This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 03 November 2014, At: 19:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Engaging the new basalreadersSarah J. McCarthey a , James V. Hoffman a ,Cheryl Christian a , Laura Corman a , Bonnie Elliotta , Debra Matherne a & Debra Stahle aa The University of Texas , AustinPublished online: 05 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Sarah J. McCarthey , James V. Hoffman , Cheryl Christian ,Laura Corman , Bonnie Elliott , Debra Matherne & Debra Stahle (1994) Engagingthe new basal readers, Reading Research and Instruction, 33:3, 233-256, DOI:10.1080/19388079409558157

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079409558157

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Research and Instruction1994,33, (3) 233-256

Engaging the New BasalReaders

Sarah J.McCartheyJames V. HoffmanCheryl ChristianLaura CormanBonnie Elliott

Debra MatherneDebra Stahle

The University of Texas at Austin

ABSTRACT

This article describes ratings and ranking by both researchers and children ofthe new and old basal text series and then describes categories of students'responses to the texts. Using the perspective of engagement, the authorsfound that the 1993 basal reading series received higher ratings thanthel986/87 series on scales measuring holistic qualities, content, language,and design. When kindergarten, first, and second graders ranked twenty ofthe basal stories, their rankings agreed with the researchers' in seven of theten pairings. Categories of students' responses validated the researchers'categories of content, language, and design and also extended intofamiliarity, personal experience, and realism. The findings identify someengaging qualities of text and extend previous research which was oftenlimited to readability.

For decades basal readers have dominated instructional practices.Resistant to innovative ideas (Chall, 1983; Venezky, 1987; Shannon,1989), basal systems have been a strong force in sustaining the status-quo by offering teachers materials that encourage them to do whattraditional teachers have done in the past. Criticism of earlier basalreaders centered around their use of controlled vocabulary andemphasis upon isolated skills (Goodman, 1986). Basal readers have beencharacterized as containing insipid stories lacking in conflict, characterdevelopment, or authentic situations; using contrived language; havinglow interest; and being rewritten and excerpted, substituting decodeablewords for original language (Goodman, Shannon, Freeman, & Murphy,1988; Shannon, 1987). In short, these texts have not been engaging tomany young readers, especially those from diverse backgrounds.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

234

Movements toward "literature based" instruction (e.g., Cullinan, 1987)and "whole language" (e.g., Goodman, 1989; Harste, 1989; Watson,1989) call for the use of "authentic" texts in classrooms. These textsinclude literature written by children's authors to entertain or informchildren, but also may include magazines, newspapers or books that areinformational in nature. Support for these changes is increasing amongeducational leaders and classroom teachers across the country(California Language Arts Framework, 1987; McMahon, 1991; Raphael etal., 1992). In line with these movements, the State of Texas has initiatedan effort to encourage the use of authentic literature in the elementarygrades. The most recent textbook proclamation for reading programscalls for a radical departure from the traditional skills-based philosophyof the past. Central to this change is the requirement that all of theliterature included in the programs must be drawn from authenticchildren's literature — unedited and unabridged (Proclamation 68,1992). Five publishers of basal reading programs, who have designedtheir programs to comply with the new state guidelines, submitted theirprograms for review to the Texas Education Agency in the Spring of1992.

This study was part of a longitudinal investigation, supported by theNational Reading Research Center, to examine changes in literacyprograms, literacy instruction, and literacy learning that accompany theadoption of new basal reading materials into sixteen first gradeclassrooms in the State of Texas. Before examining instructionalpractices in classrooms, the researchers focused on the engaging featuresof the texts from a literary analysis perspective. The researchers thenexamined the engaging qualities of the reading materials from children'sperspectives.

STUDY DESIGN

The study combined elements of both quantitative and qualitativeresearch traditions. To identify the engaging qualities from a literaryanalysis perspective, the first phase of the study involved eightresearchers rating old (1986/1987) and new (1993) basal texts on featuresof reader engagement. The second phase of the project examinedstudents' responses to selected old and new basal texts. The study alsoexamined the relationship between the two perspectives.

Phase 1: Literary AnalysisDrawing from children's literature critics (e.g., Cianciola, 1990;

Lukens, 1990), researchers developed a system for categorizing the textsaccording to genres such as realistic stories, fantasy, rhyme and poetry,and non fiction. To examine potential reader engagement, researchers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

235

developed four scales (one holistic and three analytic): (a) holistic scale toconsider the potential for engagement including the intellectual, social-cultural, affective, aesthetic, and linguistic domains; (b) content scaleexamining such features as ideas, themes, social relevance, characters,and/or storyline; (c) language scale including features such as metaphor,rhyme, connections among propositions, syntax, and vocabulary; and (d)design scale to examine the aesthetics of the text (e.g., art, illustrations,layout, color). Scales were developed by reading over one hundredexamples from children's literature and basal texts and engaging inextensive discussions to characterize points one (1) through five (5) on arating scale with five being the highest rating (see Appendix A). Ratersreferred to exemplar texts illustrating each of the points on the scales (SeeAppendix B).

Eight researchers independently rated each individual piece (story,poem, or expository work) at all levels of the first grade reading seriesusing (a) the 1986 or 1987 copyright of the following series: Harcourt,Brace Jovanovich; Houghton-Mifflin; Macmillan; and Scott Foresman and(b) 1993 copyright materials of the following series: Harcourt, BraceJovanovich; Houghton-Mifflin; Macmillan-McGraw Hill; Scott Foresman;and Silver Burdett Ginn.

First, all texts were read independently to determine generalcharacteristics such as program, author, genre, and whether the piece waspreviously published. Then, at least two researchers independently ratedeach selection, assigning 1-5, using the scales for both the old and newseries. Researchers then met together to discuss ratings. Differences ofone point on the rating scale were averaged. Thus, a selection receiving arating of two (2) on design by one reviewer and a rating of three (3) by theother reviewer would receive a final score of 2.5. When the discrepancywas greater than one point, the two reviewers negotiated. If the tworeviewers were unable to achieve a consensus rating, a third reviewer wasbrought in to arbitrate. Agreement on ratings [exact agreement or onlyminor (1 pt) disagreements] was in excess of 92%. In only two instanceswas an arbitrator needed to resolve differences between coders.

Phase 2: Students' EngagementIn the second phase of the study, thirty-one students from

kindergarten, first, and second grades responded to the old and the newmaterials. (Three students completed only ten of the selections; their dataare included in the totals). Of the seventeen boys and fourteen girls, threewere Hispanic and the others were European-American in ethnicity. Thestudents attended a parochial elementary school in an urban area ofTexas.

Four texts from each of the five levels were selected from theresearchers' holistic ratings for a total of twenty selections. Nineteen of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

236

the pieces were narratives. The texts were paired such that there wasone pair of texts that differed by four points (e.g., 1 and 5), two pairsdiffered by three points (e.g., 2 and 5), three pairs differed by two points(e.g., 1 and 3), and four pairs differed by one point (e.g., 4 and 5). Acomplete list of the stories used is provided in Appendix C.

Each student participated in either two or three sessions with thesame researcher. The procedures were the same for each pair of texts.After a researcher read aloud the randomly sequenced pairs of texts tothe student, each student participated in three tasks: (a) rating eachpiece, (b) commenting on each piece, and (c) comparing the two pieces.First, students rated each text from the pair on a three point scale,indicated by a happy face ("I liked it a lot"), neutral face ("It was OK"),or sad face ("I didn't like it") according to their overall response to eachtext. They were asked to provide reasons for their choices. Next,students participated in a ranking task; they were asked to identifywhich of the two texts they liked better. Finally, researchers probedstudents about the negative and positive features of each of the texts.All comments were audio taped and later coded.

Using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967),analyses of these data focused on a comparison between the ratings ofstudents and researchers. To analyze students' talk about the texts theircomments were transcribed. Categories were formed both deductivelyby applying the researchers' categories of content, language, and designand inductively as new categories emerged from the data. Thesecategories were then applied systematically to the complete data set.Exemplary comments were selected to illustrate each of the categoriesand are presented in the results section. Researchers also examined thedata set for developmental trends, noting differences in patterns amongkindergarten, first, and second graders.

After discussing the results of the quantitative analyses, researchersmet to reread the selections, looking for patterns and explanations fordiscrepancies, when they occurred, between researchers' and students'ratings and rankings.

RESULTS

Phase 1The results of the researchers' engagement analysis are presented in

Table 1.The scores are consistently and substantially higher for the new series

(3.0) over the old series (2.0). This pattern is true for the holistic scale aswell as all three of the analytic scales. Although the new basais wererated higher, they fell within the average range, suggesting there is roomfor improvement of the new basais.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

237

'86/'87 Program(N=291 Entries)

X

(SD)

Range

'93 Program(N=436 Entries)

X~

(SD)

Range

Table 1Qualitative Features (Anthology + Trades)

Pages

6.9

(3.6)

1-26

11.0

(10.5)

1-40

Holistic

2.0

(.82)

1-4.5

3.2

(.81)

1-5

Content

1.94

L77)

1-4.5

2.9

(.76)

1-5

Language

1.93

(.83)

1-4.5

3.1

(.76)

1-5

Design

2.39

(.65)

1-5

3.2

(.88)

1-5

Major differences between the old and the new series can becharacterized in the following ways: First, the new basais containedlengthier pieces that tended to have more complex plots and characterdevelopment and required more interpretation on the reader's part thanthe older series. The new texts featured more diversity of characters,settings, and situations than the old ones.

Second, the language of the new texts appeared to be more colloquialand idiomatic, more like what "real people" might say. It was oftenplayful—making use of metaphor and imagery and was less stilted thanthe old basais. Additionally, vocabulary was not controlled; sentenceswere longer and syntax was more complex in the new basais. Featuresof predictability such as repeated patterns, rhyme, rhythm, cumulativepatterns, and familiar sequences (Rhodes, 1981) characterized the newbasais and were almost absent from the old basais.

Design differences were also apparent. For instance, in many of thenew basais the illustrations were the focal point with text being lesssignificant. These illustrations emphasized color, form, line andinnovative design techniques. Pictures in the old basais tended tosupport rather than extend the text.

Phase 2: Students' ResponsesStudents provided ratings of each of the stories by pointing to a

smiley face, neutral face, or sad face and saying whether they liked it a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

238

lot, a little, or not at all. They ranked pairs by indicating which storythey liked better. Students provided comments after each of these tasksand researchers probed for additional information.

Ratings and RankingsTable 2 reveals the researchers' ratings and the ratings of students by

grade level. The first column indicates the name of the story (seeAppendix C for list) and the researchers' holistic rating from one to five.The next columns display students' ratings using a - (sad face), an x(neutral face) and a + (happy face) with the number of students choosingthat rating indicated in the box. The next columns labeled "choice"reveal how many students chose that particular story as the text theyliked the better of the two. This system is repeated for first and secondgrades and for total scores across the three grade levels. The last columnlabeled "agree" shows whether the students' rankings agreed with theresearchers'.

Analyses of these data show that students across grade levels tendedto rate all the texts high—most received smiley faces, some neutral, butfew sad faces. Second graders, though, tended to rate more texts with asad face than the first graders or kindergartners. In the ranking task,students' rankings were consistent with researchers' ratings in theholistic assessments in seven of the comparative tasks. Students'rankings differed from researchers' in three pairs. In the comparison ofPaco and the Taco, which the researchers rated as a 3, and My Friends,which the researchers rated as a 5, students preferred Paco and the Taco.Explanations for these differences are provided in the discussion section.

Comparisons of Researchers' and Students' CategoriesResearchers defined three categories to determine ratings: content,

language, and design. Students' comments generally fit into one ofthose three categories. Three additional categories emerged fromstudents' comments as well. Each will be discussed in detail.

ContentTo judge the content, researchers examined the texts for significant

ideas, themes, and socially relevant situations. Complexity of plot,character development, and conflict were considered. Researchers alsojudged the texts for their potential to evoke emotions, involveinterpretation, and provoke discussion. Most frequently studentscommented upon a particular aspect or topic of the text. For instance, akindergartner said, "I liked when she was picking flowers and the wolfscared her" about The Gunnywolf. Students often commented about thetheme of a story such as, "She had a lot of animal friends that show herhow to do things and love one another" (Catlin, second grade) about the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

s"a.

X

3=

ace)

Lunchbox 1

Com

e, Sit

V I

V I

o

<*>

».

oo

-

C*

3

•>

Jimm

y Lee(4)

Rattlesnak

e (5)

o

*\

O

u .

o

co

«

S

Marvin's (

c*

o

Ce

Tin

y(l)

o

=

o

1C

o

V I

S

B

n

o?

o

-

s•VI

With D

ad

(Z)

o

V )

O

Oc3D

-

ON

VJ

V |

g

Day Forge

(2)

V I

O

w

ôÔ

Tell Slory

Z

o

Leaves (4)

-

Co

o

Foot Book

-

S

Co

O

Big M

ile (2

0 0

O

U .

Is It Good?

o

W

O

s

Blue B

ikes

-

o

O

Surprise (4

o

o o

o

V I

B

Friends (5)

-

V I

-

Paco (3)

CO

O

• "

o

-

Co

—

O

Book N

(with rese

ratin

ame

archer

+

X

+

•<nï.Vo

?a

a

ny

S

£

n

alcelR

ating

n

ice

â"

n

>

Kin

d•rga

rteiF

irstGra

d

CAnn

O,radT

otils

S3

cniM

53C/l

sr

3CStudents' R

atings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

240

story My Friends. Children as young as kindergarten identifiedsignificant themes in the stories including Clare who noted in The BigMile Race, "I didn't really like what duck said to the frog—you can'tfinish, but I liked it that frog finished (the race)." Students especiallypicked up on stories with a particular moral. Thomas, grade one,compared two stories, "They did more things that seemed right in TheBig Mile Race than 7s it Good, Matt?. They helped other people bycheering them on and telling them when stuff is coming, but they alsotried hard themselves and they were self-confident." About BabyRattlesnake, Erin, grade two, commented, "It was silly that he had arattle and everybody was saying don't go near the chief's daughterbecause she is going to step on it. He learned a lesson and he didn't cryanymore." Even with stories that seemed to lack significant themes tothe researchers, students found lessons to be learned. For example, "Ithad a moral and the moral was to teach your dog to do tricks and don'tteach your dog words it doesn't know."

Many of the students commented on plot features. One of the waysthey responded to the lack of complexity of the plot of some of the olderbasal stories such as Tiny was to comment about the length, "It was tooshort." This comment repeated across grade levels seemed to indicate adissatisfaction with the plot or lack of issues to which to respond.Garret, a kindergartner, did express approval of one piece over anotherby stating, "It was more complicated." The incompleteness of one of theolder basal stories was noted by several students; Michael, grade two,said, "It was the kind of a story that gets to a good part and then it stops.There should be more in the story. It should tell what happened whenhe got there."

Students also responded to the tone of a piece and seemed to preferpieces with happy endings over sad ones. Humor was a feature oftenmentioned by students who commented, "It was funny", to coveraspects of the text that captured their attention. The Foot Book especiallyprovoked comments about humor and was a popular choice because ofits humor, "How can your feet be sick? I like it because it was funny."Some students chose pieces because of their opportunities to learnsomething. For instance, students especially commented on learningabout feet from The Foot Book such as James, "Because it was all aboutyour body—feet. Feet are the most important machines because yourfoot helps you move."

LanguageThe researchers identified rhyme, rhythm, and repetition as

important aspects of the language of the texts. They also examinedfeatures such as use of metaphor, idiomatic expressions, and thepotential for oral interpretation. The complexity of vocabulary and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

241

complexity of sentences and syntax were aspects of the language thataffected researchers' ratings.

Students responded to the language of the texts, although not asfrequently as they responded to the content. Students responded bothpositively and negatively to the feature of repetition. Frequentrepetition of vocabulary, syntax, and sentences to control vocabularyand promote decoding occurred in the old basais. The new basais, bycontrast, tended to provide repeated patterns and phrases for thepurposes of predictability. Students tended to like the repeated phrasesof the new basais such as Paco and the Taco, "Paco asked his friend thecow, 'Cow, Cow, how can I fill my big taco?' " which was repeated withdifferent animals. Repetition of familiar things was especially appealingto younger children as with a kindergartner, Betty, who claimed,"Because it said the alphabet, the little girl said it a lot of times."However, students reacted negatively to repeated words, usuallycoming from the old basais, saying, "It just says the same thing over andover again." Second graders responded negatively to the easyvocabulary words and the simplistic syntax of the old basais. About theold basal story, 7s it Good, Matt?, Erin said, "It was just little sentences. Itwas stupid." James, too, didn't like that story, "Because it was kind of ababy book.. .Second graders don't need that kind of help." Annaexpressed it this way, "It's a baby story for little kids and it's notinteresting. It's got all this 'we can go' stuff and it's got easy words."

Students responded positively to features of rhyme and rhythm, oftencommenting that the texts rhymed. Sara found the rhythmic qualities ofJimmy Lee Did It appealing as she said, "It was like a poem." Oralinterpretive qualities and the use of onomatopoeia were noted by somestudents as well. For instance, in Baby Rattlesnake, Betty, akindergartner, said, "It had snakes that go cha-cha-cha."

DesignThe researchers focused part of their analysis on the design features of

the texts such as color, shape, texture, and line. Two key features includedthe potential to evoke multiple images and the potential to extend thewritten text.

Students commented on the design of the texts, but most often theyresponded in a holistic way, "I liked the pictures in it" (Amy, kindergarten)or to a particular picture, "I liked the colors for every day" (Sara, firstgrade) when referring to I Need a Lunchbox. The design was a lesssignificant feature than the researchers expected, yet students did respondto the illustrations. One of the more original comments came from Megan(kindergarten) who suggested that both The Surprise and Raking Leaveswhich both contained elements of surprise should have added designfeatures. She said, "A pop-up book would have been nice."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

242

Students validated the three categories of content, language, anddesign constructed by the researchers. Many of the comments specificallysubstantiated the particular aspects the researchers had identified.Additionally, three other categories emerged from analyzing students'comments: familiarity, personal experience, and realism. Each of thesewill be discussed below.

FamiliarityResearchers did not include the aspect of students' familiarity with

text as they developed the scales. Familiarity was a very appealingfeature for most of the younger students, and less appealing for the olderstudents. For instance, most kindergartners enjoyed The Gunnywolf whichhad characters singing the alphabet many different times. Youngerstudents found The Foot Book by Dr. Seuss particularly enjoyable becauseof their knowledge of the author. Somewhat surprising was the role ofstories from old basal texts that students had read before. Youngerstudents especially liked the stories in which they could identify words orthat they had read the stories in their classrooms. For instance, Sean, afirst grader, remarked about Tiny, "Oh, I read this one. I can read thewhole page." Second graders, however, were not as impressed with thefamiliarity of basais they had already read. James said about the samestory, "I've read it before because we have the book at school. It's a readerin first grade. I don't like it. It is not interesting when you read it again."

Personal ExperienceStudents' comments often reflected their personal experiences. Clare,

for instance, liked The Surprise and suggested she would like to give a kissas a surprise wrapped in many boxes to her Mom. A specific event in thestory might spark a comment such as, "I like that story because I have adog and she hasn't had her babies yet" (Megan, kindergarten). Likewise acharacter in a story reminded students of someone in their lives. Forinstance, Tommy liked Can You Come Over because "There is a personnamed Luis in my class" and Josh, first grade, said, "Annemarie is somean. I have someone like that in my class." Having had an experiencelike one of the characters was also appealing to students; Betty, akindergartner, liked Jimmy Lee in Jimmy Lee Did It because he alwayscaused problems wherever he went. "You see, I always get in trouble alot. I get in my Mom's stuff." Another student remarked that he enjoyedBaby Rattlesnake because, "I like playing tricks on people." Likewisestudents might respond that they did not like a story if they did not enjoythe experiences of the characters. Peter, second grade, for instance hatedThe Gunnywolf'because, "I hate flowers. I hate singing and I hate thealphabet."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

243

RealismAnother aspect the researchers had not considered in the initial

categorization was the role of realism. Older students in particulartended to rate stories lower if they included unrealistic qualities. Stevetook it literally when My Friends suggests that a girl learned to read froma book; he said, "A book can't talk. A teacher would have to help."Peter objected to It's George where a child saves an older man's lifebecause, "I don't think it is a very good thing to put on the news. Theydon't put things on the news like that, they put on emergencies."Although students generally liked Marvin's Moon Flight where theyoung character builds a make-believe rocket to the moon, severalcommented on the lack of realism, "People cannot make a rocket withjust a tire, trash can, wheel barrow, rake, wheels, and another trash can.Nobody can make it." One student, Anna, even doubted whether youcould teach dogs tricks quickly in Come! Sit! Stay! when she announced,"A dog can't learn that fast; nothing can learn that fast."

Besides providing information about each of the researchers'categories of content, language, and design, students also providedinformation to support three additional categories: familiarity, personalexperience, and realism. These data suggest that students did respondin ways that validated researchers' categories as well as revealingadditional areas that are important to students.

Developmental DifferencesIn examining differences among the three grade levels of students,

several ideas emerged. First, younger students tended to share morepersonal anecdotes and relate the texts to their personal experiences.Younger children tended to comment on a specific aspect of the tasksuch as "I don't like that story because of the big bad wolf", whereasolder students often focused on themes. Older students were moresensitive to the stylized language of the old basais and commented onthe "babyishness" of the vocabulary and syntax. Older students alsoobjected to stories they viewed as unrealistic, whereas the youngerstudents enjoyed the fantasy elements.

DISCUSSION

Phase 1: Literary AnalysisPhase 1 of the study outlined differences between the old and new

basal series. More complexity of character and plot, diversity ofcharacters and situations, more colloquial language, and innovativedesign features characterize the new basais. The ratings suggest that thenew basais are more engaging than the old to researchers. However,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

244

because the average ratings of the new basais averaged around 3, all of thepieces in the new basais are not equally or necessarily highly engaging.The analysis of the basais suggests that the publishers of the new basais, byincluding authentic children's literature, have attempted to addressconcerns voiced by many (e.g., Goodman et al., 1988; Shannon, 1987)especially with regard to the contrived situations and language of the oldbasais.

Much remains to be seen in how the new basais will be used forinstruction. The new basais are still basais. To many, therefore, they willcontinue to represent a mechanism to control teachers (see Goodman etal., 1988). To others, however, the new basais may be seen as an enhancedresource for teachers because they use children's literature, opening up anew set of possibilities. Much will depend on not only how teachers usethe new texts, but also on how students respond to the materials.

Phase 2: Students' ResponsesPhase 2 of the study revealed that students' rankings were consistent

with the researchers' in the holistic assessments in seven of thecomparative tasks and differed in three pairs. What might explain thediscrepancies in the three cases? First, the researchers found Paco and theTaco to be stereotypical. An Hispanic boy is characterized chiefly by hisinterest in making tacos. Second, the language is exceedingly repetitious,but not in a humorous way. For instance, the phrase "That sounds justfine. The taco will taste simply divine!" seemed both forced andredundant in the context of the story. Students, however, found Paco to beappealing and the animals a source of amusement as Erin, a second grader,stated, "It is sort of funny asking them, all the animals, to make a taco— abig one. It's funny when all the animals make that humongous taco."James found the repetition appealing, "Because it was like a poem.Because they say the same things over and over again. They kept saying, 1think you hit the spot.' " One student also believed that the animalcharacters had achieved a goal and that was interesting to him.

In contrast, some of the same students found repetition in My Friendsunnecessary, "It just keeps saying the same things over and over again."Although students seemed to understand the theme of the child learningdifferent things from all the animals, they did not seem to be excited aboutthe ideas, preferring the silliness of Paco. Researchers, in contrast, foundthe message very appealing such as, "I learned to read from my friends thebooks... And I learned to love from a friend like you." Researchers alsosaw the potential for interesting discussions, extensions, and innovativepedagogy in My Friends.

In the comparison of Dr. Seuss' The Foot Book, which the researchersrated as a 3, and Raking Leaves, which the researchers rated as a 4,students preferred The Foot Book. Many of the comments were related to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

245

familiarity of the author, Dr. Seuss, and that particular book. Forexample, Megan said, "Because it's Dr. Seuss" and Amy said, "BecauseI read it a bunch of times." Other students such as Casey respondedpositively to the language saying, "Because it rhymed and I liked itwhen it went 'feet, feet, feet, how many feet would you meet?' " Incontrast, researchers tended to focus on the lack of theme over theplayful language qualities in their holistic ratings.

An interesting difference between ratings of researchers and childrenemerged in the comparison of Tell Me a Story, Mama, which received a 5,and A Day to Forget, which received a 2 by the researchers. The firststory is a complex story featuring an African-American family in whichthe child weaves together questions and answers about her mother'schildhood in story form. The mother's responses appear in italics. Thereader needs an understanding of the plot and the relationships to readthe story aloud effectively. By contrast, A Day to Forget features asimple twist: Two European-American girls find out that the girl withthe good memory forgets it is Saturday and therefore no school, whilethe less reliable girl remembers it is Saturday.

Possible explanations for the students' rankings that differed from theresearchers include the following. First, Tell Me A Story, Mama is verycomplex, requiring oral interpretation on the adult reader's part anddeep understanding on the student's part. Several students respondedthat it was too long, perhaps indicating having some trouble keeping theplot in their heads. Catlin, a second grader, was more explicit in herconcerns, "I didn't exactly get who was talking." Second, this was oneof the few stories that contained some sad elements that did not getresolved. Some students responded negatively to particular scenessaying, "Because it was sad and they had to move away." Third, theremay have been some cultural aspects of the first story unfamiliar to themostly European-American students. For example, the characters wereof African-American ethnicity and engaged in oral story-telling. Jamesprovided an insight into potential cultural differences, "It was not reallyinteresting because the little girl was telling the story, but she alreadyknew it [the story.]" This boy did not see the purpose of retellingstories, even though he understood the plot and the relationship of thecharacters. It may be that retelling stories was not part of his particularbackground or culture. Fourth, a more mundane explanation is that thisstory came almost at the end of the session; children were tiring of beingread to and giving their responses. This story was lengthier than manyof the others.

Students' comments generally fit into one of the three researcher-defined categories of content, language, or design. On the one hand, thisis not surprising given the breadth and openness of the categories. Yet,it is note-worthy that these same three categories emerged even though

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

246

the students' responses were immediate and not prompted by theresearchers. This suggests that these categories may be meaningful forbook analyses, providing a different angle from the traditional analysesof plot, theme, character.

Additional categories such as familiarity, personal experience, andrealism emerged from students' comments. Students often remarked onthe familiarity of a story, although knowing the story was not alwaysviewed positively by students, especially second graders. Manystudents related the stories to their personal experiences as well.Familiarity and personal experience, aspects of readers' backgroundknowledge, are consistent with theories that suggest students'background knowledge influences text comprehension (e.g., Anderson& Pearson, 1984). It is not surprising, then, that the young readersresponded to stories with which they were familiar or could relate totheir personal experience. This finding follows from reader responsetheory that suggests reading is a transaction between the reader and thetext in which readers bring personal reservoirs of linguistic and lifeexperiences to the texts they read (see Bleich, 1974; Holland, 1975;Rosenblatt, 1978).

Several students commented on the lack of realism in the stories. Thisfinding is more puzzling than the other emergent categories becauseliterature for young children is filled with fantasy, folktales, and othernon realistic genres (Lukens, 1990). Additionally, Favat (1977 cited inHuck, Hepler, & Hickman, 1993) suggests that children reach the peakof their interest in fairy tales between 6 and 8 years old, while Purvesand Beach (1972) suggest that fantasy, along with stories about animalsand nature, are preferred by first and second graders. Severalexplanations may account for the discrepancy between our findings andprevious studies. First, students in the 1990s may be more experience-based than students of the 1970s, preferring more realistic stories.Second, this particular group of students who attend a parochial schoolmay be more familiar with and relate better to stories with realisticfeatures than to fantasy. Or third, these students may have been in atransitional phase in terms of cognitive and social development in whichthey were exploring their abilities to distinguish fantasy from reality(Huck, Hepler, & Hickman, 1993). This supports the developmental

. differences the researchers saw when they compared the responses ofthe kindergarten, first, and second graders, finding that second graderscommented on the realistic aspects more than kindergartners did.

This study attempted to identify text features that were engaging toresearchers and students and to characterize the similarities anddifferences between the two groups. Students' and researchers' rankingwere consistent on seven of the ten pairings. Explanations for theinconsistencies reveal differences between the two groups' perspectives

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

247

such as focus on complexity of theme vs. familiarity and playfullanguage. Although the rankings were not perfectly consistent, muchoverlap existed between the ways students and researchers considertexts. The researchers' categories of content, language, and design werevalidated by kindergarten, first, and second grade students. Studentswere able to comment about all areas designated by the researchers aswell as responding to additional features such as familiarity, personalexperience, and realism. The examples of students' bringing in theirown experiences related to the texts provide evidence for the role ofbackground knowledge in engagement.

The study is a starting point for identifying engaging qualities of textsto understand what might hold students' interest and attention. Byexamining reader engagement, the study extends previous research ontexts, which was often limited to readability. More research is needed,however, to investigate how these potentially more "engaging" textssuch as the new basais are used in classrooms. How do teachers use thenew basais? How will students respond to these texts when used withinthe regular classroom context? Will students have more opportunities torespond and become involved with more quality literature as a result ofthe inclusion of "authentic literature" in the basais? These are importantquestions that need further attention and intensive classroom research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

248

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. C, & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes inreading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp.255-291). New York: Longman.

Anderson, R. C, Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nationof readers. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.

Bleich, D. (1975). Readings and feelings: An introduction to subjective criticism. Urbana, IL:National Council of Teachers of English.

California State Department of Education. (1987). English-language arts model curriculumguide through grade eight. Sacramento.

Cianciola, P. (1990). Picture books for children (3rd ed.). Chicago: American LibraryAssociation.

Cullinan, B. E. (1987). Inviting readers to literature. In B. E. Cullinan (Ed.), Children'sliterature in the reading program, (pp. 2-13). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. Chicago: Aldine.

Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Goodman, Y. M. (1989). Roots of the whole-language movement. Elementary School

Journal, 90 (2), 113-127.Goodman, K., Shannon, P., Freeman, Y., & Murphy, S. (1988). Report card on basal readers.

Katonha, NY: Richard C. Owen.Harste, J. C. (1989). The future of whole language. Elementary School Journal, 90 (2), 243-

249.Holland, N. (1975). 5 Readers reading. New Haven: Yale University Press.Iser, W. (1974). The implied reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Lukens, R. (1990). A critical handbook of children's literature (4th ed.). Glenview, II: Scott

Foresman.McMahon, S. I. (1991, December). Book club discussions: A Case study of five students

constructing themes from literary texts. Paper presented at the National ReadingConference, Palm Springs, CA.

Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (1986). Encouraging voluntary reading: The impact ofa literature program on children's use of library centers. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 21, 330-346.

National Reading Research Center. (1991). A proposal from the University of Marylandand the University of Georgia. Submitted to the Office of Educational Researchand Improvement. U.S. Department of Education.

Proclamation of the State Board of Education Advertising for Bids on Textbooks:Proclamation 68, (1990). Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Raphael, T. E., McMahon, S. I., Goatley, V. J., Bentley, J. L, Boyd, F. B., Pardo, L. S., &Woodman, D. A. (1992). Research directions: Literature and discussion in thereading program. Language Arts, 69, 54-61.

Rhodes, L. (1981). I can read!Predictable books as resources for reading and writinginstruction. The Reading Teacher, 34, 511-518.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literarywork. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.

Shannon, T. (1987). Commercial reading materials, a technological ideology, and thedeskilling of teachers. Elementary School Journal, 87, 307-329.

Watson, D. J. (1989). Defining and describing whole language. Elementary School Journal,90 (2), 129-141.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

249

APPENDIX A

Rating Scales

I. Content (What the author has to say) will be rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).

Overarching Questions:

Are the ideas important?Are the ideas personally, socially or culturally relevant?Is there development of an idea, character, or theme?Does the text stimulate thinking and feeling?

Rating Scale

5. A level five text is characterized by the expression ofsignificant and worthwhile ideas. In narrative textsthemes may be multiple, complex, and sociallyrelevant—never didactic or trite. In expository texts,concepts tend to be abstract rather than concrete. Theideas are of high personal or social relevance or createsituations that are socially complex. Level five texts arecharacterized by a high degree of development ofcharacters, ideas, or themes. In the case of a narrative,characters are complex, may change, and may have aheightened awareness of themselves or theirenvironment. Multiple problems may presentthemselves in the plot or unexpected twists of story linemay occur. Tension may be created by suspense withinthe plot or a complex text structure. Poetic orexpository texts may express the development of anidea through rhyme or complexity of ideas. Level fivetexts stimulate the reader to think about issues and/orevoke strong emotions. For instance, an expository textmay include unusual contrasts and rich examples tostimulate thinking. Level five texts requireinterpretation by the reader and lend themselves easilyto more than one interpretation.

4. A level four text is characterized by the expression ofrelatively important ideas either in terms of personal orsocial relevance. More than one theme may be presentin narrative texts; often themes depict characters in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

250

complex social relationships. Some development of aconcept in the case of expository text, or of character orevents in narrative texts takes place. Story lines orconcept development may be somewhat unpredictable.There may be some juxtaposition of unusual, evencontradictory ideas in poetic, narrative or expositorytexts. Level four texts can support more than oneinterpretation by the reader. Level four texts have thepotential to evoke a moderate emotional and/orintellectual response.

3. A level three text is characterized by the expression ofan idea, theme, or situation. In the case of narrative,themes or messages exist, but may be didactic in nature.Situations are either realistic or provide opportunitiesfor many students to relate and ideas may have somesocial relevance or import. Expository or poetic textsusually deal with concrete topics (e.g., guinea pigs)rather than complex ideas. Level three texts indicatesome degree of development of an idea or character. Innarrative, characters may experience conflict, but oftenthe problem is solved. Some tension may be evidentthrough the use of rhyme or suspense in relation toevents. There is often character development orincreased revelation of the character's thoughts oremotions. Expository texts may include interestingexamples, use of comparison or contrast, or descriptionto delineate an idea. Plots or idea development arestraightforward without much complexity, yet someinterpretation may be required on the part of the reader.Level three texts should evoke some intellectual oremotional response by the reader.

2. A level two text may include an idea, theme, or concept,but it is underdeveloped or lacking in social relevance.Situations in narratives may seem contextuallyinappropriate or verging on stereotypical, whileconcepts in expository text, when present, lack depth.In narratives, some problem may exist but it is resolvedin a predictable, often unrealistic way. Characters lackdimensionality. Expository texts often depict mundanetopics and tend to be much more concrete rather thanabstract. Level two texts do not provide manyopportunities to engage the reader intellectually or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

251

affectively. Little interpretation is required of thereader; most features of the story line or concept areexplicit, even didactic.

1. A level one text lacks evidence of any important,socially relevant, or worthwhile idea. A centralmessage, theme, or concept is missing or undeveloped.Situations are usually artificial; many students mayhave difficulty relating to them. In the case of narrative,there is little conflict or dramatic tension. Characters areflat, interchangeable with one another, and/orstereotypical. There is little development of a conceptor character. Expository texts lack useful examples, failto provide comparisons or contrasts, or fail to provideaccurate information. These texts provide fewopportunities for the stimulation of thinking or feeling.No interpretation is required because each aspect of theplot or idea is explicit and concrete.

II. Language will be rated on a five-point scale ranging from1 (very low) to 5 (very high).

Overarching Questions:

Is the language rich in literary quality?Is the vocabulary appropriate but challenging?Is the writing clear?Is the text easy and fun to read aloud?Does the text lend itself to oral interpretation?

Rating Scale

5. A level five text is characterized by language which callsattention to itself in a positive way through the stylizeduse of words and expressions that are unusual,idiomatic, and /or metaphoric. Causal, sequential, andassociative connections among propositions may bemultiple and suggest multiple interpretations.Compound or complex sentences may be present.Dialogue is idiomatic and/or colloquial.

4. A level four text is characterized by the literate qualityof its language. It is more than just talk written down in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

252

terms of syntactic complexity, word choice, andexpressions. Connections among propositions may bepatterned, and sentence syntax is formally composed aspart of the discourse pattern. The language may exhibitplayful qualities in story Une. The text, when read aloud,invites oral interpretation.

3. A level three text is characterized by language which issimple but meaningful. It may contain rhyme and therepetition of phrases. Propositions may be formulaic,linked as comparisons and contrasts, or linked in simplesentences. The expression of meaning guides wordselection, although words may be monosyllabic andcommon. Dialogue may resemble standard Americanspeech. When read aloud, the text lends itself to aconversational tone.

2. A level two text is characterized by the simplistic qualityof its language. The relating of events is straightforward;connections among propositions are largely explicit or notunusual and suggest one interpretation. Sentences maybe either syntactically simple or regular in theirconstruction. Vocabulary is relatively simple, althoughthere may be an occasional specialized or unusual word;expressions and figures of speech may be ordinary. Thetext is difficult to read aloud with expression.

1. A level one text is characterized by language that isredundant and stilted. Sentence syntax is formallygrammatical, but contains constructions that nativeliterates would not normally speak or write. Connectionsamong propositions are obvious, but may be artificial. Itis difficult to relate to the prosodie features of the textlanguage.

III. Design will be rated on a five-point scale ranging from1 (very low) to 5 (very high).

Overarching Questions:

Do the illustrations/art enrich and extend the text?Is the use of design creative and attractive?Is there creative/innovative use of print?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

253

Rating Scale

5. The design (e.g., layout; formatting; use of media; use ofline, color, shape and texture) are aesthetically pleasing.The design has a life of its own. It calls attention to itselffor its beauty and creativity. The illustrations evokemultiple images. When revisited, new interpretationsor details are noticed. The design is likely to provokecomments from the reader.

4. The design extends the text. It goes beyond the literalinto the interpretive. The design represents the mood ortexture. The design is so compatible with the text thatit does not draw attention to itself independent of thecontent and language. The reader is likely to draw onthe illustrations in discussing and interpreting the story.

3. The design is functional. It may be attractive, but doesnot extend the text. It represents the ideas of the text,but does not take the reader very far beyond theliteral level of response.

2. The design of the text is either incidental or artificial.What there is in the way of a design appears to be moreof an add-on than an effort to provide a significantcounterpoint/complement to the content and language.

1. There is little offered in the way of design thatcommands attention What there is in terms of designonly detracts from the text. The design is eitherunappealing or 'ugly'.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

254

APPENDIX B

Exemplar Texts

CONTENTLevel 5"Baby Rattlesnake" by Te Ata in The Very Thing, Macmillan/McGrawHill, 1993.

Level 4'The Trek" by Ann Jonas in Sing a Sweet Song, Macmillan/McGraw Hill,1993.

Level 3"Guinea Pigs Don't Read Books" by Colleen Stanley Bare in The VeryThing, Macmillan/McGraw Hill, 1993.

Level 2"Doghouse for Sale" by Donna Lugg Pape in Parades, Houghton Mifflin,1986.

Level 1"Have You Seen My Cat?" by Eric Carle in Here Comes the Band, SilverBurdett and Ginn, 1993.

LANGUAGELevel 5"Chitina and her Cat" by Mont Serrât del Arno in With a Crash and aBang, Houghton Mifflin, 1993.

Level 4"Jimmy Lee Did It" by Pat Cummings in Sing a Sweet Song,Macmillan/McGraw Hill, 1993.

Level 3"Whose Baby?" by Masayuki Yabuuchi in Here We Grow,Macmillan/McGraw Hill, 1993.

Level 2"Who took the Farmer's Hat" by Joan Nodset in Make a Wish, SilverBurdett and Ginn, 1993.

Level 1"Joe and Mom Paint" in Colors, Scott Foresman, 1987.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

255

DESIGNLevel 5"The Story of Chicken Lickin'" by Jan Ormerod in Goodness GraciousMe!, Macmillan/McGraw Hill, 1993.

Level 4"School Days" by B. G. Hennessy in Dream a Story, Houghton Mifflin,1993.

Level 3"I Wish I Could Fly" by Ron Marris in Too Big, Houghton Mifflin, 1993.

Level 2"A Food Sale" by Argentina Palacios in Look Again, MacMillan, 1986.

Level 1"A Wish is Quite a Tiny Thing" by Annette Whynne in Wishes, HarcourtBrace Jovanovich, 1987.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

256

APPENDIX C

List of Books Read Aloud to Students

1. Paco and the Taco, Maxine Duran (translated from Spanish)Houghton Mifflin, 1993

2. My Friends, Taro Gomi, Houghton Mifflin, 1993

3. The Surprise, by George Shannon, Houghton Mifflin, 1993

4. Blue Bikes, Margaret Braden, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987

5. Is it Good, Matt?, no author, Scott Foresman, 1987

6. The Big Mile Race, Leonard Kessler, Houghton Mifflin, 1986

7. The Foot Book, Dr. Seuss, Scott Foresman, 1993

8. Raking Leaves, Sally Ward, Houghton Mifflin, 1993

9. Tell Me a Story, Mama, Angela Johnson, Silver Burdett Ginn, 1993

10. A Day to Forget, Joan Lynn Carbonali, Houghton Mifflin, 1986

11. The Gunnywolf, A. Delaney, Houghton Mifflin, 1993

12. Being with Dad, no author, Scott Foresman, 1987

13. Can You Come Over, no author, Scott Foresman, 1987

14. It's George, Miriam Cohen, Scott Foresman, 1993

15. Tiny, Nellie Rider, Houghton Mifflin, 1986

16. Marvin's Moon Flight, Winston White, Silver Burdett Ginn, 1993

17. Baby Rattlesnake, Te Ata, retold by Lynn Moroney,MacMillan/McGraw Hill, 1993

18. Jimmy Lee Did It, Pat Cummings, MacMillan/McGraw Hill, 1993

19. Come! Sit! Stay! Joan Lexau, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1987

20.1 Need A Lunch Box, Pat Cummings, MacMillan/McGraw Hill, 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

02 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014