Teachers' Choices for 1995: Best New Children's Books || Self-Selection of Early Literacy Learners

Self-Selection of Early Literacy LearnersAuthor(s): Mary Jo FreschSource: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 49, No. 3, Teachers' Choices for 1995: Best New Children'sBooks (Nov., 1995), pp. 220-227Published by: Wiley on behalf of the International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201588 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 02:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Reading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.245 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:28:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201588?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Mary Jo Fresch

Self-selection o

literacy learnei

>f early

rs

This article explores the various

ways self-selection during reading and writing supported 6-year-old children's literacy development.

As we work with early literacy learners, we are always watching for evidence

of their growing understandings about

reading and writing. Therefore, hearing chil

dren say any of the following would be a good indication that they were learning about what readers and writers do:

"We have to find out what those words

are...."

"Let's go back to that word we just

skipped." "You spell are, a-r-e, not r."

"I can read this!"

"I'm going to read my own good book

again."

"Why don't you ask me some words and

I'll tell them?" "I'm practicing to read to the classroom."

"We'll read together!" "I need my writing folder!"

All of these insightful statements were

heard in conversation between children, during a time when self-selection of literacy activity was encouraged. Such comments showcased

the children's developing understandings with

in situations not directed by the teacher.

This article focuses on the various ways self-selection during reading and writing sup

ported 6-year-old children's literacy learning over a 6-month period. As I watched children

make choices regarding what books to read or

whether to read or write, several questions sur

faced. Do most early readers select to reread

books, and is this balanced by other choices?

What activities related to literacy learning do

children self-select?

Theory and research Limited studies have looked at the deci

sions children make as they self-select during

literacy learning. Bussis, Chittenden, Amarel, and Klausner 's (1985) 6-month study docu

mented text selection as an area of growth for 40 early readers. They found that when some

children chose to revisit familiar books, the next selection was a new, very difficult text.

Previously, research on rereading of texts had

focused on its effects on fluency (e.g., Blum &

Koskinen, 1991; Herman, 1985; Samuels,

1979) or response (e.g., Beaver, 1982;

Morrow, 1988; Yaden, 1988). Further infor

mation is needed on the effects of rereading on

other areas of growth during literacy learning. A study by Mervar and Hiebert (1989)

compared the texts selected by children in two

second grades?a literature-based classroom

and a skills-oriented classroom. The authors

found the children in the literature-based

classroom took more time making text selec

tions and that they selected "high quality tradebooks" (p. 533). Mervar and Hiebert be

lieved their results were "provocative enough to...further examine issues related to chil

dren's literature selections and amount of

220 The Reading Teacher Vol. 49, No. 3 November 1995 ?1995 international Reading Association (pp. 220-227)



reading" (p. 534). They encouraged documen

tation of children reading texts of their own

choosing that would provide information

about the usefulness of encouraging children to self-select during reading and writing.

Observation of self-selection The 6-month study took place in a whole

language first grade of 23 children in a mid

western suburban school in the United States.

The teacher's reading program consisted of

three parts: shared big book reading, small

group instruction (using individual books from a series called Literacy 2000,1989), and a sus

tained time for reading self-selected books.

There was also a "free choice" time during the

day in which students chose between reading self-selected books or writing self-generated stories.

Observations were made 3 to 5 days per week during a 20-minute sustained reading time and a 30-minute free choice time. Titles, choice of activity (i.e., reading versus writing) and social interactions during reading and

writing were recorded in field notes. Ten case

study children were chosen after an initial ob

servation period of several weeks.

The sustained reading time and free choice

portion of the teacher's instructional plan were

both used to give children increased opportu nities to read and write. The four self-selection

patterns observed during these two times were

(a) rereading, (b) moving between "easy" and

"difficult" texts, (c) reading with a buddy, and

(d) choosing to read or write. Each is dis

cussed below, along with their implications for

classroom practice. One more time: Rereading books. Within

the first few months of school, the children be

gan rereading three types of texts. First, big books read and reread by the teacher to the

whole class were available in both big and

small versions. In this way, several children

could reread the big book together or a child could take a single, small copy to read alone.

The importance of modeling and the teacher's

acceptance of rereading may have influenced

the children's willingness to revisit the books.

The second type of text selected for

rereading was a story read to the children by an

adult, such as the teacher, librarian, or parent. The book was always available for the chil

dren to choose later in the day.

helps to develop a community of readers. Photo by Michael Siluk

Finally, the children reread personal fa

vorites. Many of the children had one particular book they returned to time and again. This per sonal favorite lasted from 2 to 6 weeks and was

then replaced by a new favorite for rereading. The three types of selections for rereading

appear to hinge on one feature?familiarity. In these early stages of developing indepen dence in reading, repetition apparently helps children gain control of reading strategies by

drawing on what they already know.

Chris, one of the 10 case study students, used familiarity of text to help him with some new words. When another student, Katie, was

reading with the teacher and got stuck on a

word, Chris looked over her shoulder and said, "I got stuck on that one, too!" He continued to

scan the page and said, "and one more..." and

pointed to another word in the text.

Smith (1985) and Meek (1988) have sug gested that children become confident enough

Self-selection of early literacy learners 221



Figure 1 Joel's and Katie's text choices and instructional reading levels

20 -

19 -

18 -

17 -

16 -

15 -

0 14

j_ 13 -

1 12 -

.2 11 -

.f?

| 10

I 9 -

5 8 -

CD ' -

6 -

5 -

4 -

3 ~

2 -

1 -

Joel's- -/

instructfonal level

k?kf Katie's

instructional level

Mid-November Dates

Early December

Note: j = Joel's text choices

k = Katie's text choices

to attempt something new after they have read

and reread a familiar text. At that point, they can begin to attend to more complicated as

pects of learning to read. That is, they begin to apply strategies they have learned to new, unfamiliar texts. Chris, no doubt, used his ex

perience with rereading text to recognize the

two memorable words in a new situation.

The desire to reread texts suggests several

important issues of classroom organization worth considering. The availability of big books and accompanying small versions is

very important. These books were shared by four first-grade teachers. Therefore, whenever a big copy was passed on, a few small copies remained in the room, providing a longer pe

riod of time for the children to select the book

for rereading. This was particularly important for Katie, who needed to repeatedly hear and see a big book over a 2-week period before at

tempting it on her own. The small copy left in

the library was ideal for Katie's delayed per sonal selection to reread.

In the book corner was a large collection

of teacher-owned, school-owned, and library loaned texts. At any one time the children had

about 150 texts (big books, children's litera

ture of various genres, poetry collections, and

the children's own published writings) from

which to select. New books were constantly added, but the books being reread were left in

the corner as long as possible. This provided a

wide range of books, both new and familiar, from which selections could be made.

After attempting new, unfamiliar texts, the

children always could return to the security of a known text. Jim often read new books, but

would revisit a familiar text every few days. One book remained an anchor in his choices over several months. His delight in seeing that

One Hungry Monster (O'Keefe, 1989) had

been renewed was evidenced through his ac

clamation, "Oh good, she got my book!" He

walked away hugging his book. Familiarity not only builds confidence, but in Jim's case,

personal response to a particular text.

222 The Reading Teacher Vol. 49, No. 3 November 1995



Figure 2 Tracy's and Nick's text choices and instructional reading levels

20 -

19 -

18 -

17 -

16

15

14

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2 -

1 -

t?

Tracy's instructional level

n A

?\ ? \

Nick'?--\? instructional level/

\ n \ /

.^4

n

Mid-November Dates

n---n /

\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / v n

Early December

Note: t = Tracy's text choices

n = Nick's text choices

Too easy? Too hard? Just right! To com

pare the level of difficulty of the selected texts to the children's instructional reading level,

The Reading Recovery Booklist (Peterson,

1990) was used. The Booklist is used by trained teachers to select books for lessons.

The list places texts on a continuum of levels

based on language, illustration support, vocab

ulary, and narrative style (Peterson, 1991). The

levels were used only to compare the books

children were choosing to read to their current

instructional level.

The instructional reading level was deter

mined through running records taken at the

beginning and end of the study and those taken

periodically by the teacher. Comparing book and instructional reading levels gave a rough idea as to whether the children were challeng

ing themselves through their text choices.

The analysis revealed a back and forth

movement between easy and difficult levels.

The children read several books that would be

considered easy for their particular instruc

tional levels, followed by selection of a new, more difficult text. The difficult text was gen

erally well above their instructional levels.

Figures 1 and 2 show the relationship between

the levels of text chosen and the instructional

reading level for four children in the study. The movement between easy (below cur

rent instructional level) and difficult (well above instructional level) texts is quite evi

dent. Data such as that reported in Figures 1

and 2 were observed frequently over the 6

months. The pattern suggests that the children were taking risks while building confidence.

They would select something that challenged their new strategies and then return to some

thing familiar or well within their consolidated word knowledge. Self-selection allowed the

children to make the decision about the kind of text they were willing to attempt at the time.

The movement between easy and difficult

texts pointed to another issue for consideration

in the library corner. The books were shelved

according to source for ease of organization




(i.e., all books on loan from the library were

kept separate from teacher-owned books). Within these sections, the teacher placed the

books in random order, not designated by dif

ficulty levels. All books were available to all

readers. This allowed for experimentation and

for a balance between risk taking and confi

dence building.

Reading with a buddy. During self-selec

tion time, the children were permitted to read

with a buddy. A pair of readers could sit to

gether to read books of individual choosing or

they could share the reading of one text.

Deciding to read with a buddy was more than

simply choosing to be with a friend. The chil

dren I observed in this first-grade classroom

had various ways to use buddy reading. One way buddies read together, sitting

side by side with their individual piles of

books, afforded opportunity to discuss books.

Conversations were initiated by one buddy to

point out an interesting illustration, laugh about a story event, or request help with a dif

ficult word. These types of interactions pro vided learning within a social framework. The

children could make individual choices, yet have the support of others available.

A second approach to buddy reading was

the shared reading of one text. This was orga nized in several ways. One pair might choose

to read the story aloud in unison. Another pair

might alternate reading pages. And yet another

pair might have one dominant reader. The par ticular arrangement was dependent on the dif

ficulty of the story, familiarity with the text, and the abilities of the readers.

Conversations about stories and how to

figure out difficult words were more frequent

during shared buddy reading than side-by-side

reading. For example, Jim and Lee were sitting on the floor with a big book copy of Hattie and the Fox (Fox, 1986). In the story, Hattie at

tempts to warn the other farm animals that a

fox is nearby. She begins "I can see a nose in

the bushes" (unnumbered, p. 3). The other an

imals make fun of her. The repeated, cumula

tive phrase continues, supported by illustra

tions that show more of the fox each time.

When the boys got to the third set, "I can see

a nose, two eyes, and two ears in the bushes,"

they got stuck on the word eyes. Lee said, "Let's skip that." Then, they had problems fig

uring out ears. After studying both words, Lee

pointed to eyes and suggested, "Let's go back

where we first saw that."

They turned back to the second set of the

cumulative phrase. They studied the illustra

tion, compared it to the print and read in uni

son, "I can see a nose and two eyes in the

bushes" (unnumbered, p. 13). After the boys turned back to the page that gave them prob lems, Lee pointed to the text and said, "See

that's eyes and that's ears!".

Many such incidents were observed, where together various strategies were dis

cussed and used to read text. In such situations, children are learners and teachers. And, once

again, the self-selection time provided evi

dence to the teacher that they were using de

veloping knowledge about reading to solve

problems without her help.

My observations suggest that there is ben

efit to buddy reading. The social interaction

during reading can be instructive to either

child. It also helps to develop a "community of

readers" (Hepler & Hickman, 1982). Within this community are readers and writers who

can support each other's learning, creating a

cooperative atmosphere that encourages chil

dren to take risks. The noise and movement as

sociated with buddy reading must be expected if children are to learn from each other.

To write or read... that is the question. One

consistent observation time took place when

the children could select either to read books

of their own choosing or to obtain their writing

workshop folder and continue work on a story

they were composing. Within a few weeks of

the establishment of free choice time, there were recurring decisions to select reading over

writing or writing over reading. The incidents of reading or writing during

free choice time were totaled and percentages

assigned for each case study child. This indi

cated the preference of individual children and

could be compared to their instructional read

ing level at different points across the 6

months.

By January a pattern emerged that exhibit

ed a strong relationship between the instruc

tional reading level and a preference for reading or writing. This pattern is shown in the Table.

The children whose instructional level had

moved from preprimer in September to be

yond first grade (i.e., what would be expected for a 6-year-old) in January generally chose to




Instructional level and primary free choice activity

Instructional level* Name September January

Tom 16 28

Tracy 14 26

David 2 26 Sara 6 22 Jill 5 20

Mitch 1 14 Katie B 14

Nick 1 14 Jim B 14 Lee 2 12

Note: *The approximate equivalencies for the levels are: B - 2 Readiness 3-8 Preprimer 9-12 Primer

14 - 16 Grade 1 18-20 Grade 2

22 - 24 Grade 3 26 Grade 4 28 Grade 5

Pattern of primary free choice activity as of January

Wandering around room

Engaging in a variety of writing activities

Reading unfamiliar texts



Rereading familiar texts

Rereading familiar texts

Writing self-generated stories



read unfamiliar books during free choice. The

choices were across a range of difficulty?

everything from easy to difficult. The children also used the print in books

to inform their writing. Comments such as the

following were often heard: "Now where did

I see that word?" David declared that he knew

are is not r, as he had been spelling it. When

asked how he figured that out, he said "from those poems we did 'Roses are red.'"

The children whose instructional reading levels had just reached grade level in January had two distinct patterns?they either chose

to reread familiar text or they chose to work on

stories in their writing folder. Rereading or

working to produce print appeared to help them consolidate their word knowledge. For

example, Jim had great difficulty remembering the. Each time he encountered it in text he de

liberated and attempted to sound it out. One

day, while walking down the hall, Jim pointed to a display board and loudly read the from the

print. Earlier that morning he had correctly used the several times in his own writing.

Chomsky (1981) has argued that young learners should be encouraged to write first, then read. Through struggles with encoding the language, the child comes to understand

how to decode print. This reconstruction of the

language may well be their way into decoding the words of others.

It is important to note here that Tom re

mained the exception to all the focus children

regarding self-selection. Two weeks into the

study the children were asked to write, "We are

glad you came to school," and leave it on their

desks for open house. Tom wrote "we r ga u ca

m to su." He found writing difficult. He did not choose that activity during free choice time be cause he appeared uncomfortable with writing.

Tom had a strong command of reading, but had a difficult time finding a book to read.

The ever-changing library selections rarely in

terested him. When an interest inventory was

taken, Tom's answers suggested a preference for nonfiction. Once these were increased in

the collection, he occasionally selected factu

al books during free choice.

Jennings (1990) suggests that "A reluctant reader is a child for whom adults have not been

able to find a good enough book" (p. 5). Tom re minds us again of the importance of the wide

and varied collection needed in any classroom

library as well as the need to listen to children's

preferences. In Tom's case, the discovery that

he enjoyed factual text points to the need to in




elude texts from a wide range of genres. These observations demonstrated that,

when given the opportunity, young learners

practiced their new literacy skills by the avenue

most appropriate or comfortable to them at the

time. The children were observed selecting

reading or writing as a way to work with print. Time and the provision of materials empow ered the learners and encouraged self-selection.

Implications Time should be provided each day for

children to be in charge of their own learning. This is a critical time for children to experi ment with text of varying difficulty. The range of self-selected texts used in the study indi

cates that there is great value in having a vari

ety of texts from which students can choose.

Children do not need the teacher's con

stant guidance to participate in literacy learn

ing. Much of the instruction that takes place

during shared or small group reading will spill over into children's independent work. This

also provides another way for the teacher to

watch for growth in reading and writing.

Children self-selecting and working together provide a forum for discussing strategies and ways to solve problems and for learning how others go about

reading and writing.

Since children tend to reread texts over

many weeks, it is necessary to have a large,

quality classroom library that remains constant

over prolonged periods of time. Being aware

of what children select will be helpful in stock

ing the shelves. Through informal discussions

with children, new types of books can be

sought. This helps in planning and in learning children's individual preferences.

Children self-selecting and working to

gether provide a forum for discussing strate

gies and ways to solve problems and for learn

ing how others go about reading and writing. Children need several options for social inter

action when reading and writing. Meek (1982) believes that "we are certain only that good readers pick their own way to literacy in the

company of friends who encourage and sustain

them and that...the enthusiasm of a trusted

adult can make the difference" (p. 193). The teacher should expect children to sup

port each other's learning and encourage

buddy reading. Believing children can suc

cessfully self-direct their learning is as impor tant as providing the opportunity to do so. One

goal of education is to help children become decision makers. This can only be accom

plished through practice. The teacher who

places responsibility on children to make

choices enables them to develop autonomy. Children appear to use the most comfort

able avenue for learning more about print. Some children prefer writing, others prefer

reading. At some point in the day, deciding be

tween reading and writing provides additional

opportunities to learn about the nature of lit

eracy. Watching what choices children make

can help teachers plan activities that strength en children's learning through their preferred

approach to new learning. The data gathered in this study indicate that

when children are given the opportunity and

materials from which to select, they make deci

sions that allow for extended practice in devel

oping literacy. Children select an activity or

book that fills a particular need?whether it is

a new challenge, building confidence through familiar reading, or engaging in social interac

tion through reading and writing. Whatever the

choice, children constantly use self-selection

time to support and extend their developing skills, not simply to pick the activity of least

resistance.

While my findings are limited by the num

ber of children involved in the study, the depth of the data suggests children can, and do, make

choices that increase their awareness of and

extend their growing knowledge about litera

cy. Sara described her learning after 6 months, "When I looked at books at starting [first grade] I just looked at the pictures. I'm done

with that! I was just looking at the pictures. But now I read every single, solitary word."

Lee also noted his change since first grade started, "I didn't even know how to spell has.




[Did you know how to read it?] No! Not even

sun."

As children make choices, experiment with reading and writing, and have many op

portunities for feeling successful, they expand their own literacy learning.

Previously an elementary teacher and a

teacher educator in Australia, Fresch now

teaches at The Ohio State University at

Marion (1465 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Marion, OH

43302, USA).

References

Beaver, J. (1982). Say it! Over and over. Language Arts,

59, 143-148.

Blum, I., & Koskinen, P.S. (1991). Repeated reading: A

strategy for enhancing fluency and fostering exper tise. Theory into Practice, 30,195-200.

Bussis, A.M., Chittenden, E.A., Amarel, M., & Klausner, E.

(1985). Inquiry in meaning. An investigation of learn

ing to read. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chomsky, C. (1981). Write now, read later. In C.B. Cazden

(Ed.), Language in early childhood education (pp. 141 -

149). Washington, DC: National Association for

the Education of Young Children.

Fox, M. (1986). Hattie and the fox. New York: Trumpet.

Herman, P.A. (1985). The effect of repeated readings on

reading rate, speech pauses, and word recognition ac

curacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 553 -

564.

Hepler, S., & Hickman, J. (1982). "The book was okay. I

love you"-Social aspects of response to literature.

Theory into Practice, 21, 278 -

283.

Jennings, P. (1990). Keep the magic going. Magpies, 5(1), 5-8.

Literacy 2000. (1989). Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby. Meek, M. (1988). How texts teach what readers learn.

Exeter, UK: Thimble.

Meek, M. (1982). Learning to read. London: Bodley Head.

Mervar, K., & Hiebert, E.H. (1989). Literature-selection

strategies and amount of reading in two literacy ap

proaches. In S. McCormick& J. Zuteil (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and in

struction (pp. 529 -

535). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Morrow, L.M. (1988). Young children's responses to one

to-one story readings in school settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 89 - 107.

O'Keefe, S. (1989). One hungry monster: A counting book

in rhyme. Boston: Little, Brown.

Peterson, B. (Ed.) (1990). The Reading Recovery book

list. Columbus: Ohio State University.

Peterson, B. (1991). Selecting books for beginning read

ers. In D.E. DeFord, G.S. Pinnell, & C. Lyons (Eds.),

Bridges to literacy (pp. 119 - 138). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Samuels, S.J. (1979). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher, 40, 608

- 614.

Smith, F. (1985). Reading without nonsense (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Yaden, D. (1988). Understanding stories through repeat ed read-alouds: How many does it take? The Reading

Teacher, 41, 556 -560.

Advertising in

THE READHG TEACHER

and/or

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT

& ADULT LITERACY

(feriMrty JOURNAL OF HEMM)

An inexpensive way to reach reading

educators with news about products

and services.

For further information, call

Linda Hunter, Advertising Manager,

302-731-1600, ext. 261.

95-17 A&M 2/95

Promote

Literacy.

(Rhinestone-like Swarovski Crystal) (Pin dimensions 3/4 in. x 2 in.)

pin.

Pricing Information: 1-24 pins $19.95* each; 25 or more pins $15.95

* each

*Price includes shipping and handling. Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery.

To order: Send check or money order

U.S. funds only?payable to:

Apple-Solutely Special 1608 Westwood Road Wyomissing, PA. 19610




Documents

Teachers' Choices for 1995: Best New Children's Books || Self-Selection of Early Literacy Learners