@article{scholars7987,
           pages = {14--22},
       publisher = {Blackwell Publishing Ltd},
         journal = {Literacy},
            year = {2016},
           title = {Re-thinking aliteracy: When undergraduates surrender their reading choices},
             doi = {10.1111/lit.12063},
          number = {1},
          volume = {50},
            note = {cited By 13},
            issn = {17414350},
          author = {Chong, S. L.},
             url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84956639738&doi=10.1111\%2flit.12063&partnerID=40&md5=a1ae0573a34d785ff06b7f5964315dc9},
        abstract = {This paper re-considers the concept of aliteracy by arguing that it is less about not reading than it is about choice, agency and context. By analysing findings from a study that examined undergraduates' reading experiences in a Malaysian university, this paper explores the complexities around how the undergraduates grappled with conflicting decisions. Through a phenomenological theoretical perspective and against the theoretical backdrop of domain specificity in reading motivation, this study utilised phenomenological interviews to draw out nine undergraduates' reading experience. The reading experience is understood in terms of their negotiation with institutionally imposed and personal-choice reading both as school students and as undergraduates. The past and more current reading experiences of two undergraduates who considered themselves highly and poorly motivated readers, respectively, were also juxtaposed. Findings from this study provide grounds to show that across different 'levels' of motivation and in school or post-school contexts, the undergraduates' motivation for reading is fragile because the reading choice is not a straightforward matter. This article concludes by suggesting a theoretical conceptualisation for why an able reader may surrender his or her reading choice. This study has implications for teachers and reading researchers who recognise the reading experience for its complexities. {\^A}{\copyright} 2016 UKLA.}
}