A Note from the Editorial Team

In this issue of the Journal of College Reading and Learning, we bring you four feature articles related to reading and literacy. We open the issue with “Looking Back, Moving Forward: Determining the Current State of Diversity in Campus Common Reads Programs,” by Sarah Fabian, Julia K. Nims, and Robert Stevens. The authors of this article examined diversity along various dimensions of over 1,800 Common Reads book selections over a four-year period. They found a heavy preponderance of books in the autobiography/biography/personal narrative category and with a U.S. focus. While most authors were American, there was a high level of ethnic and racial diversity among authors of Common Reads books. An opportunity is identified for schools to select more books from independent publishers, which may further help to introduce diversity and contemporary voices into Common Reads programs. In “Gaps in College Student Reader Identity: Issues of Reading SelfDetermination and Reading Self-Efficacy,” Amy G. Baldwin and Louis S. Nadelson discuss college students’ identities, or lack thereof, as readers. They propose a model whereby students’ reader self-determination, selfefficacy, and self-regulation contribute to students’ successful reading experiences, and in turn to their identity as readers. Reader identity then reinforces the self-variables, forming a positive feedback loop. Examining artifacts from a student success course, they found that students did not tend to show evidence of holding a reader identity, concluding that much more research is needed about the construction of and support for reader identity among college students. Next, Shiela Kheirzadeh and Maryam Malakootikhah explore the effects of repetition on foreign language learners’ comprehension and reading rate of English texts in “The Role of Content and Procedural Repetition in EFL learners’ Reading Performance.” They explain that, while task repetition can help improve reading performance, it also risks causing boredom and reducing learners’ motivation to read. These risks can be mitigated by using either procedural task repetition, in which a reader repeats a task procedure using different content, or content task repetition, in which a reader follows different reading procedures with similar content. They found that, in the studied population, both approaches led to improved reading comprehension but did not affect reading rate, with procedural task repetition being the most beneficial. JOURNAL OF COLLEGE READING AND LEARNING 2023, VOL. 53, NO. 2, 89–90 https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2023.2180952