high-performing or underperforming were thus excluded from participation.

The survey was administered at the beginning of a regular L1 lesson under the supervision of the regular teacher of the class. Students used either a laptop or tablet to complete the survey. Prior to participation, students provided informed consent. Approval for the research was also obtained from the school management of the participating institutions. In the case of students under 16 years of age, parents also provided informed consent, as required by Dutch law.

4.4. Data Analysis

The analyses of the closed-ended questions were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 27. Based on the distribution of responses to the open-ended question regarding the number of books read annually in one’s leisure time, participants were categorized into four groups: readers of 0 books per year (22.3%), 1–4 books per year (41.7%), 5–9 books per year (19.4%), and 10 or more books per year (16.6%). To determine differences between participant groups for each presented justification of literary reading (cf. RQ3), parametric tests were employed, based on the suitability of such tests for Likert scale items (Norman, 2010). Independent samples t-tests were conducted for the gender variable (excluding the relatively small category “other”) and one-way ANOVAs for the remaining variables, with the Bonferroni post-hoc test applied. All statistic analyses can be accessed in the OSF folder accompanying this research (https://osf.io/fnsv9/?view_only=2f114f4d87e14795937e9d95d4a51810 accessed on 1 April 2024).

For the analysis of the open-ended question, the responses from each participant were first coded in vivo. The open codes generated through this process were subsequently axially coded to develop a coding scheme that encapsulated the essence of the responses (cf. Saldaña, 2016). This resulted in a schema containing 16 categories, with the stipulation that each category must encompass at least 1% of the assigned open codes. Two research assistants independently applied this coding scheme to the complete dataset, achieving a satisfactory inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s kappa = 0.71). The author of this article reviewed all items where the research assistants disagreed in another round of analysis, making a final determination on the code assigned.

5. Results

5.1. Students’ Justifications of Literature Education

In general, Dutch students in upper-secondary education are inclined to believe that it is justified that the government mandates the reading of literature in school (M = 3.49; SD = 1.09; Mdn = 4). No significant differences are observed between participants based on gender or academic track. However, a significant difference is found for grade level (F(4.1636) = 2.83, p = 0.024). Students in 4-havo (10th grade) assign lower scores (M = 3.33) compared to students in 5-vwo (11th grade, M = 3.57) and 6-vwo (12th grade, M = 3.57). Additionally, availability of books at home (F(5,1635) = 4.34, p < 0.001) influences differences among participants: students with more than 100 books in their home environment (M = 3.60) are more supportive of the government mandate than students with fewer than 10 books at home (M = 3.26). Significant differences are also observed for reading behavior (F(3,1506) = 10.04, p < 0.001). Students who do not read any books (M = 3.21) assign lower scores to the statement compared to students who read one to four books (M = 3.54), five to nine books (M = 3.62), or 10 or more books (M = 3.57).

In the analysis of the open-ended question of why the government mandates literary reading in upper-secondary education, a total of 2346 codes were assigned to participants’ responses. On average, most students provided one or two arguments in their answers.

Table 1. Students’ responses to the question of why the government mandates literary reading in upper-secondary education (N_students = 1641; N_codes = 2346).

Category	Essence	% of Students Mentioning Category	% of Total Codes
Language improvement (including vocabulary)	Reading literature fosters the development of language skills, including spelling and vocabulary.	38.6	27.0
General reading skills	Reading literature improves overall reading proficiency.	27.1	18.9
General knowledge/development	Reading literature enhances knowledge and/or supports general intellectual development.	14.2	9.9
Cultural heritage	Literature is part of our cultural heritage; the government wants us to engage with historical texts.	9.6	6.7
Importance for studying/work	We must read literature because understanding complex texts is a necessary skill for education, further studies, and professional work.	9.5	6.7
Understanding the world/society	Through reading literature, you gain a deeper understanding of the world around you and society as a whole.	8.8	6.2
Promoting reading enjoyment	The government encourages the reading of literature to make reading enjoyable for teenagers again; it is a form of promoting reading.	6.5	4.5
Cognitive abilities	Reading literature benefits the brain and enhances cognitive abilities.	6.3	4.4
“Reading is good for you”	Reading is good for you (no specification).	6.2	4.4
Literature as an obvious subject area	We are required to read literary books by the government, as literature is also part of the curriculum.	4.2	2.9
Empathy	By reading literature, you can better empathize with others.	2.4	1.7
Promoting creativity	Reading literature also enhances your own creativity.	1.4	1.0
More depth than popular fiction	We are required to read literature because non-literary texts are very superficial for school.	1.2	0.9
Specificity of literary reading skills	Reading literature requires a different way of reading, and it is important that we learn this as well.	1.2	0.8
Other	Not applicable	2.9	2.0
No answer/“Don’t know”	Not applicable	2.8	2.0

ranks the participants’ arguments based on their relative frequency within the dataset. The most prevalent justifications (language improvement and general reading skills) account for nearly half of the total codes and predominantly emphasize the functional benefits of literary reading, framed in terms of practical skills. Cultural justifications (cultural heritage, promoting creativity, and to a lesser extent understanding the world/society) and developmental-psychological rationales (cognitive abilities and empathy) are far less prominent than these instrumental perspectives, which also encompass importance for studying/work. Notably, nearly 10% of participants provided no specific justification, offering vague responses such as “Reading is good for you” or simply stating “Don’t know”.

5.2. Students’ Assessments of the Potential Benefits of Literary Reading

Table 2. Persuasiveness of benefits associated with reading literature.

Benefit Associated with Reading Literature	Setting	Persuasiveness M (SD)	Gender	Grade Level	Academic Track	Books at Home	Leisure Reading
1. Enhancing brain connectivity	School Leisure	3.17 (0.94) 2.52 (1.03)	x x	x x	- x	- x	x x
2. Mastering complex interpretation skills	School Leisure	3.24 (1.00) 2.57 (1.04)	x x	x x	x x		x x
3. Preventing brain aging	School Leisure	2.95 (1.20) 2.83 (1.25)	x x	- -	- -	- x	- x
4. Enhancing concentration skills	School Leisure	3.59 (0.98) 3.09 (1.10)	x x	x x	- x	x x	x x
5. Training empathic abilities	School Leisure	2.96 (1.07) 2.78 (1.20)	x x	x x	- x	x x	x x
6. Promoting self-awareness	School Leisure	2.46 (1.08) 2.46 (1.19)	x x	- x	- -	- x	x x
7. Relaxation	School Leisure	2.60 (1.11) 2.93 (1.29)	x x	- x	- x	- x	x x
8. Escaping reality momentarily	School Leisure	2.61 (1.16) 2.98 (1.31)	x x	- x	- x	- x	x x
9. Coping with personal issues therapeutically	School Leisure	2.74 (1.02) 2.69 (1.12)	x x	- x	x x	- -	x x
10. Illuminating matters from multiple perspectives	School Leisure	3.15 (1.05) 2.80 (1.09)	x x	x x	x x	x x	x x
11. Enhancing the ability to explore ethical problems	School Leisure	2.89 (1.07) 2.63 (1.09)	x x	x x	x x	x -	x x
12. Developing a more nuanced worldview	School Leisure	3.24 (1.06) 2.91 (1.11)	x x	x x	x x	x x	x x
13. Acquiring knowledge (world/history/culture)	School Leisure	3.56 (1.05) 3.05 (1.14)	x x	x x	x x	x x	x x
14. Empowerment of marginalized groups	School Leisure	2.68 (1.13) 2.43 (1.09)	x x	- -	- x	x x	x x
15. Climbing the social ladder	School Leisure	2.83 (1.13) 2.58 (1.17)	- -	- -	- -	- -	x x
16. Increasing political awareness	School Leisure	2.64 (1.07) 2.39 (1.09)	x -	x x	- x	x x	x x
17. Improving expressive skills	School Leisure	2.79 (1.03) 2.73 (1.13)	x x	- x	- x	x x	x x
18. Enhancing general reading proficiency	School Leisure	3.89 (1.04) 3.30 (1.15)	x x	x -	x -	x -	x x
19. Ability to enjoy language (for the sake of language)	School Leisure	2.53 (1.10) 2.30 (1.10)	x x	- x	- x	x x	x x
20. Gaining access to cultural heritage	School Leisure	2.93 (1.12) 2.46 (1.10)	- x	x x	x x	x x	x x

Grouping variables exhibiting significant differences between groups (x = difference).

provides an overview of the persuasiveness of the 20 benefits associated with reading literature presented in the study, broken down by school setting and leisure setting. It also indicates whether significant differences in perceived persuasiveness exist between groups within the sample for each benefit.

Among the presented benefits, seven are considered relatively persuasive for literary reading in school settings across the entire sample. The most notable outliers (M > 3.5) are enhancing general reading proficiency, enhancing concentration skills, and acquiring knowledge. These persuasive arguments are predominantly associated with functional, cognitive, or interpretive skills—benefits that are particularly relevant to academic development. In contrast, benefits related to personal reflection, escapism, relaxation, and socio-political awareness score comparatively low, with means around or below M = 2.5.

The table also reveals that justifications for reading literature are generally deemed more persuasive in school contexts than in settings of volitional reading. Only three arguments surpass M = 3.0 in the leisure setting: enhancing general reading proficiency, enhancing concentration skills, and acquiring knowledge. Notably, there are only two instances where an argument is perceived as more persuasive for leisure reading than school-based reading: escaping reality momentarily and relaxation. This suggests that students tend to associate justifications framed in terms of personal enjoyment more strongly with leisure activities than with formal educational contexts.

5.3. Group-Level Differences

Group-level differences emerge for every individual justification. Across all significant differences within the gender variable, girls consistently find the stated benefits more persuasive than boys, both in the school context and for volitional reading. For three benefits, girls rate them as relatively persuasive on average, while boys score them below the midpoint of the Likert scale: preventing brain aging (M = 3.03 vs. M = 2.86), training empathic abilities (M = 3.11 vs. M = 2.79), and enhancing the ability to explore ethical problems (M = 3.02 vs. M = 2.74). In the context of leisure reading, boys find only one (instrumental) benefit relatively persuasive: enhancing general reading proficiency (M = 3.09, compared to M = 3.49 among girls). Three justifications related to social or personal outcomes receive relatively high scores from girls, with sharp contrasts compared to the average scores of boys: training empathic abilities (M = 3.00 vs. M = 2.53), relaxation (M = 3.19 vs. M = 2.64), and escaping reality momentarily (M = 3.30 vs. M = 2.58).

A recurring pattern emerges regarding significant differences related to grade level: students in the 11th and 12th grades consistently perceive the benefits as more compelling than their 10th-grade counterparts. Particularly striking are the differences between 10th-grade students at the havo level and 12th-grade students at the vwo level. Among the former, only four out of the twenty proposed benefits achieve an average score higher than M = 3.0 for school reading, whereas for the latter this holds true for eleven cases. The disparities are particularly pronounced in relation to benefits such as training empathic abilities (M = 3.21 in 12th-grade vwo versus M = 2.70 in 10th-grade havo), enhancing the ability to explore ethical problems (M = 3.06 versus M = 2.64), developing a more nuanced worldview (M = 3.52 versus M = 2.91), and gaining access to cultural heritage (M = 3.17 versus M = 2.60). The contrast is even more marked in the context of leisure reading. For 10th-grade havo students, only enhancing general reading proficiency scores above M = 3.0, while 12th-grade vwo students deem seven benefits noteworthy, including training empathic abilities, escaping reality momentarily, and coping with personal issues therapeutically.

In the case of academic track, significant differences can in most instances be attributed to students following the Culture & Society track or a combination of two profiles. These students generally find the proposed justifications more compelling than those in the Economy & Society and Nature & Technology tracks. Compared to the other grouping variables, differences are relatively frequently observed in the context of leisure reading. Students in the Culture & Society track exhibit notably more positive assessments of benefits such as reading as a form of relaxation (M = 3.24 versus M = 2.78 for Economy & Society) and escaping reality momentarily (M = 3.33 versus M = 2.81 for Economy & Society and M = 2.85 for Nature & Technology).

The availability of books at home appears to lead to significant differences among students in the sample. For all significant results, it holds true that the more books present in the home environment, the more compelling participants find the proposed benefits. The largest differences occur between students with fewer than 10 books and those with more than 100 books at home. Whereas the first group finds five benefits relatively convincing for reading in the school context, with an average above M = 3.0 (mastering complex interpretation skills, enhancing concentration skills, developing a more nuanced worldview, acquiring knowledge, and enhancing general reading proficiency), the latter group deems nine benefits compelling. These include the more critical and cultural justifications, where the differences in average scores are substantial: M = 3.02 versus M = 2.33 for enhancing the ability to explore ethical problems, and M = 3.11 versus M = 2.64 for gaining access to cultural heritage. In the context of leisure reading, students with fewer than 10 books at home do not find a single justification compelling, whereas students with more than 100 books at home rate five benefits relatively high, including relaxation (M = 3.16) and escaping reality momentarily (M = 3.20).

The most pronounced significant differences occur regarding leisure reading habits. The more books a participant reads in their leisure time, the more compelling they find the proposed justifications. Students who read zero books per year for pleasure find only three statements relatively convincing in the school context: enhancing concentration skills (M = 3.26), acquiring knowledge (M = 3.14), and enhancing general reading proficiency (M = 3.55). For participants who read more than ten books per year, this holds true for eleven statements, with the largest score differences occurring in training empathic abilities (M = 3.27 versus M = 2.59), developing a more nuanced worldview (M = 3.53 versus M = 2.86), and enhancing the ability to explore ethical problems (M = 3.16 versus M = 2.58). For leisure reading, students who do not read any books find no benefits convincing, while students who read more than 10 books per year consider as many as twelve justifications worthwhile. The most notable differences in terms of mean scores can exceed a full point on the Likert scale, particularly for the justifications related to personal well-being. Frequent readers rate these benefits significantly higher than non-readers: M = 3.01 versus M = 1.94 for promoting self-awareness; M = 3.68 versus M = 2.20 for relaxation; M = 3.84 versus M = 2.30 for escaping reality momentarily; M = 3.05 versus M = 2.28 for coping with personal issues therapeutically. Furthermore, it is important to note that even the frequent readers do not find these benefits convincing as justifications for in-school reading.

5.4. Teachers’ Perceptions of Students’ Assessments

Table 3. Teachers’ perceptions of persuasiveness of justifications for in-school literary reading (based on Dera, 2025b) versus students’ actual evaluations of these justifications.

Benefit Associated with Reading Literature	Teachers’ Perception M (SD)	Students’ Evaluation M (SD)
1. Enhancing brain connectivity	2.90 (0.93)	3.17 (0.94)
2. Mastering complex interpretation skills	2.40 (0.85)	3.24 (1.00)
3. Preventing brain aging	2.00 (0.95)	2.95 (1.20)
4. Enhancing concentration skills	2.94 (0.84)	3.59 (0.98)
5. Training empathic abilities	2.70 (0.77)	2.96 (1.07)
6. Promoting self-awareness	2.80 (0.74)	2.46 (1.08)
7. Relaxation	2.26 (0.90)	2.60 (1.11)
8. Escaping reality momentarily	2.80 (0.87)	2.61 (1.16)
9. Coping with personal issues therapeutically	2.82 (0.94)	2.74 (1.02)
10. Illuminating matters from multiple perspectives	3.32 (0.67)	3.15 (1.05)
11. Enhancing the ability to explore ethical problems	2.30 (0.79)	2.89 (1.07)
12. Developing a more nuanced worldview	3.18 (0.70)	3.24 (1.06)
13. Acquiring knowledge (world/history/culture)	3.45 (0.69)	3.56 (1.05)
14. Empowerment of marginalized groups	2.50 (0.89)	2.68 (1.13)
15. Climbing the social ladder	1.99 (0.95)	2.83 (1.13)
16. Increasing political awareness	2.24 (0.76)	2.64 (1.07)
17. Improving expressive skills	3.07 (0.80)	2.79 (1.03)
18. Enhancing general reading proficiency	3.57 (0.78)	3.89 (1.04)
19. Ability to enjoy language (for the sake of language)	2.19 (0.81)	2.53 (1.10)
20. Gaining access to cultural heritage	2.16 (0.92)	2.93 (1.12)

contrasts the assessments of literature teachers working in upper-secondary education (N = 214) regarding the persuasiveness of the benefits for in-school reading with the students’ actual evaluations of these benefits.

The table demonstrates that, across the board, teachers tend to somewhat underestimate how persuasive the average student finds the proposed benefits of reading literature. Notably, the differences are most pronounced for mastering complex interpretation skills, enhancing concentration skills, preventing brain aging, climbing the social ladder, and gaining access to cultural heritage, with a relatively large discrepancy also observed for relaxation. There are, however, benefits associated with literature for which teachers’ assessments seem overly optimistic, particularly in the cases of improving expressive skills and, to a lesser extent, promoting self-awareness.

6. Discussion

6.1. General Discussion

This study demonstrates that Dutch students in upper-secondary education generally support the statutory requirement to read literary texts in school, primarily justifying it (RQ1) by the functional benefits of literary reading, such as improving language skills, vocabulary, and general reading proficiency, with far less emphasis on the cultural, social, or developmental psychological benefits of reading literature. The most compelling arguments in favor of reading literature (RQ2) are enhancing general reading proficiency, stimulating concentration, and acquiring knowledge from the content of the texts. The persuasiveness of justifications for reading literature is consistently higher for in-school reading than for leisure reading, except for benefits related to relaxation and escapism. Significant group-level differences emerge (RQ3), with girls, students in 12th-grade vwo, those in a Culture & Society track, students with many books at home, and frequent leisure readers finding the benefits associated with reading literature more persuasive than boys, 10th-grade havo students, those in an Economy & Society or Nature & Technology track, students with few books at home, and non-readers. These less convinced groups appear to have a stronger influence on teachers’ assessments of the persuasiveness of arguments for reading literature (RQ4), as teachers generally tend to underestimate the persuasiveness of most benefits presented in the study.

Viewed through the lens of Biesta’s theoretical framework on educational purposes, this study reveals that the qualification function of literature education overwhelmingly dominates students’ perceptions. They primarily value justifications related to skills deemed essential for ultimately functioning in a literate society. This qualification-oriented perspective is further reflected in the high value students place on (measurable) knowledge. Conversely, socialization and subjectification are far less prominent in students’ evaluations. Although they recognize the development of a nuanced worldview—considered by literary scholars as vital for democratic participation—as a relevant justification for literature education, more socializing justifications, such as fostering empathy, and subjectifying arguments, such as literature’s emancipatory, political, or ethical role, are generally seen as less persuasive. Notably, students from book-rich home environments and avid readers (that is: those already socialized into reading literature) seem more inclined to value these socializing and subjectifying arguments, suggesting that they have already experienced such benefits in their own reading lives.

The study also underscores the perceived divide between in-school reading and volitional reading amongst students. While even non-readers find functional justifications for school-based literature reading relatively relevant, they are unpersuaded by any benefits when it comes to leisure reading. Interestingly, even enthusiastic readers do not associate certain benefits they ascribe to volitional reading—such as relaxation, escapism, and self-discovery—with school-based literary reading. This suggests a persistent discrepancy between in-school and volitional reading, as previously identified in the literature (e.g., Webber et al., 2024; Siebenhüner et al., 2019).

Overall, these findings have several implications for literature teachers. If they aim to enhance students’ motivation by highlighting the benefits of literary reading, assuming that perceived relevance influences motivation, they are most likely to succeed by emphasizing the functional skills gained from reading literary texts. However, this places educators in a difficult position, as research indicates that teachers wish to prioritize fostering reading pleasure and promoting worldview development (Fodstad & Husabø, 2021; Myren-Svelstad & Grüters, 2022; Dera, 2025a). Moreover, focusing solely on functional benefits risks further reinforcing the already qualification-heavy orientation of education. To counter this, literature education might need to explicitly engage with justifications that teachers seem to underestimate, as evidenced by this study, but that are nonetheless crucial, such as fostering ethical awareness, training complex interpretative skills, cultivating empathy, and appreciating the cultural value of literature.

Future research could focus on such benefits of reading literature that can be effectively communicated within the context of literature education. How can teachers meaningfully emphasize these seemingly less compelling outcomes of literary reading, especially considering that they do not always foster more critical reading dispositions in their own teaching practice (cf. Dera, 2025a), and under what conditions are students receptive to them? It is also important to conduct more targeted research into potential explanations for the observed patterns. For example, the relatively low persuasive power of the empathy-based argument for reading literature may be linked to increasing narcissism rates among young people over the past decades (cf. Twenge et al., 2008), while the low scores for ethically oriented arguments might be related to adolescents’ still-developing moral reasoning (cf. Bajovic & Rizzo, 2021), particularly among the younger participants in the sample.

One justification that warrants special attention is the role of reading in enhancing concentration. Teachers tend to view this justification as only moderately persuasive, yet student data indicate otherwise. Even the least motivated readers, including many boys and 10th-grade students, rate this argument relatively highly—a notable finding in an era where declining attention spans are a concern for education. This result offers valuable insights for teachers and advocates of whole-school reading programs aimed at increasing the time spent reading extended texts during school hours. Moreover, it may be worthwhile to further investigate this particular finding in future research, for instance, by examining the extent to which working with longer texts in educational contexts actually contributes to students’ concentration or cognitive patience (cf. Van de Ven et al., 2023). This is especially relevant given that younger generations growing up with smartphone technology seem to exhibit a tendency toward hyper reading (cf. Hayles, 2010) rather than deep reading.

A more fundamental question raised by this study’s premises and methodology is whether literature education should be approached at all from the perspective of justifying its presumed benefits. Is it not time to move beyond constantly defending the relevance of literature, especially since this study shows that most students find it truly legitimate that reading literary works is part of the language curriculum? In that sense, literature education indeed needs no defense. However, since so many students predominantly view literary reading as a functional activity, educators would do well to highlight the broader benefits of literary engagement to challenge this overly instrumental perception.

6.2. Limitations

This study’s use of a self-completion questionnaire administered to a relatively large sample is a methodological strength. However, it also presents limitations. First, the analyses do not clarify why students find certain benefits of literary reading more or less convincing in either the school or leisure context. Qualitative follow-up research, such as semi-structured interviews or focus group discussions, would be needed to address this gap.

Another limitation is the lack of contextual information provided to participants about the justifications presented in the study. Students might find more elaborated arguments—for instance, about the ethical or socio-political benefits of literary reading—more compelling than the mere statement that literature offers these benefits. In the classroom setting, such arguments take concrete shape in dialogue with literary texts that can have both cognitive and affective impacts. This crucial dimension is intrinsically absent from the impersonal nature of a survey. Future research should therefore include classroom observation studies to examine how the presumed benefits of literary reading are articulated in practice.