Developing Pre-Service Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Reading for Pleasure: What Is Missing? What Next?

Abstract

Across the UK, Reading for Pleasure (RfP) is included in national curricula, yet children’s engagement as readers appears to be declining. Equipping pre-service teachers with the knowledge to develop RfP pedagogy in their classrooms is vital. Previous studies have identified knowledge of diverse children’s literature as central to RfP pedagogy. However, data indicate that teachers and pre-service teachers rely on a narrow childhood canon. Furthermore, in initial teacher training (ITT), developing teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature may be limited to an optional specialism. This study offers a starting point for ITT provision that develops pedagogical content knowledge for RfP. A total of 595 pre-service teachers’ questionnaire responses from 10 UK universities are reported about their expectations of RfP pedagogy and knowledge of children’s literature. Data showed their limited knowledge of children’s authors and illustrators and highlighted striking gaps in their understanding of RfP pedagogy with little difference between student teachers who read regularly or those who rarely read in their free time. Recommendations for new initiatives to address identified gaps in pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for RfP are discussed.

1. Introduction

Globally, nurturing engaged readers who choose to read in their own time is increasingly recognised within reading curricula, e.g., Reading for Pleasure (RfP) is acknowledged as the right of every child by the International Literacy Association (2018), and many countries seek to capitalise upon its power and potential. The term RfP or national equivalents are present in policy and practice; for example, in England, Finland, Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, Scotland, Singapore, South Australia, South Korea, Wales, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The antecedents of this “reading for pleasure turn” (Cremin & Scholes, 2024, p. 2) can be seen in a growing body of international research literature which highlights a strong relationship between children’s RfP, their reading achievement, and their psychological wellbeing (e.g., Sullivan & Brown, 2015; Sun et al., 2023; Torppa et al., 2020).

The current study examines the reading identities, practices, and experiences of pre-service teachers (PSTs) from 10 United Kingdom (UK) institutions and scrutinises their familiarity with children’s literature and RfP pedagogical content knowledge. The 595 pre-service teachers involved undertook the questionnaire in the first two weeks of their training in England, Wales, or Scotland before receiving any course content focused on RfP. In each of these nations, RfP is profiled in the curriculum. In England, it is stated that “Pupils should be taught to develop pleasure in reading” (DfE, 2013, p. 21), in Wales, that “Learners should be given opportunities to … read for different purposes, e.g., for personal pleasure” (Welsh Government, 2016, p. 5), and in Scotland, that children should “Regularly select and read, listen to or watch texts which (they) enjoy and find interesting” (Scottish Government, n.d., p. 30).

However, despite these relatively long-standing policy commitments, the lowest attitudes to RfP since 2005 were recently reported for UK 8–18-year-olds (Clark et al., 2024). Drawing on 76,000 respondents, the National Literacy Trust found that the number of UK young people reporting reading in their spare time has halved since 2019 (now 34.6%) and only 20.5% reported reading daily. This striking decline represents serious cause for concern. Additionally, the drop in attitudes and frequency among those children who do not receive Free Schools Meals (FSMs) (a proxy for disadvantage) was more marked than that documented for those who do receive FSMs. A “levelling down” is evident, as Clark et al. (2024) observe. Internationally too, children’s attitudes to reading are declining, with 18% not liking reading in the last Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS) (Mullis et al., 2023).

Given these negative attitudes and reduced engagement in recreational reading worldwide, it is imperative that pre-service teachers are supported to nurture this beneficial habit and are enabled not merely to be able to teach the skills of reading, but to have sufficient pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1987) to motivate and sustain young people as readers. Such knowledge, Shulman and others (Joshi et al., 2009; Kind, 2009) have argued, makes use of the content knowledge of the discipline. With regard to literacy, the necessary content knowledge is often assumed to be merely knowledge of phonology, orthography, and comprehension (Joshi et al., 2009; Moats, 2009), disregarding the necessity for teachers to have secure knowledge of children’s literature, which research evidences is vital (Cremin et al., 2014, 2024; Simpson & Cremin, 2022). To become effective pedagogues, pre-service teachers need subject and PCK related to volitional reading, i.e., to foster the conditions in which children are regularly self-motivated to read texts of their own choosing. The extent of this knowledge at the outset of teacher education is the focus of this paper since, without a full grasp of pre-service teachers’ RfP knowledge base and sense of self as readers, university tutors’ work is restricted.

In what follows, we consider the related research literature, which explores the knowledge needed, the research methodology and ethical issues, and then share the findings. These starkly reveal that the PSTs had very limited understanding of potential RfP practices and an even weaker knowledge and familiarity with children’s literature. We discuss the data in the light of the performativity agenda, pertaining to schools, and teacher education institutions, and consider innovative ways forward, drawing on international development work and strategies deployed within The Open University RfP research and practice coalition. These are pre-service RfP ambassadors and teacher reading groups, both of which operate in multiple universities across the UK. Whilst recognising limitations, we recommend urgent action to ensure the teachers of tomorrow are enabled to become Reading Teachers who can reduce the decline in children’s RfP.

The Necessary Knowledge for Nurturing Readers

The importance of teacher subject knowledge has long been recognised, and studies continue to examine the different disciplinary knowledge necessary (Ball et al., 2008; Grossman, 1990; Kind, 2014). Arguably, (Shulman, 1986, 1987) early contributions framed this field, although as Myhill et al. (2023) suggest, his work has been somewhat overlooked in recent years, perhaps because of its theoretical nature. He combined both knowledge and skills in a model of pedagogical reasoning and action, which he maintained should be the “intellectual basis for teaching performance” (Shulman, 1987, p. 20). Underpinning his concept of pedagogical reasoning are the dual notions of content knowledge and PCK. Shulman described the former as the “knowledge, understanding, skill and disposition that are to be learned” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). In other words, expert knowledge of the discipline, and PCK as a “special form of professional understanding” that is “uniquely the province of teachers” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). He asserted that knowledge and action operate in complex interplay, each enriching and feeding the other. Some empirical studies have borne this out (Kind, 2014; Smithers & Robinson, 2013), and a relationship between teacher knowledge and effectiveness when teaching English has been noted (Flynn, 2007; Wray et al., 2002). Shulman (2015) later suggested teachers’ motivation towards social justice and outcomes for learners as well as cultural contexts and teachers’ identities were also key to PCK. This complex combination is reflected in recent RfP research.

In relation to RfP, few studies have sought to examine pre-service teachers’ knowledge and action (their PCK) at the outset of their training, although Davis (2004) has shown the PCK of science trainee teachers is intimately linked to their vision of teaching, school, university, and life experience. Studies of practising teachers who successfully motivate young people to read suggest that knowledge of texts, of readers, and understanding of being a reader are vital, alongside knowledge of aligned pedagogical practices. Simpson and Cremin (2022) propose three knowledge sets are needed to offer a balanced approach to the teaching of reading, that attends to both proficiency and desire. This additive trio includes the following:

• Knowledge of children’s literature;
• Knowledge of being a reader;
• Pedagogic knowledge of how to use literature to support readers.

However, teachers’ subject knowledge of children’s texts is rarely afforded the attention it deserves in pre-service education or professional development (Simpson, 2016), and national curricula, particularly at the primary stage, tend to take such knowledge for granted. The “structural invisibility” (Farrar & Simpson, 2023, p. 216) of children’s literature in ITT courses further hinder recognition of its value; too often it is positioned instrumentally, merely a resource for reading instruction. Yet, studies reveal evidence of the significance of fiction, showing, for example, literature’s power to trigger memories that deepen understanding (Barber & Klauda, 2020; Kuzmičová & Cremin, 2021) and enrich reading attainment (Jerrim & Moss, 2019; Leino et al., 2017).

Future teachers need to be particularly secure in their knowledge of literature to nurture readers, yet studies indicate limited text repertories persist both within the profession (Cremin et al., 2008a, 2008b; Clark & Teravainen, 2015; Akins et al., 2018; Conradi Smith et al., 2022) and in ITT contexts in Scotland (Farrar, 2021), Norway (Skaar et al., 2018), and England and Finland (Cremin et al., 2024). In this dual country study, the PSTs’ knowledge of children’s texts was extremely narrow, limited to well-known white male authors from yesteryear (Cremin et al., 2024). The presence of a popular childhood canon is revealed which is both limited and limiting. A study from the United States of America (USA) (Conradi Smith et al., 2022) found the average publication date of the texts of elementary teachers’ read aloud choices was 1995. Teachers’ lack of knowledge of diverse contemporary texts, combined with a lack of confidence in using these (Adam et al., 2019), reduces children’s access to books that reflect their lives and interests, constraining volitional reading.

The second knowledge base noted within the additive trio relates to a personal understanding of being a reader derived from firsthand experience (Simpson & Cremin, 2022). However, research highlights that pre-service teachers tend not to be keen readers, most report reading rarely, and indicate a lack of enthusiasm, with less than positive reader identities (Applegate & Applegate, 2004; Applegate et al., 2014; Farrar & Simpson, 2023; Spann & Wagner, 2023). Studies show that teachers who operate as reading role models and influencers in the classroom, sharing their enthusiasm for reading, enhance children’s engagement as readers (Commeyras et al., 2003; Cremin et al., 2014; Simpson & Cremin, 2022; Kauppinen & Aerila, 2019; Simpson, 2016; Vansteelandt et al., 2017).

Furthermore, teachers who are supported to become more aware of their own reading identities, rights, and practices develop their knowledge and understanding about what being a reader involves (Cremin, 2010; Cremin et al., 2014). These professionals, recognised as Reading Teachers (capital R, capital T) persistently engage in “the thoughtful movement from private self-noticing to wider professional action in order to support children more effectively” (Simpson & Cremin, 2022, p. 8). Furthermore, conscious of the social and affective nature of reading, these Reading Teachers use this understanding in order to frame and shape their pedagogy.

Research affirms that Reading Teachers are more likely to use pedagogical strategies that are accepted as effective in fostering children’s RfP (McKool & Gespass, 2009; Ruddell & Unrau, 2013). These include rich text access, choice, reading aloud, time to read, informal book talk, and recommendations in social reading environments (Cremin et al., 2014; Fisher & Frey, 2018). However, this is not always straightforward to achieve. In systems of high accountability where reading standards and outcomes take precedence over the volitional reading agenda, time-poor teachers are challenged to create an effective balance between the will and the skill to read. Pre-service teachers, observing in these classrooms, may not witness RfP pedagogies in action, rather observing impoverished activity-oriented practice that is constrained by limited knowledge of texts and of being a reader, as Hempel-Jorgensen et al. (2018) found. In research from Singapore, an “overwhelming number of teachers” made no reply or marked questions about strategies to motivate children as “not applicable” (Garces-Bacsal et al., 2018).

In addition to the necessary content knowledge of texts, of being a reader, and of an aligned pedagogy, studies which focus on developing volitional readers also highlight the importance of teachers’ knowledge of children’s identities and interests as readers (Cockroft & Atkinson, 2017; Francois, 2013; McGeown et al., 2020; Reedy & Reedy, 2024). This newly established element of Reading Teachers’ knowledge bases augments the additive trio (Simpson & Cremin, 2022), creating a quartet of core knowledge and understanding necessary to nurture RfP. This quartet was recently evidenced in research with six reading and writing for pleasure-focused initiatives, where “responsive adults” drew on knowledge of children’s texts, knowledge of being a reader, and RfP pedagogy, as well as knowledge of children’s identities, to engage them in choice-led reading and nurture reading connections with peers (Cremin et al., 2023). Knowing children as readers operates in a dynamic interplay with the other strands and resonates with Shulman’s (1987) and Smith and Neale’s (1989) arguments that knowledge of learners and their characteristics is key to the professional knowledge base for teaching.

Developing an understanding of readers’ unique preferences and interests enables educators to honour and build on these, ensuring that the child can access books that may be personally engaging. As Locher et al.’s (2019) longitudinal work has shown, present pleasure in a book—“intrinsic situational motivation”—influences the likelihood of the child’s future engagement. This “positively predicted individual differences in the development of that student’s intrinsic habitual reading motivation” (p. 11). The significance, therefore, of children developing a legacy of past satisfactions cannot be underestimated, and to achieve this, knowledgeable educators are prerequisite. Such Reading Teachers, knowing a range of texts and individual readers, and cognisant of their own agency as readers and the power of choice, are in a strong position to tailor recommendations to tempt readers, sharing their passions and highlighting texts of potential interest to support wise choices (Cremin et al., 2014; Mackey, 2022; Vanden Dool & Simpson, 2021). These and other studies indicate the potential for teachers to respond to individual’s or group’s attitudes and dispositions, their desire for social connections to other readers or for more private reading space (Cremin et al., 2024; Neugebauer & Gilmore, 2020; Ng, 2018; Oxley & McGeown, 2023), thus creating culturally responsive RfP pedagogies that are attuned to the readers. So, understanding pre-service teachers’ initial knowledge and experience of volitional reading as well as potential RfP pedagogies is crucial to help them navigate successful ways forward.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was designed to understand RfP “starting points” of pre-service UK primary teachers as they began Initial Teacher Training (ITT) programmes. To increase the likelihood of student participation, avoid influencing responses, and gain a picture across institutions, the team created an anonymous online questionnaire for distribution via participating universities’ online platforms in the first two weeks of their course (Braun et al., 2021). Mindful of the disadvantages of collecting quantitative data without the opportunity to explore rationale and experience (Tombs & Strange, 2024), this included quantitative and qualitative items drawn from research, it was piloted and re-developed prior to administering. Based on research indicating that student teachers’ reader identities, habits, and experiences shape their practice (Ruddell & Unrau, 2013), demographic questions and sections on “current” and “past” reading experiences, as well as anticipated “future” ideas about supporting children’s volitional reading were included (Appendix A). In this paper, the pre-service teachers’ projected plans for RfP pedagogy and their knowledge of children’s texts are reported.

The 595 participants were Year 1 pre-service teachers enrolled in 10 primary ITT undergraduate and postgraduate programmes across England (8), Scotland (1), and Wales (1). To recruit participants, providers who were partners in The Open University’s RfP research and practice coalition agreed to post the survey on their programme VLEs, sharing information about the study and an invitation to participate on student forums.

As the questionnaire was anonymous and voluntary, with consent to participate incorporated in it, few ethical challenges regarding keeping identities hidden were encountered. Hosted on the Qualtrics platform, it allowed participants to withdraw at any point and to decline to answer questions but still complete the survey. An overview of findings was shared with each provider as an informative goodwill gesture, but did not include any individual details. The study was approved by the lead university’s ethics panel (HREC/4063).

Of the 595 pre-service teachers who completed the questionnaire in the first weeks of their ITT programme, 67% were beginning 1-year Post Graduate Certificates in Education, 19% undergraduate programmes, 7% school-centred postgraduate routes (School Direct), and 7% did not specify. They were predominantly female (n512), with 65 male participants and 18 preferring not to say.

The questionnaire (Appendix A) contained three types of questions: multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions, enabling participants to provide longer and more reflective responses. In order to ensure that “RfP” was understood, the questionnaire introduction gave a short definition: “Reading that you choose to do in your own free time. Some call this free time reading, recreational reading or personal reading”.

To explore the pre-service teachers’ understanding of RfP pedagogy and knowledge of children’s literature, the findings reported derive from analysis of responses to two questions.

• When you are a qualified teacher, how do you think you’ll support children to read for pleasure, to choose to read in their own free time?
• Which authors/illustrators/poets would you recommend to children?

(Question 1 included space for three responses per participant, question 2 included six spaces).

Analysis involved categorising the qualitative data using a process of inductive coding (Saldaña, 2024). Responses to question 1 were short sentences and phrases, often pertaining to specific practices alongside student teachers’ perceived values regarding RfP practice in their future classrooms. Through inductively assigning and comparing codes, debating and agreeing final codes, then reapplying these (Saldaña, 2021) thematic codes were developed for the pedagogy category e.g. text provision, book talk, environment.

Once codes were agreed on and applied across the dataset, responses were compared based on the pre-service teachers’ reported reading frequency. Grounded in the research that correlates teachers’ personal reading with their ability to support children’s reading engagement (e.g., Simpson & Cremin, 2022; Cremin et al., 2024; Aerila et al., 2023), participants were categorised as Frequent/Regular Readers (FR/RR) or Occasional/Never readers (OR/NR). Frequent readers being those who reported RfP several times a week or daily, regular readers reported RfP weekly. Occasional readers being those who reported RfP several times a month or monthly (

Table 1. Reported reading frequency of pre-service teacher participants.

How Often Do You Read for Pleasure in Your Free Time	Number of Matching Cases	% of Sample	Reader Category
Daily	101	17	FR/RR
Several times a week	101	17	FR/RR
Weekly	86	14.5	FR/RR
Several times a month	88	14.8	OR/NR
Monthly	154	25.8	OR/NR
Never	65	10.9	OR/NR
Total FR/RR	288	48.5
Total OR/NR	307	51.5
Total sample	595	100

).

3. Results

3.1. Limited Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Over a quarter (28%) of the participants (n166) did not respond to question 1 about how they intended to support children “to read for pleasure, to choose to read in their own free time?” yet they continued to complete other responses in the questionnaire. Of those who did offer suggestions, 65% (n390) offered three pedagogical strategies. Comparing the pedagogical strategies suggested by the FR/RR and OR/NR participants revealed similarities in the limitations regarding their awareness of pedagogical approaches (

Table 2. Quantity of pedagogical strategies suggested by participants by reading frequency.

	Nil Response		One Response		Two Responses		Three Responses		Total
	No. PSTs	% of Category	No. PSTs	% of Category	No. PSTs	% of Category	No. PSTs	% of Category	No. PSTs	% of Category
Frequent and Regular readers	67	23%	3	1%	13	5%	205	71%	288	100%
Occasional and never readers	99	32%	5	2%	18	6%	185	60%	307	100%

). In total, 205 out of 595 (35%) of students who completed the survey provided two or less pedagogical strategies for RfP, indicating they had very little to suggest that might entice or engage children in reading of choice.

Table 2 shows the number of pedagogical strategies suggested by participants’ reading frequency. From the FR/RR responses, 71% were able to offer three pedagogical strategies compared to 60% of the OR/NR group, whilst 32% of the OR/NRs and 23% of the FR/RR group could offer no pedagogical strategies. The majority (93%, n154) of the participants who did not provide any pedagogical suggestions were also unable to suggest any authors, illustrators, or poets that they would recommend to children. Thus, regardless of whether the students were currently frequent or occasional readers as adults, their starting point in terms of pedagogical content knowledge for developing children’s volitional reading was limited.

3.2. Range of Suggested Pedagogical Strategies

The themes regarding the pedagogical strategies suggested are now presented, with examples and noticeable omissions, alongside differences between the FR/RR and OR/NR groups. The approaches noted are discussed in descending order of combined frequency across the student reader categories. Participants were provided with three spaces to suggest strategies, offering 1785 possible opportunities for the 595 participants. A total of 1240 responses were provided, with percentages calculated from this total figure. The range of strategies suggested was very wide; thus, only a small proportion of the PSTs chose common themes.

3.2.1. Text Provision

Of those students who suggested pedagogical strategies for RfP, text provision was the most common response (

Table 3. Top 10 suggested pedagogical strategies, in order of overall frequency.

Rank of Combined Responses by Frequency	Combined Percentage out of all Student Responses (n1240)	Code	Example of Response	FR/RR Number of Responses (n644)	Percentage of FR/RR Response	OR/NR Number of Responses (n586)	Percentage of OR/NR Response
1	18.3%	Text provision	FR/RR: Make sure there’s options beyond just books—e.g., graphic novels, comics. OR/NR: Provide books that relate to their own interests.	124	19%	103	17%
2	9.8%	Book Talk	FR/RR: Encourage talking about reading with peers. OR/NR: Encouraging conversation about characters from books they like etc.	62	9.6%	60	9.9%
3	8.5%	Recommendations and help with selecting texts	FR/RR: Point them in the direction of books I think they will enjoy. OR/NR: Recommend books I think they will enjoy.	45	7%	60	10%
4	7%	Reading aloud	FR/RR: I will read books aloud on a regular basis. OR/NR: Read regularly aloud to the class.	50	8%	36	6%
5	5.6%	RfP time/independent reading	FR/RR: Creating reading time sessions. OR/NR: Having some designated time where they can read for pleasure.	33	5%	37	6%
6	5%	Environment	FR/RR: Creating interesting wall displays based on literature. OR/NR: A comfortable and quiet reading area in the classroom.	33	5%	28	4.7%
7	4.5%	Creative and cross-curricular	FR/RR: Help children get excited about reading through role playing the books or drawing. OR/NR: Use props such as puppets, sounds, and music to engage children and make reading fun.	21	3%	35	6%
8	4%	Rewards/competitions	FR/RR: Reward children who complete a book. OR/NR: Incentives for reading- points, stickers, prizes.	25	4%	24	4%
9	3.5%	Encouragement	FR/RR: Encourage reading OR/NR: Encourage any type of reading not just books.	18	2.8%	26	4%
10	3.5%	Teacher reading role model	FR/RR: Often mention how much I enjoy reading, and how I do it daily. OR/NR: Show enthusiasm about reading myself.	23	3.6%	19	3%

). Respondents commonly mentioned providing different text types, different genres, and a wide variety, e.g., “Showing them a range of books and stories”, “I will have a wide selection of books available and different genres”, “Encourage them to read food packaging, labels, colourful magazines, traffic signs; anything to discover what they may be interested in without the pressure of reading aloud to a teacher”.

Frequently, the pre-service teachers linked text provision to children’s choice and agency as readers, e.g., “Have a selection of resources for the children to choose what type of reading they would like to do”. However, only two specifically mentioned the need for diversity within the texts on offer; interestingly, these suggestions came from students who were occasional or never readers, “Provide books that will cover topics that originate with everyday life experiences such as LGBTQ, race, death, etc.”, “Find books with different people of all backgrounds, black, Asian, white, etc. so children of different heritages can find themselves in the story by connecting to a character”.

Although text provision was the dominant pedagogical strategy in the pre-service teacher responses, it is notable that these were only 227 responses out of 1240. There were 1013 pedagogy responses (82%) that did not mention text provision. If the nil responses are also included (498 blank responses), this means that, out of a possible 1785 responses, 1511 (84.6%) did not mention texts at all. The PSTs who did recommend text provision as one strategy tended to combine their suggestions with one or more different strategies (

Table 4. Combinations of pedagogical responses with text provision.

	Text Provision Response	Other Pedagogy Response 1	Other Pedagogy Response 2
A	Find books that support their interests	Explain how to choose the right book for them (Recommendations/help with choosing)	Read to them (Reading aloud)
B	Choose a variety of books to appeal to different children.	Read a story every day to the children. (Reading aloud)	Be enthusiastic and make the characters exciting. (Role model)
C	Have a class library and separate the books into different genres so the children can be encouraged more to read a book that they know they will be interested in.	Create a “lucky dip” box so the child can explore different genres by choosing a surprise. (Text provision)	Reward children who complete a book. (Rewards)

, A and B). However, some of the responses were relatively passive in terms of teacher involvement and focused solely on book provision, rewards, or activities, as if these in and of themselves would support readers (Table 4, C).

Text provision also included responses that referred to improving access to texts through school library provision, local libraries, and those that mentioned libraries but did not specify whether public or school (3% of total responses, n41). Of these, some participants suggested encouraging library visits, directing children to the local library, or helping children to obtain a library card, others specified they would take the children on “trips” to the library.

3.2.2. Book Talk

Book talk was ranked second and mentioned slightly more frequently by FR/RR (Table 3), which might be linked to their own experiences of talking about texts. This theme also included 32 responses (2.5%) that suggested pedagogical approaches with an intentional social element including book clubs and group reading, although no details were provided. Those who gave more information about their intentions for book talk mentioned adult to child questioning, group discussion, child to child discussion, and often focused on likes and responses to texts. In both FR/RR and OR/NR groups, there were a few responses about facilitating book talk, but mostly general comments were offered about encouraging talk; for example, “Encourage them to have discussions with each other about books and recommend books to their peers too”.

3.2.3. Making Recommendations and Offering Selection Help

The third most mentioned area of pedagogy for RfP was recommendations and help with selecting texts (Table 3). Both FR/RR and OR/NR suggested making 1-1 recommendations to encourage children to enjoy texts. Interestingly, the OR/NR readers made more comments about this, and some were related to choosing accessible texts that related to children’s interests—perhaps based on their own more negative personal experiences as readers, “Help them find books that match their interests. Fiction or non-fiction.” “Help find characters in books that they feel represent them”.

Only two participants mentioned knowledge of specific authors being important to enable their recommendations, although they may have omitted this due to the question’s pedagogic focus. Others suggested they could “Offer reading suggestions based on what they have previously liked” or “Look for stories which have links to other content (films, tv, etc.)”.

3.2.4. Reading Aloud, Time to Read, and the Reading Environment

Reading aloud (RA) was the fourth most frequently mentioned pedagogical strategy overall. A similar number of comments from both reading frequency groups noted RA as another place to support book talk and recommendations, e.g., “By engaging them in listening to various texts being read to them during story time and discussing them as we go through”.

Setting aside specific time for RfP was a theme for both groups of pre-service teachers and ranked fifth in the pedagogy responses (although this represents only 5.6% of the total) (Table 4). They variously referred to RfP time as personal, independent, informal, uninterrupted, free time, although some comments suggested that they thought this was for when children had finished work, and in one case it was called “silent reading”. Only two participants mentioned using this time to encourage reading through reading alongside children, although this may have been assumed “I will have reading mornings where not only the children but also the adults in the room read for pleasure, so we set an example of reading for pleasure being a lifelong experience”. There were also some comments across both groups that indicated the importance of this time being relaxed, calm, and enjoyable, e.g., “I would offer reading time for the children and allow them to get comfy and chill out”.

Comments related to the reading environment predominantly mentioned providing a book corner or reading area in the classroom with a range of books. Many of these gave no further information about its nature or use. Three participants from the OR/NR group emphasised it should be quiet and 11 students from both groups suggested it would be comfortable and provided furnishing details suggesting it should be inviting and brightly coloured. Interestingly, only the FR/RR group (n6) mentioned using displays in the classroom to encourage reading.

3.2.5. Remaining Pedagogical Suggestions

The pedagogical themes with smaller numbers of responses included creative/cross curricular, rewards/competitions, encouragement, and teacher reading role model (Table 3). The first encompassed suggestions related to reading and enjoying books although not directly about RfP; for example, “fun activities” around books, using films, oral storytelling, props, puppets, and drama to bring stories to life, and connecting texts to topic-related reading and children’s writing. Some seemed to cross-over into English teaching approaches around class texts, whilst others were more clearly linked to children’s reading interests and giving them a voice, e.g., “Do projects on presenting their favourite books, putting on mini plays of their favourite scenes and drawing their own fan art”.

Extrinsic rewards for reading, including class competitions and reading challenges rewarded with stickers and prizes were suggested by 49 students, presumably drawing on their experience, or school observations. The theme “encouragement” also included responses suggesting praising and rewarding children who chose to read, e.g., “Give general praise and show excitement that they have been reading in their own time”. Occasional comments offered further insights, seeing encouragement as a way of supporting children who might find reading difficult, or emphasising their agency and choice “Encourage everyone to at least try-Ensure they know it’s ok to find it tricky or not understand parts of the text”.

The importance of conveying a positive attitude to reading generally was also noticeable in the theme “Teacher reading role model”. Whilst most responses under this theme were quite broad, e.g., ”show engagement in reading”, some offered details, e.g., “Discuss what reading means to me, how much I enjoyed it as a child, and hope that that will encourage them a little” and “Demonstrate my love of reading by having books with me that I’m reading”. In some cases, there was overlap with using book talk, or RfP time as a way of modelling a love of reading. The additive trio, proposed as key to a balanced approach to the teaching of reading (Simpson & Cremin, 2022), indicates the importance of pre-service teacher subject knowledge of children’s literature as well as understanding of being a reader derived from firsthand experience. The responses to our study suggest that being a reader may be important for knowledge of children’s literature and perhaps interest and enthusiasm for supporting readers, but it is insufficient to provide pre-service teachers with understanding of PCK. Respondents to the questionnaire showed mostly heterogeneous and limited PCK, which did not appear to be significantly influenced by whether they read regularly.

3.3. Knowledge of Children’s Literature

In answer to the question regarding which authors/illustrators/poets they would recommend to children, the pre-service participants could provide up to six author, illustrator, and poet names (hereafter author–artists). Only 2634 responses were offered out of possible 3570. The FR/RRs named more author–artists (1623) than the OR/NRs (1011) (

Table 5. Number of author–artist recommendations by participants’ reading frequency.

Category of Recommendation	FR/RRs No.	% of FR/RR Recommendations	OR/NRs No.	% of OR/NR Recommendations
Authors	1046	39.7%	718	27.3%
Author/illustrators	37	1.4%	140	5.3%
Illustrators	374	14.2%	111	4.2%
Poets	166	6.3%	42	1.6%
ALL	1623	61.6%	1011	38.4%

).

However, despite this difference, there were large percentages of both groups who were unable to recommend any author–artist. Of the OR/NRs, 42.95% (n131) appeared unable to offer any recommendations compared to 31.94% of FR/RRs (n92). Furthermore, only 5.5% of the FR/RRs (n16) and only 1.3% (n4) of the OR/NRs gave the maximum number.

Most Recommended/Authors/Illustrators and Poets

The range of authors–artists was similar and narrow across the two groups (

Table 6. Authors–artists recommended 10 or more times.

Authors-Artists	Name	No. Times Recommended by FR/RR	No. Times Recommended by OR/NR
Author	Roald Dahl	189	131
Illustrator	Quentin Blake	113	57
Illustrator	Julia Donaldson	92	60
Author	Jacqueline Wilson	88	65
Author	David Walliams	76	63
Author	Michael Morpurgo	45	42
Poet	Michael Rosen	42	23
Author	Dr Seuss	37	17
Illustrator	Eric Carle	37	21
Illustrator	Axel Scheffler	34	29
Author	Judith Kerr	31	17
Author	Beatrix Potter	30	20
Author	JK Rowling	30	51
Author/illustrator	Oliver Jeffers	27	<10
Author	Enid Blyton	25	19
Author	Malorie Blackman	25	<10
Author	Nick Sharratt	24	19
Poet	Benjamin Zephaniah	18	10
Poet	Spike Milligan	16	<10
Author	Phillip Pullman	15	<10
Author	Jeff Kinney	14	<10
Poet	Shel Silverstein	13	<10
Author	Lauren Child	12	<10
Author	Lewis Carroll	12	14
Poet	Edward Lear	12	<10
Author	A A Milne	10	11
Author	C S Lewis	10	<10
Author/illustrator	Maurice Sendak	<10	10
Poet	William Blake	<10	10

). The most recommended author was Roald Dahl (320 recommendations), and Quentin Blake was the most frequently named illustrator (170 recommendations). Although there were differences in the numbers of recommendations given and the overall ranking, the top five author–artistsnamed by both FR/RRs and OR/NRs were Roald Dahl, Jacqueline Wilson, David Walliams, Julia Donaldson, and Quentin Blake. All OR/NR recommendations were included in the FR/RR list except for Maurice Sendak and William Blake. Author–artists with over 10 FR/RR recommendations also included Spike Milligan, Phillip Pullman, Jeff Kinney, Shel Silverstein, Lauren Child, Edward Lear, and C.S. Lewis. Across both groups, only two authors of colour were mentioned, Benjamin Zephaniah and Malorie Blackman. Knowledge of poets and illustrators was particularly limited, with “William Blake” being named most frequently by OR/NRs, possibly based on their secondary education, and only five poets were noted in the top 21 FR/RRs recommendations.

4. Discussion

The findings represent cause for concern. Over a quarter (28%) of the 595 pre-service teachers had no suggestions regarding RfP practices, indicating their scant PCK. Regular reading was insufficient to mitigate this gap. Whilst this was the start of their training, many pre-service teachers in the UK are required to spend time observing practice in schools before commencing ITT, yet some appear unaware of RfP pedagogy, or perhaps they do not conceive it will be their responsibility. Additionally, those that made suggestions were over-reliant on text provision, which, when combined with making recommendations, represented the dominant strategy (mentioned by 53%). It appears possible that these participants presumed books were the solution to enabling RfP. Yet, ironically 37.5% did not or could not name a single author, illustrator, or poet, only 6.8% recommended six, and the range of mentioned author–artists was exceptionally narrow, largely monocultural, and somewhat dated. The limitations to the pre-service teachers’ knowledge of children’s authors, including “Dahl dependency”, evident in the responses, are in common with previous studies (Cremin et al., 2008b; Clark & Teravainen, 2015; Farrar, 2021), indicating that the problem persists, perhaps a result of the restricted range of authors experienced by these pre-service teachers during their own education. The data suggest there is little scope at present for these pre-service teachers’ knowledge and action to interplay and optimally support young readers.

The findings also illuminate limited understanding of the social and relational nature of RfP pedagogy, misconceptions about the role of extrinsic rewards, which as research shows, are ineffective (Orkin et al., 2017) and the need for silence during reading time. Furthermore, 51.5% reported reading for pleasure occasionally (several times a month/monthly) or never, so their knowledge of being a reader is likely to be limited. All four strands of the additive quartet (knowledge of children’s literature, of being a reader, pedagogic knowledge, and knowledge of readers) need significant development. These pre-service teachers will need sustained support to develop the necessary knowledge to nurture impactful RfP opportunities (Cremin et al., 2024). Given these data are drawn from students across 10 universities, who chose to undertake the anonymous questionnaire, they indicate the very considerable challenge ITT Lecturers face in developing effective Reading Teachers. Moreover, those who participated may have been more positively inclined towards reading than their peers who did not.

Relatively few studies have investigated the impact of ITT on pre-service teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and potential RfP pedagogic action. Tovey (2022) found that engagement with literature can shape their reading attitudes and, potentially, their future teaching practices. However, Farrar and Simpson (2023), drawing on a comparative case study of provision in two ITT institutions, highlight the constraints reported by pre-service teachers who did not consider themselves to be readers of children’s literature; these included time, lack of interest, relevance, and age appropriacy. In the current study too, the data reveal narrow knowledge of author–artists, yet the consequences of this distancing from children’s texts will have consequences for the young people they teach. Focused on pedagogy, Price and Simpson (2025) suggest that it is feasible to develop pre-service teachers’ literate identities as Reading Teachers by introducing RfP pedagogies (Cremin et al., 2014), and leveraging connections between their engagement as readers, research, and future practice. These students’ involvement in the social and interactive reading practices of book club appeared to influence their intended RfP pedagogic plans.

To forge ways forward, rich opportunities need to be offered to pre-service teachers that enable them to see themselves as readers and find confidence and delight in reading and using children’s literature, developing knowledge of young readers and a responsive RfP pedagogy that will nurture children’s journeys (the additive quartet). To do so, the authors of this paper, working under the auspices of The Open University RfP research and practice coalition in the UK, with support from the United Kingdom Literacy Association, have developed two core strategies, namely creating a multi-university RfP Student Ambassador Programme and a Teacher Reading Groups movement. The latter encompasses over 100 such groups annually, some of which are led by university tutors and include pre-service teachers alongside practising professionals. These strategies have been framed by self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2017), which suggests that, for optimal human functioning, people are driven by three core psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Frequently applied to studies of volitional reading, this highlights readers’ agency and the autonomy to exercise it, the need for a sense of self-efficacy and realisation of oneself as a reader, and the need to feel relationally connected to others through reading. SDT has been used successfully in professional development contexts (De Naeghel et al., 2016; Kennedy & Shiel, 2010), has shaped practice in classrooms and motivated readers (De Naeghel et al., 2014; Neugebauer & Gilmour, 2020; Orkin et al., 2017). In addition, university students’ memories of reading affirm the potency of satisfying these needs (Zare et al., 2023); the students’ memories of classroom practices that combined all three strands of SDT “were vividly recalled as positive”. (p. 271).

RfP Ambassadors and Teachers’ Reading Groups

The RfP ambassadors, working in pairs or small groups from each ITT provider, attend six online sessions across a year. Each session focuses on an aspect of RfP pedagogy based on the work of Cremin et al. (2014), developing Ambassadors’ “competence” in the form of PCK for RfP through exploring research-informed strategies and preparing and reflecting in groups with a mentor. They plan and implement new initiatives with support from their own tutors and librarians, to encourage their peers to read children’s literature and deploy RfP pedagogy. Devising new initiatives, after canvassing ideas and interests from their peers through online surveys or forums, fosters the Ambassadors’ agency and, aligned with the work of Dollinger and Lodge (2020), the resultant staff–student co-creation of opportunities also benefits their self-efficacy, confidence, ownership, and engagement. Teachers’ Reading Groups similarly offer a collaborative social environment to develop evidence-informed PCK. These groups meet online or in person six times a year and support each member to develop their reading repertoires, or knowledge of individual readers and/or a chosen area of RfP pedagogy in their class based on “Review your Practice” surveys, sharing their plans and progress, in the manner of a small-scale action research project. In many cases, these are also shared as online case studies on The Open University RfP website.

To engage pre-service teacher peers, face-to-face RfP promotion led by the ambassadors has included coffee and book clubs, themed diverse texts drops-ins, creating university-based children’s book awards, and discussing national award shortlists with peers. In common with TRGs, these opportunities develop future teachers’ knowledge of diverse and contemporary author–artists, whilst discussion around texts and the activities involved also subtly model RfP pedagogy. This informal, social learning builds on peers’ areas of interest, facilitating the cohorts’ relatedness and increasing engagement. In Ambassador-led sessions, relaxed peer-led interactions aim to encourage trainees who may fear “judgement” from university staff about their lack of existing knowledge, whilst tutor-led TRGs, outside of the ITT curriculum, are intended to nurture belonging and build confidence. Arguably, both offer space for pre-service teachers to reflect on and take ownership of RfP and begin to see themselves as Reading Teachers.

Ambassadors’ in-session contributions include arranging author visits to their course, leading “reading rivers” workshops with peers, and sharing RfP pedagogy as part of lectures in different year groups. These activities prompt discussion around reader identities and RfP pedagogy, as well as extend content knowledge of literature. Again, modelling and engaging peers in practical pedagogical approaches may seem more manageable to peers who are learning from their friends. Similarly, TRGs offer group support with analysing classroom practice for RfP and a safe space to trial approaches, potentially building confidence, competence, and self-efficacy as pedagogues.

Ambassadors also focus on university social reading environments, developing new library provision, social reading areas, displays, and book swaps. These provide spaces and invitations to be social, reflect upon and share reading with others, building knowledge of authors and texts alongside confidence to talk about them, thus modelling informal book talk and social reading environments appropriate also to school. TRG members also benefit from read alouds, and browse texts together, reflecting on their responses and what this might mean for children they work with. Pre-service teachers can struggle to afford books and so providing text access is vital. Ambassadors and TRG leaders share links to public library resources, liaise with local bookshops, and signpost online texts as well as encourage the use of university/TRG collections. University libraries are sometimes underutilised as PSTs attend school placements and study online, but when the children’s sections are co-curated or displays are made by Ambassadors, increased engagement has been noted.

Whilst the approaches discussed may already be part of some ITT provision, the Ambassadors’ systematic use of social media may be novel. Every Ambassador group, unprompted, created some form of online asynchronous communication, sometimes using Padlet, but also Instagram, TikTok, and an online newsletter to recommend texts to their peers whilst on school placement, wherein suggestions for RfP pedagogy are often also included. In TRGs, ongoing informal contact is encouraged through social media, e.g., Facebook or WhatsApp groups and online resources shared including video clips and examples of practice from other teachers. For the Ambassadors, blending online support with peer led in-person activities around children’s texts appears to increase engagement with children’s literature. Ambassadors suggest this is because fellow students can engage with resources at times that suit them, and communicate with others, raising questions and sharing ideas as they occur. The feedback they have received also indicates their peers value the advice offered on implementing pedagogic change.

5. Conclusions

This study indicates scant PCK on the part of pre-service teachers at the start of their training. It shows the necessity of establishing pre-service teachers’ PCK at the outset, whether through a survey or other routes, in order to expand it. Significant development work is likely to be required to support children to read for pleasure, both in terms of their subject (or “content”) knowledge of contemporary children’s author–artists, and their research-informed understanding of pedagogical strategies (Shulman, 1986, 1987, 2015). The predominant belief that text provision will be sufficient to engage young readers, and the limited awareness of the “responsive adult” role (Cremin et al., 2023) in engaging children in RfP, suggest that pre-service teachers’ assumptions about motivating children to read may need to be challenged. Long-held views about what it means to be a reader and a teacher of reading may require an epistemic shift (Sebastián et al., 2025) so that pre-service teachers can fully develop PCK for RfP. Additionally, pre-service teachers need support to widen their reader repertoires and sense of self, alongside their awareness of the social and relational nature of reading. Shifting this understanding requires ITT reading experiences that develop reflection and self-awareness and help to transform trainees’ reader identities into Reading Teacher identities.

To enable pre-service teachers to become Reading Teachers, finding ways to integrate knowledgeable peers into university provision can be invaluable. Working to co-design and contribute to university teaching provision and extra-curricular opportunities may support the development of pre-service teachers as responsive adults for RfP by bridging the research–practice gap and connecting with peers. This will also increase pre-service teachers’ own RfP as well as their reflective engagement with RfP pedagogy. Underpinning PCK for responsive adult involvement may be nurtured by approaches that foster autonomy, competence, and relatedness. These expose students to children’s literature in relaxed informal conditions, where choice and connections to texts are key. Such approaches encourage autonomy, shaping PST’s identities as Reading Teachers through reflection and discussion, and increasing engagement and agency. Furthermore, peer leadership and co-creation such as that experience by the Ambassadors as they networked with tutors, librarians, leading teachers, and students from other institutions uniquely positioned them with both responsibility and expertise. This appeared to provoke deeper reflection and understanding of the social and affective nature of RfP as they worked to support their peers, supporting them as future leaders of RfP.