Student Voices on Reading Mediation: Primary Students’ Preferences for Teachers’ Practices and Texts Across Subjects in the South of Chile

Abstract

Students’ reading preferences and voices are increasingly relevant for informing teaching practices and strengthening students’ motivation and engagement with reading, thus making their reading experiences meaningful. However, in Chile, there is still little evidence regarding the reading preferences and perspectives of primary school students. Therefore, this study analyzes students’ preferences and perceptions of the texts assigned by their teachers, as well as the pedagogical practices for reading mediation applied across various subjects in the La Araucanía Region of southern Chile. To this end, using a qualitative, multiple-case study design, we conducted 9 discussion groups on reading mediation and discourse genres with 96 students in grades 3–6, each connected to one of 6 outstanding teachers. Thus, we applied an inductive content analysis, constructing categories through initial coding, focused coding, and interpretive analysis, all of which underwent triple review and calibration by team members. The findings show that, in general, students value the support and scaffolding their teachers provide to facilitate reading, comprehension, and participation. However, they express a desire for greater agency in selecting texts and for more opportunities to engage in dialogue around these texts, especially in subjects other than Language Arts. These results highlight the importance of reading mediation across subjects, including student text selection and dialogic interaction, to promote motivation and sustained reading practices in primary education.

1. Introduction

The development of reading within the school context is of paramount importance, serving as an epistemic tool for accessing knowledge across subjects (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012; Street & Street, 1995), supporting cognitive development (Cunningham & Stanovich, 2001), and promoting well-being (Cremin & Scholes, 2024; De Naeghel et al., 2012). Nevertheless, teaching practices may inadvertently alienate or exclude students when text mediation or contextual and purposive considerations are lacking (Rockwell, 2001), underscoring the necessity of providing students with meaningful choices in their reading (Allred & Cena, 2020; Beach, 2015; Errázuriz et al., 2022a; Silva & Jéldrez, 2021).

Reading activities and the texts provided play a central role in fostering student motivation. Consequently, it is imperative to use diverse texts tailored to students’ interests (Agrelo-Costas et al., 2023; Chapman et al., 2007; Davis & Vehabovic, 2018; Merisuo-Storm & Soininen, 2014; Tegmark et al., 2022). According to Self-Determination Theory, autonomy and relatedness constitute essential components for fostering self-motivation and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008; De Naeghel et al., 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2020).

Positive attitudes toward reading are associated with stronger performance (Cremin & Scholes, 2024; Cubillos & Troncoso, 2025; Errázuriz et al., 2020; Orellana & Baldwin, 2018; Schiefele et al., 2016; Stutz et al., 2016; Valenzuela et al., 2015) and more time spent on independent reading (Brandt et al., 2021; Chapman et al., 2007). To support diverse and complex reading, teachers must integrate vernacular literacy practices—those students engage in reading for enjoyment or personal reasons—into classroom settings (Barton & Lee, 2012; Ivey & Broaddus, 2001).

Although existing research in Chile has examined reading mediation activities undertaken by teachers (Bustos et al., 2017; Errázuriz et al., 2022a; Iturra et al., 2019; Manzi & García, 2016; Medina et al., 2015), further investigation is warranted into the reading activities and texts that students themselves prefer and find motivating, particularly in primary education (Davis & Vehabovic, 2018; Donoso et al., 2020; Fundación La Fuente, 2013; Gelber, 2017; Latorre, 2014; Ministry of Education, 2021; Silva & Jéldrez, 2021). Incorporating the perspectives of developing readers can guide teachers in planning more engaging reading activities (Ministry of Education, 2021) and aligns with current curricular recommendations, which emphasize designing instructional sequences that reflect students’ tastes, interests, and concerns (Ministry of Education, 2023, p. 5). In fact, this could also provide an answer to the contextualization that our current curriculum suggests: “Thus, for example, the design of a teaching sequence whose integrating element is in line with the tastes, interests, and concerns of the students will make a difference.” (Ministry of Education, 2023, p. 5).

Based on the above, we asked: which reading mediation activities and texts do students prefer across school subjects? Consistent with this question, our research objective was to identify and analyze the preferences of primary school students about the reading mediation activities and texts suggested by their teachers in the Araucanía Region of southern Chile. To make this objective operational and to align it with the organization of the results, we examined it along three interrelated dimensions that structure the analysis reported below. First, we describe the reading activities and reading practices that students experience and enjoy (Section 3.1). Second, we look at the types of texts and their subject-based reading preferences (Section 3.2). Third, we note the types of teacher support they value (Section 3.3).

We used discussion groups with students to provide a more in-depth qualitative perspective, as most previous research relies on quantitative data and surveys (Fundación La Fuente, 2013; Gelber, 2017; Latorre, 2014; Ministry of Education, 2021). Since there is little data for this region, our aim is to help build stronger, more varied evidence to support reading education in this area. This study adds to past research in two ways. First, it highlights the voices of primary school children, who are rarely heard in a field dominated by survey-based studies of older students. Second, it compares reading mediation across subjects, not just Language Arts, so we can see how different school subjects affect what students like and value when reading.

1.1. Students’ Reading Preferences in the School Context

Although there are different perspectives for conceptualizing students’ reading preferences in school settings, we adopt the view that defines them as “the possible inclination of boys and girls toward certain characteristics of books over others. These characteristics include book topics as well as design options and text format” (Fundación La Fuente, 2013, p. 5). However, Silva and Jéldrez (2021) add other criteria, such as the purpose of reading and the reader’s connection to the text.

Silva and Jéldrez (2021) studied reading preferences among Chilean Kindergarten and Grade 1 students, finding that young children preferred informational books to narrative ones, with boys choosing informational texts more often than girls did. In contrast, Chapman et al. (2007) found that U.S. first graders liked both types equally, challenging assumptions about gender differences. Recent studies (Kotaman & Tekin, 2016; McGeown, 2015) further confirm these preferences. However, in Chile, primary students perform worse on informational texts because these are less common in schools and receive less support, whereas narratives are more common and receive more scaffolding (De Mier et al., 2015; Errázuriz et al., 2020).

In Grade 1, text choices are associated with connections to one’s own experiences and the purpose of reading (Silva & Jéldrez, 2021), whereas in upper grades, Fundación La Fuente (2013), based on 457 children from Grades 2 to 4, found horror, adventure, animals, and nature books were the topics that attracted the strongest preferences. Among girls and boys from rural areas, books about animals and nature were preferred. Regarding book design and format, preferences tend to favour books with drawings and colours, medium-sized letters, and many pages (Fundación La Fuente, 2013).

Likewise, although Latorre (2014) reports that print books were the preferred format for 10,683 students in Grades 5 to 8, this tendency decreases as students progress through school, as preferences for websites and magazines increase. At the same time, stories and comics were the most preferred genres, followed by novels. In this context, “story” (Spanish cuento) refers to short narrative fiction—that is, a short story—whereas a “novel” denotes a longer, chapter-length narrative; the two genres differ mainly in length, structural complexity, and the sustained reading they demand. By gender, this study found that girls preferred stories, followed by novels, whereas boys preferred comics, then stories; in higher grades, preferences for informational and entertainment articles increased. Regarding topics, horror and adventure predominated among boys, while love followed by horror predominated among girls (Latorre, 2014).

Although our study centers on primary students, some secondary-level findings remain relevant for the context. For example, in a nationwide survey of 9354 students, Gelber (2017) found that most students read more for assessments and homework than for pleasure. The study showed girls read more frequently, consider themselves better readers, and prefer literary texts, while boys favor informational texts. Both genders preferred books overall, though boys preferred digital reading for study (Gelber, 2017).

Finally, the “Survey of Students’ Perceptions of Reading”, administered to 17,879 Chilean adolescents from Grades 7 to 12 and Language Arts teachers (Ministry of Education, 2021), found that the texts students would most like to read are those associated with action and horror. When results are disaggregated by grade, preferences become more varied; for example, in Grade 7, the top three preferences are young adult literature, comics, and adventure. This group of students also most strongly asks teachers to link class texts to their tastes and interests.

In this regard, Moreno-Morilla et al. (2017), who surveyed 1540 Spanish students in Grades 3 to 6, reached similar conclusions: students preferred reading narrative texts with images or audiovisual resources, as well as blogs and websites. They also found that the most frequently used text in school was the school textbook, with limited use of other texts. Indeed, although students aged 8–9 integrate vernacular and school practices, students in higher grades focus solely on technology-mediated vernacular reading practices (Moreno-Morilla et al., 2017). This is consistent with Beach (2015), who notes that only 4.36% of the books chosen by adults and students coincide. More recently, Dera (2025) identified a gap between school reading and recreational reading among Dutch students.

In a context where students’ reading motivation declines as they move through school, while remaining correlated with reading performance and maintaining a gender gap in favor of girls (Latorre, 2014; Errázuriz et al., 2020; Orellana & Baldwin, 2018; Stutz et al., 2016; Valenzuela et al., 2015), the changes that students’ reading preferences undergo—in terms of both topics and formats—become highly relevant. In this sense, the role of teachers as frequent readers and as generators of more motivating reading practices for their students (Fundación La Fuente, 2013) is crucial, since those who enjoy reading in their own lives are more likely to project and recreate such positive experiences with their students (Brandt et al., 2021; Errázuriz et al., 2019; González, 2022, Morrison et al., 1999; Sulentic-Dowell et al., 2006).

Consequently, teachers’ reading mediation practices and the activities they implement are important factors in creating more inclusive reading environments, both from a gender perspective and in validating students’ hybrid, digital, and vernacular reading practices (Barton & Lee, 2012; Gaete-Moscoso, 2019). Along these lines, given the effect that attending to reading preferences can have on motivation, teachers are advised to diversify their criteria when selecting texts (Arellano-Yanguas et al., 2022) and also to allow students to choose their readings (Gelber, 2017; Latorre, 2014; Ministry of Education, 2021; Silva & Jéldrez, 2021), so that they have opportunities to explore different genres, formats, and topics and thereby enrich both their experiences and their reading trajectories (Duke, 2003; Ministry of Education, 2021; Munita, 2021).

1.2. Teaching Practices for Mediating Reading

Through their teaching practices, teachers can model and scaffold reading processes by example and act as expert readers, drawing on their experience and monitoring the process for less experienced readers (Bustos et al., 2017). However, in Chile, these reading mediation practices are mostly reproductive, marked by a predominance of closed questions and limited opportunities for dialogic participation, making them cognitively undemanding (Bustos et al., 2017; Errázuriz et al., 2024; Errázuriz et al., 2022a; Iturra et al., 2019; Manzi & García, 2016; Medina et al., 2015). Along the same lines, research in Spain has shown that among teachers from Grades 3 to 6, these practices are generally not very diverse and do little to promote debate about texts, since activities such as writing summaries, searching for information, and answering questions about readings predominate (Moreno-Morilla et al., 2017). Likewise, Davis and Vehabovic (2018) argue that test-centric literacy instruction generally predominates in teaching practices.

In light of this evidence, it can be concluded that these types of reading mediation generally provide limited space for fostering dialogue and motivating literacy situations linked to popular culture and new technologies (Gil, 2009), and for integrating students’ funds of knowledge and vernacular literacy practices (Barton & Lee, 2012; Esteban-Guitart & Llopart, 2017). Indeed, as has been shown, the development of high-quality dialogic interactions is decisive for mediating reading across disciplines (Kucan & Palincsar, 2013; Mercer, 2001) because it favors deeper text comprehension, reasoning, and student motivation (Alexander, 2018; Cazden, 2001; Medina, 2016; Murphy et al., 2009; Wells, 2001). In fact, Johnston (2019) found that dialogue around texts read in class enhances human, moral, self-regulatory, and relational development.

Unfortunately, in the school context, the content-area reading approach persists. It does not account for the specific reading challenges involved in disciplinary development (Paul, 2018; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012). Since reading is a cultural practice situated in a community and a context (Barton & Hamilton, 2004), considering its particularities is fundamental. These skills differ greatly across practice communities (Wenger, 1998) and throughout different areas of knowledge (Kalantzis & Cope, 2023; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012; Shanahan, 2020). For example, in Social Studies, Zanotto (2016) notes that reading tasks frequently involve identifying the author’s position and the conflict between other perspectives. In contrast, in Science, readers move back and forth across tables and graphs. They link them to the rest of the information and recursively process these multimodal resources, transforming information from one form to another (Shanahan, 2020). The relevance of argumentation practice for learning Science has also been noted (Larraín et al., 2019).

Understanding expository, academic, and scientific genres in schools is complicated and affected by multiple factors. This calls for a developmental progression from narrative and everyday texts (Butterfuss et al., 2024; Sologuren & Castillo, 2020). Science texts require readers to manage unfamiliar vocabulary and low cohesion (Schleppegrell, 2020; Follmer & Sperling, 2018). Mathematics requires interpreting multimodal formats and implicit logic (Riccomini et al., 2015). Thus, activating prior knowledge is essential because academic texts do not provide sufficient explicit information (Sologuren & Castillo, 2020). Expository texts frequently present new ideas before familiar ones. This stresses the importance of teacher mediation with linking academic and everyday discourse (Kraal et al., 2018; Córdova et al., 2016).

In this sense, Sánchez et al. (2010) describe two types of reading mediation to motivate, model, and scaffold reading. First, teaching to understand (cold supports) refers to explicitly teaching, modeling, and scaffolding the use of strategies to identify and apply rhetorical resources to understand language, text structure, and content, and to learn within the subject area. Second, helping to understand (warm supports) involves accompanying and guiding students during the reading process itself—that is, reading and applying strategies simultaneously. Although Sánchez et al. (2010) do not explicitly mention affective and motivational factors in this latter type of support (Sánchez & García, 2021), we consider it crucial to do so, because during guided reading the teacher can create a reading environment and context that facilitates not only comprehension but also motivation to read, which, as noted above, is key for reading performance (Errázuriz et al., 2020; Landry et al., 2012). Thus, both types of support are useful and complementary for constructing the meaning of texts and developing reading competencies and attitudes.

In this regard, Davison et al. (2021) found that the most frequent type of support in the reading mediation practices of a group of Chilean teachers across different disciplines was helping with understanding. For their part, Rojas et al. (2019) observed that the supports and scaffolds for reading that yielded the best results in Science were non-invasive, provided multiple opportunities for dialogue, and fostered inferencing to support learning within the subject. This latter finding confirms that formulating open questions with a high cognitive demand promotes inferential processing and metacognitive reflection in students (De Koning et al., 2020).

Another crucial factor in reading mediation practices concerns the reading modes used in classroom activities, as they can be effective for monitoring and motivating reading (Swartz, 2010). Following Swartz (2010), these modes include shared aloud reading by students and teacher, teacher read-aloud, student read-aloud guided by the teacher, independent reading, silent reading by students, and dramatized reading by teacher and students. According to Goikoetxea and Martínez (2015), shared, guided, and aloud reading can foster dialogic interaction, oral language development, textual knowledge, and more positive reading attitudes, while also contributing to the exploration of emotions.

Reinforcing these arguments, Cremin et al. (2022) and Hoffman (2011) note that these ways of reading, when practiced systematically, promote language and vocabulary development through the oral interaction that reading generates. In fact, Larraín et al. (2012) found that shared reading can be a good opportunity to explain vocabulary through simple examples, thereby increasing vocabulary and improving learning. From our perspective, this evidence strengthens the argument that teachers, through the reading activities they propose, should present themselves as models of expressive reading, encouraging students to read aloud and inviting them into being readers (Richardson, 2000).

Regarding reading activities carried out in Chile and students’ preferences concerning them, Gelber (2017) found that at the secondary level, the most common activities were students’ reading aloud and silently, completing worksheets on readings, and commenting on texts. In contrast, creative writing based on the text read, text analysis, and dramatized readings were the least frequent activities. Paradoxically, the least-preferred activities among students were writing from readings and working on worksheets. A more recent study by Errázuriz et al. (2022b) in the Araucanía Region observed that at the primary level, shared-aloud reading is one of the most frequent modes, whereas silent reading is the least practiced. Regarding reading assessment, secondary students who responded to the “Survey of Students’ Perceptions of Reading” reported that 44% of their preferences were for individual or group assignments rather than tests (16%) (Ministry of Education, 2021). In the United States, Ivey and Broaddus (2001) found that a sample of 1765 sixth-grade students valued independent reading and teacher read-aloud most highly and placed strong importance on opportunities to read in class and on choosing texts for their own reasons.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is a multiple-case study (Stake, 1999) because it enables us to observe a given phenomenon in depth across diverse groups. It is descriptive in nature and adopts a qualitative and interpretive approach (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009).

2.1. Sample and Participants

We used incidental non-probability sampling (Polgar & Thomas, 2000) to find teachers who: taught Grades 3 to 6, taught different subjects, had received at least one outstanding evaluation in the past 10 years, and worked in an urban school in the Araucanía Region, Chile. This region has the highest poverty rate in the country (Ministry of Social Development, 2026), and its multicultural reality remains only partially addressed from an intercultural perspective (Alarcón et al., 2018). Applying these criteria was a first, criterion-based stage that created a purposeful, non-random pool of eligible teachers. We required at least one outstanding evaluation (every 4 years) so the reading mediation practices would represent teachers recognized as competent; the goal was to document practices near the highest level of quality rather than typical or struggling practice, while noting that this limits transferability (see limitations below).

In a second stage, we selected six cases (each with one teacher and one school) from this pool, building on a previous regional study (Errázuriz et al., 2022a). In each class, discussion groups included students who were present and willing to participate. Thus, the design combines purposive, criterion-based selection of the eligible pool, choosing cases from that pool, and convenience recruitment within each case—an approach suited to the analytical (not statistical) generalization typical of qualitative multi-case research (Stake, 1999).

We conducted nine discussion groups in nine classrooms from Grades 3 to 6, taught by these teachers. Each group included 9 to 12 students, who were randomly selected based on availability and willingness to participate. The final sample consisted of 96 students (52.08% girls and 47.92% boys). Table 1 provides further information on the teachers, schools, and students.

Table 1. Characteristics of the schools and participants.

School	District	Teacher (Pseudonym)	Grades	Boys	Girls	Total
1	Toltén	Katherine	3	6	6	12
2	Loncoche	Mauricio	4, 5 & 6	14	16	30
6	Loncoche	Daniela	3 & 4	9	11	20
5	Pucón	Yessica	3	6	5	11
4	Temuco	Francisca	3	5	6	11
3	Villarrica	Paula	3	6	6	12

Source: prepared by the authors.

2.2. Instruments and Data Collection Techniques

The discussion group is a longstanding instrument in qualitative research. It provides the necessary context for gaining meaningful knowledge of shared knowledge within communities. Its purpose is to promote group interaction so that participants speak with one another, not only with the moderator. The group process incorporates stimuli that promote interaction. In this way, it can generate debate, contrast opposing or different ideas, elicit similar ideas, and highlight consensus depending on the group dynamics (Barbour, 2013).

In this study, the discussion group with students was inspired by anonymized cases from teachers’ practices in previous studies (Errázuriz et al., 2022a), along with stimuli such as open-access photographs of reading, texts, reading mediation situations, and related questions. Students first answered questions, then viewed images related to the prompts, and were subsequently given the floor. This procedure was intended to encourage participants to reflect on their reading preferences and the mediation teaching practices they had experienced, and to invite them to discuss their assessments and opinions with peers.

Members of the research team moderated the groups, each lasting 45–60 min, and conducted all sessions in Spanish, the participants’ and moderators’ first language and the language of instruction. One group was held per class, with teachers responsible for more than one grade level (see Table 1) leading multiple groups, resulting in a total of nine groups across six cases. This process produced 8.6 h of audio, all transcribed verbatim and anonymized before analysis. Table 2 presents the instrument’s dimensions, questions, and reading situations.

Table 2. Dimensions, questions, and reading situations are included in the instrument.

Dimensions	Questions	Reading Situations
Reading Activities with Teachers	- What reading activities have you engaged in with your teachers during class? - Of the activities you mentioned, which do you enjoy the most? Why? What activities would you like your teachers to include? - In what ways do your teachers help you understand texts more effectively? - Do you have opportunities to discuss the readings you do in class with your teacher and classmates? If so, how?	- Teacher read-aloud. - Whole-class shared reading. - Reading interaction in which the teacher asks questions and students raise their hands and participate. - Peer reading. - Individual silent reading. - One-to-one reading between the teacher and a student. - Discussion about the reading in a circle format. - Reading of a kamishibai. - Reading in an online class.
Types of Texts and Discursive Genres	- What kinds of texts have you read in your classes? - What kinds of texts would you like to read more often in your classes? - In which subject(s) do you most enjoy reading? In which subject(s) do you most like reading texts, and why? On what topics? - Finally, when you read a text in class, which of these situations shown in the photographs, or others similar to them, do you like best? Why?	- A pop-up book. - A comic. - A manga. - An informational text. - News. - A story. - A digital text. - Reading on digital devices.

2.3. Analysis Procedures

For the analysis, we transcribed and anonymized the discussion group audio recordings. We then conducted content analysis (Bardin, 1996) using Dedoose. We began by performing initial and focused coding on the transcripts to develop inductive categories. Both pre-established and newly identified categories emerged from this coding. Each coding phase—initial, focused, and final—was reviewed and calibrated three times by different team members. During calibration, team members compared coding, discussed discrepancies, and merged or linked related codes until we reached agreement on definitive codes and subcodes. These final groupings are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3. Codes and subcodes in the qualitative coding process.

Codes	Subcodes
Reading activity carried out	- Reading aloud. - Shared reading. - Interaction about reading. - Free reading. - Traditional class. - Personalized reading guided by the teacher. - Peer reading. - Online reading. - Dramatized reading. - Others.
Preferred reading activity	- Preferred reading activity. - Suggested reading activity.
Reading experiences	- Student as reader. - Pleasant. - Interesting. - Meaningful. - Accessible. - Difficult. - Boring.
Opportunities to discuss the readings	- To the teacher. - To other pairs. - In groups.
Reading preferences	- General: Genres and Topics. - Reading preferences in subjects.
Teaching support and mediation	- Warm supports or Cold supports. - Reading modes: Aloud, Shared, Silent or Dramatized. - Questions: Open or Closed. - Writing. - Textbook. - To work on vocabulary or language. - Playful. - Others.

The coding framework summarized in Table 3 was developed inductively and arranged to address the study’s research question. The coding process consisted of three clearly defined, sequential stages, each building on the last. First, in the open coding stage, we analyzed transcripts line by line, maintaining close accordance with the students’ words. This led to the focused coding stage, where we compared, merged, and consolidated recurring initial codes into wider, more abstract categories. Finally, in the interpretive stage, we examined how these categories related to each other and to the literature.

The resulting codes correspond to the three research question dimensions, defining the Results: “reading activity carried out,” “preferred reading activity,” and “opportunities to discuss the readings” map to students’ preferred activities and modes (Section 3.1); “reading preferences” and “reading experiences” map to text types and disciplinary preferences (Section 3.2); and “teaching support and mediation” concerns the types of mediation students value (Section 3.3). Thus, Table 3 is not only descriptive; it operationalizes the research question into analyzable units.

Each coding phase was reviewed and calibrated three times by different members of the research team. Disagreements between coders were not resolved by majority vote but discussed until consensus was reached, refining code definitions and, where necessary, relabelling or merging codes; this iterative negotiation is what the three rounds of calibration record. Because the study pursued in-depth analysis rather than statistical representativeness, the adequacy of the analysis was judged by thematic sufficiency: coding continued until additional passes over the transcripts no longer generated new categories or subcategories, and the existing categories accounted for the range of student responses across the nine groups.

Multiple strategies strengthened the trustworthiness of the analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). Credibility was supported by investigator triangulation in the three calibration rounds and by grounding each category in verbatim student quotations. Similarly, dependability and confirmability were supported by keeping an audit trail of coding decisions in Dedoose and by providing thick, contextualized descriptions of each case. The research team included education researchers with backgrounds in literacy and teacher education; some had participated in the prior study from which the cases were drawn (Errázuriz et al., 2022a). This familiarity with the regional context was an asset for interpretation, though it carried a risk of confirmation bias. To reduce this risk, the calibration procedure and the requirement that every interpretation be anchored in students’ own words were adopted.

It should be noted that school principals, teachers, students, and guardians voluntarily signed authorization, consent, assent, and authorization forms, respectively. These documents informed them about the study and ensured confidentiality. The university Ethics Committee (Folio CEC2024026) approved these procedures and monitored the study.

3. Results

Before presenting the findings in detail, Table 4 offers an analytic overview. It synthesises the three dimensions of analysis, their main categories, a representative student voice, and the cross-cutting patterns identified across cases, subjects, and grades. Three patterns organize the results.

Table 4. Analytic matrix: dimensions, categories, representative student voices, and cross-cutting patterns.

Dimension (Section 3)	Main Categories/Subcodes	Representative Student Voice	Cross-Cutting Pattern
Reading activities and modes (Section 3.1)	Activity carried out; preferred/suggested activity; reading modes (aloud, shared, silent, dramatized); opportunities to discuss	“I like reading aloud; I like it when reading is shared” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 6)	Shared-aloud reading is the most preferred mode across cases because it distributes participation; a minority prefer silent reading for concentration; requests for more discussion time recur across grades.
Texts and disciplinary preferences (Section 3.2)	Reading preferences (genres/topics; preferences by subject); reading experiences (interesting, meaningful, difficult, boring)	“I like informational texts about animals, what they eat, their skin, where they live” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3)	Preferences organized by topic and purpose (especially learning); narrative texts dominate and concentrate in Language Arts; recurrent demand to widen formats (comics, manga, pop-up, digital) and to choose texts.
Teacher mediation and support (Section 3.3)	Warm vs cold supports; questions (open/closed); vocabulary/language; writing; textbook; dialogue	“I like it when the teacher reads to us and lets us give our opinion about what we are reading” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4)	Both warm and cold supports are valued when they foster dialogue and aid comprehension and attention; dialogic opportunities are valued but felt to be too short, especially outside Language Arts.

Source: prepared by the authors.

First, students’ preferences are not reducible to favourite genres or topics, but are instead tied to the modes of participation a reading activity affords. Shared-aloud reading and opportunities for dialogue are valued most highly across grades, even as a minority prefer silent reading for concentration. Second, richer and more varied reading—different genres, text choice, and discussion—are concentrated in Language Arts, whereas Mathematics and Science are experienced as offering narrower texts (problems, worksheets) and fewer opportunities to choose or discuss. Third, students consistently evaluate teacher mediation—both “warm” and “cold” supports—positively when it opens space toward dialogue and helps them attend to and understand texts. These patterns held across the six cases, with grade-level variation appearing mainly in the sophistication of older students’ articulation of a desire for choice and discussion. The subsections below substantiate each pattern with illustrative excerpts.

3.1. Reading Activities: Preferences and Suggestions

Regarding reading activities, no marked gender differences were observed in students’ responses, though a slight tendency emerged: girls valued literature and narrative genres more, whereas boys showed a greater preference for informational texts. The only more noticeable distinction identified was that girls seemed more motivated to participate and express their preferences than boys.

Regarding preferences for specific types of reading activities, students highlighted various factors. For example, one opinion referred to Science class: “I liked the activities we do in Natural Sciences more, because there I learn more about things I hadn’t thought about yet, because there I learn about animals and what things should and should not be done” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3). Another student explained: “What I liked most so far are two things. First, the reading in Natural Sciences that we do as veterinarians. Once, we had to cut up an earthworm to see what it was like. And the second is exactly in Mathematics” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3). Similarly, another student stated that “I like the mathematics ones, because they are more fun and entertaining, because I like reading the problems” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3).

In Language Arts, one opinion referred to more playful aspects: “I like it when the teacher reads us stories through puppets, because puppets amuse me” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3); other comments focused on the texts themselves: “I like Language Arts too because there are texts about Little Red Riding Hood. And you have to write about what I like most, and there are also other books to learn from” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3). One student added: “I like that we can read. Yes, like I imagine what is happening” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 5). Another explained that “I liked an activity we did recently, which was reading a story about someone in love. Everyone could participate; it wasn’t only one person reading, but everyone could read. I read with a lot of enthusiasm” (Francisca’s student, Grade 3).

One student commented that “in Natural Sciences we read little; there is more work than reading” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4), but preferred activities in Language Arts because “they make you talk more about the book and things like that” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4). Participating in dialogue was valued by another student: “I like it when the teacher reads to us and lets us give our opinion about what we are reading” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4).

In a complementary way, one student preferred activities in both Language Arts and History: “I like them because we all read and, at the same time, we can write our opinions, or also give ideas about the book. In History, we can look at dates, the Incas, and many more things created by us” (Francisca’s student, Grade 3).

Regarding reading modes, most students preferred shared-aloud reading, likely because it enabled more active participation. One student said: “I like reading aloud; I like it when reading is shared” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 6). Other comments emphasized its benefits: “they are useful because that way I can understand better” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3); for another student it was positive “when the teacher tells each student to read a certain part of the text, because that way the whole class contributes to support the reading” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 6); and also because “when the teacher reads, that entertains me and I learn to read more fluently” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3).

However, other students preferred individual reading: “I like group reading, but I like individual reading more because you usually understand better, and sometimes, when we read in a group, children lose their place. So, when you read individually, I mean, you are not going to lose your place because you know where you are” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3). For one student, this mode allowed greater concentration despite difficulties: “because sometimes my classmates make a lot of noise. Sometimes they stand up and start playing ball in the classroom” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 5).

As for the texts addressed, they fell into two major genres. Narrative texts included poems, stories, and novels, and, to a lesser extent, picture books; disciplinary genres included worksheets, expository texts, mathematics problems, maps, and, in some cases, graphic organizers. Although reading trajectories in which these genres coexist were encouraged, one of the most widely supported suggestions was to broaden the diversity of text topics and formats. For example, one student stated, complaining: “In Science, we only read worksheets” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3), while another declared: “In Mathematics, they are almost always problems and things like that” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 6).

Students also offered specific suggestions, such as: “I would like more comics to be read at school” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 5). Likewise, while saying that it would be “great” to read more kamishibai-style books, one student argued: “because it is like reading and at the same time showing pictures and expressing your feelings. Reading in front of the children and teaching them” (Francisca’s student, Grade 3). In some cases, recommendations to include more comics, manga, informational texts, and pop-up books were associated with students knowing about these materials but lacking systematic opportunities to read them. This is illustrated by one student’s experience with pop-up books: “I haven’t read them, but it seems like a book that opens and little figures come out and tell a story. I’ve only seen them in movies. I would like to read one here at school” (Francisca’s student, Grade 3).

3.2. Reading Preferences Across Disciplines

The reading preferences expressed by students reveal a predominance of two criteria: the text’s topic and the purpose of the reading. For example, in Mathematics, while one student stated that “I like reading the problems” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 6), another preferred “reading books that contribute something, that help one learn about operations” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 5).

In Science, preferences took flora and fauna as a reference point: “I like informational texts about animals, what they eat, their skin, where they live” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3); another student specified: “I like reading a book about some marine dinosaurs” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3). Emphasizing purpose, one girl commented, “I like some books more because I learn about animals” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3). Along the same lines, one student preferred History text “because we can learn about things that happened before, and because I find them more fun” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3).

In the English and Religion cases, the purpose of reading was also highlighted. Thus, one student said: “I like English texts because I want to learn English” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3). Regarding Religion, one student explained: “To tell the truth, I like reading the Bible because the Bible teaches you stories that really happened, and the stories of Jesus. To know what we have to do and what we should not do, and which sins we should not commit. And what we have to do to be children of God and go to heaven” (Daniela’s student, Grade 4).

Based on students’ opinions, it can be inferred that Language Arts is the discipline in which students have the most opportunities to explore different kinds of texts. Indeed, stories, fables, and legends were mentioned, and to a lesser extent, novels and poems. One student commented, “In Language Arts, there are many books; there are other books to learn from” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3). Highlighting a specific genre, another student preferred “children’s stories because I understand them better” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3). Some titles were also mentioned: “recently we read a story that I liked, The Cunning Fox and the Hungry Tiger” (Francisca’s student, Grade 3). Another student highlighted the legend El Calafate “because that story or legend is based on things from the past, and also because of love” (Paula’s student, Grade 3).

In the realm of non-fiction texts, one student preferred reading news because “that way I am better informed” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 5). By contrast, another opinion introduced an interesting distinction: “I prefer stories too, because they are more imaginative and I like stories. And then there is fantasy, which is more open, like poems—something that cannot happen—whereas a news item is something more fixed” (Paula’s student, Grade 3).

Most students also believed that activities would be more interesting if they were allowed to choose the texts. Although this occasionally happened in Language Arts, one student stated: “teachers should give students more opportunities to read, to let them choose, so that each one has their turn” (Daniela’s student, Grade 4). Supporting this suggestion, another affirmed: “I think they should let us choose what topics we want to read about” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 5). In this regard, one student commented on what happens in her class: “I think the same as my classmate: we should choose, because we do not all have the same tastes regarding reading. In my class, some children complain because the reading, I don’t know, they did not like it because it was about a certain topic, while others did like it, and others thought it was neither good nor bad” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 6).

Some opinions referred to reading medium: “I would like them to give us the opportunity that, if some want to read digitally, they read digitally; if others want to read a regular book, they read a regular book” (Daniela’s student, Grade 4). In fact, we found the teacher’s role in response to these suggestions to be very important: “Once I told her, we talked about it, and she didn’t listen to me. She said that at the end of the day she was the one who had to give the grades and what happened in her subject” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4).

Other students pointed to what happens in some disciplines: “We cannot choose much; in Mathematics, we cannot choose the text we are going to read” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4). By contrast, another student explained: “Yes, but in Mathematics it is different because you have to read that text; you cannot read another type, because otherwise you would not learn what is being studied” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4). To some extent, these opinions suggest that choosing texts may be more feasible in some disciplines than in others.

3.3. Types of Teachers’ Reading Mediation

For these students, teachers are important because they guide and scaffold activities through the types of support and mediation they provide. In the area of writing, one student noted that “they help us correct the words that are misspelt” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3), and also: “sometimes I ask teacher Katherine whether it has an accent mark or whether it is uppercase or lowercase; she helps me with that sometimes” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3).

In the case of teaching to understand (cold supports), one student stated, “When we read, sometimes we have to highlight the most important words. She explains to us, but the rest we have to do ourselves” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3). In a similar vein, another explained: “When the teacher asks us questions, she says the word appears in the story, and then she tells us to look for it and underline it” (Paula’s student, Grade 3).

Support aimed at clarifying terms was also mentioned: “When we do not know a word, the teacher helps us understand the word, and when it is a new word, she explains what it means” (Francisca’s student, Grade 3). Whereas one student explained that “they make us read the text, but I rarely ask for help because I understand perfectly the words in the text, but sometimes I do ask the teacher for help” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4), others highlighted more sustained support: “I like reading more here in the classroom, because if I make a mistake on a word I can ask the teacher right away” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3).

Likewise, students’ statements about the way teachers provide explanations, ask questions, and assign turns to read suggest that both types of support (cold and warm) are relevant insofar as they foster dialogue. As one student explained: “We look for the main idea to understand better; the teacher recommends things a lot when there is a test. Sometimes it gets very complicated, but she explains, she gives us ideas” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3). Another commented that “when the children do not understand, and the teacher is telling us the reading, and we do not understand well, the teacher has to show us a video or an image about what it is about to guide us on the topic” (Francisca’s student, Grade 3).

Questions, in turn, are valued because thanks to them “in Language Art they make you talk more about the book and things like that” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 5). In fact, another student added: “I like it when they ask us questions, because it makes me remember what I am reading” (Daniela’s student, Grade 4). Thus, according to these students, questions help guide reading, aid information retention, present ideas about the text, and encourage greater participation.

Being able to participate in shared reading is another form of mediation that students highlighted: “teachers help us read; they tell us the word we have to read, guiding us” (Paula’s student, Grade 3). Another explained, “Teacher Katherine helps us when we have to read, and sometimes she tells us that we have to follow where she is reading” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3). If for some this type of support serves “to read several times and understand the text” (Yessica’s student, Grade 3), for others its benefit is more collective: “I like it when the teacher tells each student to read a certain part of a text. It seems to me that in that way the whole class contributes to support the reading” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 6).

Opportunities for dialogue were also highlighted because they help consolidate comprehension: “we read as a group, and when we finish we comment on what we understood from the reading” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3), or, as another student said, “we talk about the lesson the reading gave us, the teaching left by the moral” (Katherine’s student, Grade 3). In addition, students report that this type of mediation fosters the exchange of ideas about reading preferences and experiences. For example, while one student stated that “yes, I like it because it is important to comment on what you read, because if you don’t like the story, then how are you going to tell the other children that you didn’t like it? And besides, you can learn something new” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4), another added: “when we read, we share it and comment on it so that we can share reactions, depending on the reading” (Francisca’s student, Grade 3). However, students also expressed a desire for more space and opportunities to discuss readings: “The time for talking about what we read is very short; we would like to be able to talk more with our classmates” (Paula’s student, Grade 4).

4. Discussion and Conclusions

According to students’ statements, reading activities most often use a mix of literary and disciplinary texts. Some students note that in Mathematics, only problems are read, and in Science, reading is limited to in-class worksheets. This reflects Gelber (2017) and Moreno-Morilla et al. (2017), who found that worksheets and textbooks are most common from 3rd to 6th grade. Students also want a wider selection of texts and opportunities to choose their own readings. Diversifying teachers’ text selection criteria (Arellano-Yanguas et al., 2022) is important because limited formats and genres reduce opportunities to engage with sophisticated texts that stimulate deeper dialogue (Anderson et al., 2012). This asymmetry matters because it influences what students see as ‘reading’ in school. When more varied, participatory reading happens mainly in Language Arts, students may link reading for interpretation and enjoyment only to that subject, rather than to all learning.

Several studies advise teachers to let students choose their own reading materials to support their reading preferences (Gelber, 2017; González, 2022; Latorre, 2014; Ministry of Education, 2021; Silva & Jéldrez, 2021). As a result, students can explore several genres and topics, which improves their reading experiences and trajectories while integrating vernacular practices (Barton & Lee, 2012; Duke, 2003; Ministry of Education, 2021; Munita, 2021). Furthermore, this practice is supported by Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008; De Naeghel et al., 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2020), as noted earlier. When students have autonomy to choose texts they identify with or relate to, their motivation to read increases. This, in turn, encourages more practice, greater feelings of competence, and improved reading skills and performance. Consequently, students can develop greater agency in making decisions as readers (Vaughn, 2020). From this perspective, reading mediation becomes more effective when pupils are not only recipients of teacher-selected texts but also active meaning-makers whose interests shape instructional design.

Our analyses show that, unlike Mathematics and Science, Language Arts most usually addresses different text types, mainly narratives. Sometimes, students can choose their own readings. This supports earlier findings about the dominance of narrative texts in primary schooling (De Mier et al., 2015; Errázuriz et al., 2020) and helps explain why students find narrative texts more familiar and accessible. We also found that students’ reading choices depend mainly on the topic and their reading purpose, with learning being the main goal. So, a cross-curricular and disciplinary literacy approach should do more than include texts across subjects (Paul, 2018; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012; Street & Street, 1995). It must offer varied genres, explicit guidance for each subject and situation, and chances for students to respond, interpret, and connect reading to disciplinary learning, moving beyond content-area literacy.

The teacher’s role remains important. Students value teachers who guide reading, read aloud, ask questions, explain, highlight vocabulary and language details, motivate, and encourage dialogue. These actions help students understand texts and stay focused. This finding differs from the latest “Survey of Students’ Perceptions of Reading” (Ministry of Education, 2021), which reports that secondary students seek more support and explanations from teachers. One reason may be that the teachers in our sample were highly rated, so their practices may be of higher quality. Teacher mediation through pedagogical discourse is essential. Teachers connect academic, disciplinary, and everyday discourse (Córdova et al., 2016; Seah & Yore, 2017). Moreover, research shows that teachers who focus on their students see better reading performance and more pupil engagement (Kikas et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2017).

Regarding types of mediation, opportunities to discuss readings are important. Students see these discussions as supportive because they encourage participation and improve text comprehension. Many say Language Arts is the subject where discussion most often occurs. In Chile, studies show that reading mediation practices are mostly reproductive, offering few chances for dialogue (Bustos et al., 2017; Errázuriz et al., 2024; Iturra et al., 2019). Because students value and want more dialogue, reading mediation faces new challenges. High-quality dialogue is crucial for supporting reading across subjects (Kucan & Palincsar, 2013; Mercer, 2001). As mentioned, these discussions strengthen student comprehension and reflection (Murphy et al., 2009). Students’ accounts show they value dialogue not just for participation but also as a tool for comprehending, recalling, and engaging with texts. In short, discussion supports both cognitive development and social engagement in reading.

Students’ preferred reading modes vary, but one of their favorites is shared-aloud reading. This is because it allows active participation and helps focus attention on the text. In practice, a shared-aloud reading activity involves reading a single copy of the material aloud while the class follows along. The teacher and students take turns, with the teacher often beginning and modeling expressive reading, then assigning a sentence or paragraph to each student. As the reading proceeds, the teacher pauses to ask questions, clarify vocabulary, and invite comments. In this way, decoding, comprehension, and discussion occur together, not as separate steps. The strong preference for shared read-aloud is noteworthy, since it suggests that students prefer situations in which responsibility for meaning-making is shared and visible. Thus, shared reading may offer a particularly valuable space for guidance, participation, and collective sense-making. Furthermore, a study found that secondary students also request more opportunities to read in this mode (Ministry of Education, 2021). This finding both contrasts with and reinforces evidence that shared reading modes are not used with equal frequency in all school levels (Errázuriz et al., 2022b; Gelber, 2017).

Consider these outcomes alongside several tensions that qualify a call for more student choice and dialogue. First, student choice has limits that vary by discipline. For instance, some students noted that in Mathematics, “you have to read that text; you cannot read another type, because otherwise you would not learn what is being studied” (Mauricio’s student, Grade 4). Disciplinary reading frequently requires specific, non-substitutable texts (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012). Thus, pedagogy is not about increasing free choice, but about expanding choice where possible and clarifying why some texts are necessary. Second, our evidence is based on stated preferences from discussion groups rather than on recorded classroom practice. What students say may differ from what they do or from what actually occurs throughout lessons. Self-reported preferences are not evidence of learning gains. Third, teachers in this study had outstanding evaluations; therefore, the mediation students described may reflect above-average practice. Thus, positive student views of teacher support should not be widely generalized. Overall, these tensions indicate that student voice best reveals which conditions—participation, dialogue, purposeful text selection—make reading meaningful for learners, rather than prescribing instructional practice.

Thus, this study contributes to the literature by showing that students’ reading preferences cannot be reduced to favorite genres or topics alone. Rather, their preferences are embedded among broader classroom experiences, including the kind of mediation teachers provide, the degree of participation students are afforded, and the purposes for which reading is organized across subjects. In this regard, student voice does not simply provide descriptive information about what children like to read; it offers analytically relevant insight into how reading instruction is experienced, negotiated, and valued in everyday school life. In contexts defined by widening educational inequality, listening to students’ perspectives on reading may be particularly important. Their accounts can shed light not only on which kinds of texts and practices are motivating but also which classroom conditions make reading seem accessible, relevant, and worth sustaining.

This study has several limitations that bound the scope of its claims. It draws on a small number of cases (six teachers across six urban schools), and these teachers were included precisely because they had obtained at least one outstanding result in the national teacher-evaluation system during the preceding decade; they cannot, therefore, be regarded as representative of teachers in the region or the country, and the favorable views students expressed about teacher mediation may reflect better-than-average practice. The evidence consists of students’ stated preferences expressed in discussion groups rather than observed classroom behaviour, so it cannot establish how preferences relate to actual practice or learning outcomes.

Finally, the qualitative, context-specific design supports analytical rather than statistical generalization: the patterns reported here should be read as situated viewpoints on this particular setting in the Araucanía Region, not as findings that can be extrapolated to other populations or school systems. Finally, despite the limitations of this type of study due to the number of participants, we maintain the need to continue exploring the field of reading mediation by increasing the number of participants, but through qualitative approaches that foreground students’ voices. In this way, we will gain more evidence to guide teachers’ disciplinary practices. Upcoming research could examine whether these patterns vary according to grade level, disciplinary area, school context, or teachers’ pedagogical orientations. It would also be valuable to explore more directly how students stated preferences relate to observed classroom practices and to their longer-term reading trajectories.