1. Art and Diseño

Journal ofhttp://jlr.sagepub.com/
Literacy Research
Children's Choices for Recreational Reading: A Three-Part Investigation of
Selection Preferences, Rationales, and Processes
Kathleen A. J. Mohr
Journal of Literacy Research 2006 38: 81
DOI: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_4
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/38/1/81
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Literary Research Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Literacy Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jlr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jlr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/38/1/81.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 2006
What is This?
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
JOURNAL OF LITERACY RESEARCH, 38(1), 81–104
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Children’s Choices for Recreational
Reading: A Three-Part Investigation
of Selection Preferences, Rationales,
and Processes
Kathleen A. J. Mohr
Department of Teacher Education and Administration
University of North Texas
This report delineates a three-part investigation into first graders’ preferences, selection rationales, and processes when choosing a picture book to own. One-hundred ninety first graders were invited to select their favorite book from among nine
high-quality, well-illustrated picture books representing a variety of topics, media,
and genres. In addition, 122 students were also interviewed about their selections
and how they made their choices. An overwhelming majority of first graders preferred informational books, especially animal books. The finding contradicts much
previous research indicating that young readers, particularly girls, favor narrative
text. The selection rationales of these students focused on topic or perceived content but were not particularly sophisticated. The selection processes data indicate
gender differences, especially related to social aspects of recreational reading and
perceived reading ability. The study extends the ongoing professional dialogue related to text preferences for independent, recreational reading and challenges educators to better understand how even very young readers may develop as readers in
the postmodern information age.
Examining children’s choices of texts for recreational reading is not a new topic. For
decades, educators have investigated students’selection of leisure reading materials
(Burgess, 1985; Lawson, 1972; Reutzel & Gali, 1998). Indeed, Weintraub (1977)
cites the assessment of children’s reading interests as one of the few trends documented throughout this century. Although the foci have varied, the premise is well
Correspondence should be addressed to Kathleen A. J. Mohr, Department of Teacher Education
and Administration, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 310740, Denton, TX 76203. E-mail:
[email protected]
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
82
MOHR
established. The more students read independently, the better their reading becomes.
When students read books of their own choosing, they are likely to be more motivated, independent readers. The ultimate goal is to encourage motivated, skilled
readers who choose to read widely and who develop lifelong reading habits.
The field of children’s book reading behaviors is a complex arena. Key research
topics related to self-selected reading include analysis of text features, genre
awareness and preferences, selection processes, gender differences, developmental aspects, ability issues, and motivational factors. This study sought to explore
first graders’ preferences among various picture books and to update our understanding of their selection processes. It was designed to challenge previous notions
about why and how contemporary and diverse young readers choose their books.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
Text Features
Much earlier text-selection research analyzed students’ awareness and use of text
features in their book choices (Greenlaw & Wielan, 1979; Lawson, 1972; Peterson, 1971; Stewig, 1972). The physical characteristics of books—including the title, cover page, illustrations, length, and size—influence readers, serving to attract
or dissuade them. Not so long ago, most books were drab in their appearance, and
the use of illustration was quite limited; students were forced to select books
largely on content or recommendation. As full-page color illustrations became
more affordable, educators became even more interested in the role of high-quality
picture books and their effect on classroom instruction and readers. Recently, children’s picture books have become even more dramatic because of technological
advancements in printing processes. Thus, front covers and illustrations are now
critical components in text development. Fonts are easy to vary, text is placed in
multiple configurations on the page, and illustrations exemplify a larger variety of
media, including three-dimensional possibilities (Goldstone, 1999). The explosion in the children’s book industry warrants renewed interest in students’ understanding and preferences for texts of varying physical features (Goldstone,
2001–2002; Serafini, 2005).
Genre Preferences
In many studies over the years and in various countries, different readers have evidenced preferences for particular genres. Research has shown that younger readers
prefer stories, especially folk tales and fantasy (Hall & Cole, 1999; Moss & McDonald, 2004), with genre preference broadening through the intermediate grades.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
83
These patterns reflect what teachers have typically promoted in elementary classrooms. There is research indicating that beyond adolescence, however, students’
genre preferences for recreational reading again narrow along gender lines.
Researchers have recently recommended providing sufficient exposure to a variety of texts to help learners develop and apply varied literacy skills and strategies
that will transfer to real-world reading (Caswell & Duke, 1998; Duke & Kays,
1998; Pappas, 1993; Yopp & Yopp, 2000). There is now an increased emphasis on
the use of expository texts in earlier grades (Duke, 2000). School reading and literacy assessments have become increasingly demanding in this information age, and
much of the focus is on informational reading across subjects. Even very young
students are exposed to and expected to comprehend complex, informational text
and postmodern fiction (Goldstone, 2001–2002). Teachers can no longer privilege
narratives at the expense of expository formats in their classrooms, even if
storybooks dominate basal readers and classroom anthologies. Given more exposure to informational texts, young readers may develop a preference for this genre.
Selection Strategies
Much research in the late 1980s and 1990s highlighted that self-selection enhances
recreational reading behaviors (Carter, 1988; Fleener, Morrison, Linek, &
Rasinski, 1997; Jenkins, 1955; Timion, 1992; Wendelin & Zinck, 1988). Family
and friends were found to play key roles in recommending books. In addition, students relied on familiar authors and book series for their independent reading
(Hiebert, Mervar, & Person, 1990; Isaacs, 1992). When perusing individual books,
students often report looking at a book’s title and front cover, determining its content, flipping through the pages, and reading parts of the book or the book blurbs.
However, even when exposed to a wide variety of books, many students evidence a limited repertoire of selection strategies (Au, Kunitake, & Blake, 1992;
Hiebert et al., 1990). Thus, a greater focus has been placed on helping students develop more sophisticated selection strategies. This task enjoins teachers, who had
previously not factored predominantly in the process (Greaney, 1999; Rasinski,
Mohr, & Linek, 1994), to teach students strategies for finding books that they
would find interesting and be successful reading (Ohlhausen & Jepsen, 1992;
Wendelin & Zinck, 1988). Successful reading now encompasses interest, access,
accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. This multifaceted definition presents a
more complex challenge—helping students find books that engage them and allow
them to apply efficient reading behaviors.
Gender Differences
Gender stereotypes have repeatedly surfaced in the literature regarding children’s
book preferences (Chick & Heilman-Houser, 2000; Childress, 1985; Kropp &
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
84
MOHR
Halverson, 1983). In general, girls have been shown to read more than boys, perform better on reading tests than boys, and prefer stories with female protagonists,
with boys preferring to read about male characters. Girls have shown more interest
in stories, especially when highlighting family, friendships, and home life. Boys
have often been shown to prefer nonfiction, particularly sports, science, and history information (Barrs & Pidgeon, 1994). The topic of animals has been associated with both girls’ and boys’ preferences (Anderson, 2002). Several studies have
shown that boys seem more bound by gender than do girls—especially in public
settings (Childress, 1985; Collins-Standley, Gan, & Yu, 1996; Dutro, 2001–2002;
Schultheis, 1990). Most experts argue that any perceived gender difference is
probably not inherited but more culturally influenced (Langerman, 1990;
Simpson, 1996). If so, as cultural norms change, assessing boys’ and girls’ independent reading behaviors is of renewed interest, especially with picture books
that have historically promoted gender stereotyping (Timm, 1988; White, 1986).
Developmental Aspects
Age and ability issues related to reading habits have likewise experienced a resurgence in research. Earlier studies indicated that book preferences seemed to
emerge around age 9 and peak shortly thereafter, once students had learned to
read and had more exposure to various kinds of literature (Haynes, 1988;
Wendelin & Zinck, 1988). More recently, however, teachers expect even the
youngest readers to practice independent reading and to self-select their texts. In
general, as children mature, so do their reading interests, so that with age, genre
preferences increase from a focus on fantasy fiction to more realistic and diverse
perspectives of the world (Purves & Beach, 1972). Few studies on students’ preferences have followed students through the grades to determine the same subjects’ preference patterns. Feeley (1982) studied fourth and fifth graders’ text
preferences and then sampled the same school population 10 years later. Her
findings revealed that the boys remained rather static in their preferences. The
boys retained a primary interest in sports books, followed by books about informational topics, everyday people problems, and the arts, in that order. The girls,
however, showed more fluctuation in their interests, with interest in sports developing as the girls became older. This developmental change may be an example
of a socially influenced process, because the time frame corresponded with the
introduction of Title IX and the increased attention to athletic activities for girls
in the United States. Obviously, developmental aspects of book preferences
overlap with those of gender. Other examples of socially influenced reading behaviors might include the preponderance of nonfiction books promoting science
careers and targeted to boys and recently published multicultural literature that
targets minority populations. The latter is less based on gender, but perhaps just
as developmental (Wigfield & Asher, 1984).
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
85
Ability Issues
Although some children’s high interest and motivation enable them to handle more
difficult texts, there has been a heavy emphasis in recent years on matching children with books at their independent reading levels (Allington, 2001; Clay, 1993;
Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). Therefore, researchers have investigated students’ abilities and their tendencies to pick books that equal their developing reading skills
(Fresch, 1995; Kragler, 2000; Lehman, 1991; Lysaker, 1997; Swanton, 1984).
More proficient readers are also more skilled in their selection processes and more
likely to find books they can successfully read, as compared to struggling readers
(Kragler, 2000). Some software products claim to be able to quickly identify any
student’s current ability and recommend appropriate books that ensure successful
individual assessment, in particular, and reading progress, in general (Advantage
Learning Systems, 1993). Certainly, less skilled readers and the less skilled selectors need successful access, selection, and reading experiences.
Motivational Factors
Intuitively, successful readers are likely to be more motivated to read, and this extra reading practice fuels their reading progress. When students struggle to read,
they are discouraged and tend to avoid reading as a leisure activity. Thus, literacy
research has sought ways to help less proficient readers be more motivated to read
on their own. Most educators are well aware of motivational reading programs, and
again, the use of technology has allowed groups to package computer-based systems to help manage students’ independent reading. Unfortunately, such programs
can actually serve to limit students’ choices and may well work to undermine reading motivation because of the extrinsic nature of the rewards (Biggers, 2001;
Gambrell & Marinak, 1997; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Interest, access, and control are key aspects of intrinsically motivated readers; high interest can offset text
difficulty in that motivated readers may persist in reading a text that is beyond their
reading level (Kincade, 1991).
One way that interest and access relate to reading motivation is the social influence of teachers, peers, and family members, particularly mothers. The example
and recommendations of others can motivate students to select and read books that
they would not otherwise encounter (Wendelin & Zinck, 1988). Although teachers
have many opportunities to share books, research identifies peers and family members as more influential in students’ text selections.
A more intrinsically motivating aspect of leisure reading is finding a book that
the reader can relate to in substantive ways. With the advent of more multicultural
children’s literature, one would expect investigations of how students respond to
and select books representing their cultural diversity. However, such research is
still quite limited (Laumbach, 1995). Intuitively, we might expect readers to seek
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
86
MOHR
books that mirror their lives and social surroundings (Sims Bishop, 1990;
Stoodt-Hill & Amspaugh-Corson, 2001). Although multicultural books are often
recommended (Hopson & Hopson, 1993; Katz, 1983; Radencich, 1985; Ramsey,
1987; Rudman, 1984), few studies have directly addressed them as part of children’s recreational reading diets.
This study was designed to revisit the topic of self-selected reading materials as
warranting updated attention. Specifically, I sought to determine whether young
readers preferred books that mirrored them in socially oriented ways or if other attributes predominated—a topic not well addressed in the research literature. This
study focused on picture books and early readers’ independent reading behaviors,
which have also received less scrutiny. The three-part study investigated preferences, selection processes, and the students’ rationales for their choices. The use of
student interviews enabled the researcher to explore the aspects of genre preferences, gender differences, text difficulty, and motivation as they related to the children’s choices and their selection processes.
The research questions for this study were:
1. Given a wide variety of high-quality picture books, which book would first
graders select to keep as their own?
2. Given a wide variety of books from which to choose one, would first graders evidence a preference for particular genres?
3. Would first graders show a preference for a book that mirrored them in gender, first language, or racial identity?
4. Are gender differences evident in the book choices, the selection rationales, and selection processes among first graders?
5. How do first graders explain their specific book selection rationales?
6. How do first graders explain their generalized book selection processes?
METHOD
Selected Texts
To begin the project, I established criteria for selecting books to offer primary-aged
students: high-quality picture books with full-color illustrations; representative of
various genres, genders, ethnicities, and language (English and Spanish); appropriate for first graders in content; recently published and thus not likely to be
well-known among students; and similarly priced. I consulted with a regional
Teachers’ Choices coordinator, an experienced children’s librarian, and a local
children’s bookstore owner for recommendations and then, based on their suggestions, reviewed dozens of recently published children’s books.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
87
TABLE 1
Books Selected
Title
Author
Magda’s Tortillas
Becky Chavarria-Chairez
(2000)
Lord of the Cranes
The Upside Down Boy
Kerstin Chen (2000)
Juan Felipe Herrera (2000)
Subira, Subira
Tololwa Mollel (2000)
There’s a Zoo in Room 22
Animals Nobody Loves
Judy Sierra (2000)
Seymour Simon (2001)
When Abraham Talked to the
Trees
The Trip Back Home
What Moms Can’t Do
Elizabeth Van Steenwyk
(2000)
Janet Wong (2000)
Douglas Wood (2000)
Attributes
Latino, realistic family fiction,
written in English and
Spanish
Asian, fantasy fiction
Latino, realistic, family/school
fiction, written in English
and Spanish
African American,
multicultural, family fiction
School/animal poetry
Animal, informational
nonfiction
Historical biography
Asian, realistic, family fiction
Humorous, family nonfiction
Subsequently, I selected nine recently published, hardback picture books for
their appeal to first graders because of their content and illustrations and because
they represented various literary genres and multicultural children’s literature. The
books were similarly priced, with an average cost of $16. The professionals mentioned previously endorsed their inclusion in the study. Five of the selected texts
were classified as fiction, including both realistic and fanciful narratives with male
and female protagonists, representing Anglos, Asians, African Americans, and
Latinos. The other four books were nonfiction: an informational text featuring
photographs and short descriptions of dangerous animals, a partial biography of
Abraham Lincoln’s early life, a comical description of mothers illustrated with dinosaur characters, and an alphabet book of poems about possible classroom pets.
The various titles afforded a variety of themes and topics often popular with young
children, including family relationships, school activities, animals, and magic. To
summarize, the texts were representative of the following attributes: gender (male
and female characters), genre, ethnicity (Anglo, Asian, African American, and Latino), and theme (family, school, nature, history, and fantasy). Two hardback copies of each book were purchased for demonstration purposes. The books selected
are presented in Table 1.
Student Subjects
To determine the book preferences and selection processes of primary students,
this study targeted a small, rural-becoming-urban school district in the southwest
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
88
MOHR
United States. Permission to conduct the study was received from the school principal and the district superintendent. Letters of explanation were distributed to all
the first-grade teachers. The school district serves a diverse population of students
representing various ethnicities, languages, and socioeconomic levels. The study
was done near the end of the school year, which allowed the students involved
nearly 2 full years of classroom instruction and the associated exposure to picture
books in instructional settings.
There were 10 first-grade classrooms at the primary school, with approximately 19 students in each class and a mean student age of 7.7 years. All students were asked to participate in the study. There were 104 (55%) boys and 86
(45%) girls. Of the total, 30% (n = 56) of the students were Latino, half of
whom were classified as Limited English Proficient. For these students (15% of
the total), the instructions and interview protocol items were presented in English and Spanish, when necessary. The gender percentages were the same among
the Latino subgroup.
Procedures
Selection protocol. With the help of the school principal and the classroom
teachers, children had 90 minutes to peruse the books displayed outside their classrooms. I displayed the books on a table in a random order, and individual students
were invited into the hallway to inspect the books and make their selections. I recorded their choices but did not distribute any books.
All 190 first graders selected a book from the nine titles. I encouraged students
to look at all the books presented and to decide which one they would like to have
as their own. They were allowed unlimited time to select a book. I recorded their
decisions and asked the interview questions of those who had permission and assent to participate in that portion of the task (n = 122, or 64%). Once all students
had made their preferences known, I ordered sufficient quantities and delivered the
books to the students at the school approximately 1 week later.
Student interview protocol. I developed an interview protocol (see the
Appendix) of 10 open-ended questions that targeted the students’ selection rationales and their selection processes. The first 5 questions asked the students to
identify their preferred book, comment on its type (story or information), its
content, why they selected it, and what they liked about the book. The next 5
questions focused on their general selection processes. Students were encouraged to elaborate on their responses and could make comments freely. I recorded
their responses in shorthand on individual copies of the protocol. I analyzed responses to the open-ended questions using an enumerative analytic induction approach (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). The students’ responses for each question
were read and reread, then coded for emerging categories. Categories were
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
89
added and refined until they accounted for all responses. Several codes and categories were reduced or renamed. In another round of reading, I tallied the students’ answers by category on a data sheet that included basic descriptive statistics and representative comments. I also used chi-square analyses to compare
some aspects of the data.
RESULTS
Children’s Book Choices
These first graders evidenced an overwhelming preference for the nonfiction, informational texts among the nine books featured. Of the 190 students, 159
(84%) selected nonfiction books (see Figure 1), and 46% of the children chose
the same nonfiction book, Animals Nobody Loves (Simon, 2001). An additional
34% of the students preferred the poetry and fanciful nonfiction books (Sierra,
2000; Wood, 2000). Fewer than 10 students selected the five multicultural narra-
FIGURE 1
First graders’ selected texts by genre.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
90
MOHR
FIGURE 2
First graders’ self-selected texts by title.
tives and the biography (see Figure 2). Thus, contrary to previous studies, these
early readers clearly preferred informational reading materials in their selection
of a book to own.
Both boys and girls in this study preferred informational books. Interestingly,
both boys and girls and Anglo and Latino groups preferred the same three titles (all
informational) from among the nine books offered, but the order of their preferences varied. The most popular title among the boys was Animals Nobody Loves
(Simon, 2001), followed by What Moms Can’t Do (Wood, 2000) and the poetry
book, There’s a Zoo in Room 22 (Sierra, 2000). Among the girls, the poetry book
was most popular, followed by What Moms Can’t Do, and then the animal information book. A majority of both boys and girls preferred the nonfiction selections;
however, the percentage of boys (96%) selecting an informational book was higher
than the percentage of girls (69%). A chi-square analysis comparison of book preferences and gender indicates a statistically significant (p < .01) gender difference
for genre; the boys more consistently selected nonfiction than the girls. This was
true for both the Latinos and the Anglo subgroups targeted in the study (see Mohr,
2003a, for a more detailed discussion of the comparison between Hispanic and
non-Hispanic students’ preferences).
Analysis of the books’ topics or content evidences that these first graders selected books in which animals featured prominently. This is particularly true of the
three most popular titles, which target animals as the subject, topic, or in illustrations. The less popular books in this study included animals in less prominent ways
or not at all. Thus, the common denominator among the most selected texts for
these first graders was animals, even though the books differed in size, genre, and
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
91
format (information with photographs, illustrated A-B-C poetry, and a humorous
tribute to mothers featuring cartoon dinosaurs).
Children’s Selection Rationales
The first portion of the student interview (see the Appendix) focused the students
on their particular book choice. In general, it was difficult for these children to explain why they chose the kind of book they had picked. As necessary, the researcher followed the questions with other prompts, in this first case asking if the
book was a storybook or an informational book. If the student responded to this
prompt, the researcher asked, “How do you know?” When provided the storybook/information book choice, 85% of the students who selected Animals Nobody
Loves deemed it an informational text. In addition, 82% of the students who made
fictional choices were correct in classifying them as such. Therefore, the majority
of students (58%) were able to identify the genre of their selected book, although
many seemed unfamiliar with terms related to genre (e.g., fiction, nonfiction, information, biography). Students selecting some of the other choices were less able to
classify them by genre. A majority of those students (82%) selecting the other nonfiction books (a biography, the A-B-C poetry book, and the tribute to mothers)
classified them all as storybooks.
In this study, the accuracy of genre identification seemed dependent on text selection. Boys (70%) were more accurate in classifying their book choices than girls
(30%), but this finding may be related to the fact that the boys almost exclusively
picked the text with photographs of and information about dangerous animals. The
girls, however, selected more varied titles and preferred mixed genre texts (e.g.,
fantasy/poetry, fantasy/information). Given that picture books have become more
varied in their format, it is not surprising that younger readers have difficulty in
classifying them by genre.
The next question asked students to relate what they thought their book was
about. Again, students seemed caught off guard by the question and appeared to
quickly guess what the book was about by looking at the front cover or one of the
illustrations. Students’ comments were either very general (e.g., “It’s about all
sorts of animals”) or very specific to one page or one illustration (“It’s about animals that eat meat”). Sixteen percent responded with “I don’t know.” Obviously,
the students relied on superficial text features to make their selections and to explain their rationales, even though they were not hurried through these processes.
A few students reported that they had read some or all of their respective selections
during their book browsing and selection time.
The fourth question again had a follow-up prompt to clearly communicate the
query, “Why did you pick this book to keep? Why is this one [book] your favorite
one in this group [of books]?” Students’ rationales fell into five basic categories:
topic, text features, genre, social connections, or unknown. Fewer than 5% of the
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
92
MOHR
TABLE 2
Students’ Primary Rationales for Book Selection
Boys
Girls
Total
Topic
Text
Features
Book
Genre
Social
Connections
Unsure/
“I Don’t Know”
Total No.
of Students
47
23
70
20
16
36
1
4
5
3
2
5
0
6
6
71
51
122
students did not give a clear answer to this question. Sixteen students (13%) gave
more than one reason for their book choice. Table 2 represents the categories of the
responses by the students’ primary rationale. Notably, 57% of these students (especially the boys) selected books based on the topic and quickly determined content.
Another 30% of the students mentioned visible text features as significant in their
selection process. Far fewer claimed that type of book or its appeal to friends or
family members figured prominently in their decisions.
The students answered two other questions regarding their specific book selection: “What makes this book so special? What do you like about this book?” Of the
140 student responses to these questions, 76% (n = 106) again related to topic or
content. Students said they preferred books about animals, family, or books that
were funny. Most of the students’ comments were direct statements about wanting
books about animals. Only 12% mentioned the illustrations, even though all the
books were high-quality, well-illustrated picture books. Interestingly, only two
students (both Hispanic females) mentioned their books were related to their respective cultural backgrounds.
None of the students said that they picked a book because it would be easy to
read or because it reminded them of themselves. Text readability did not seem to be
an issue among these young readers. In addition, these students chose books that
gave them insight into the world and seemed less concerned with books that mirrored their own experiences (see Mohr, 2003b, for verbatim student comments and
a more detailed discussion of students’ selection rationales).
Children’s Selection Processes
The third and final portion of the study addressed interview questions related to the
students’ text selection processes and perceptions. Table 3 represents the students’
responses to Question 6, “What do you look at in [or notice about] books that
makes you want to read them?” This question seeks to determine which text features attract students and what they do to select a book to read. Fifteen students
gave more than one selection strategy, and two students cited three aspects of their
book selection procedures. For example, “I look at the cover and then inside to see
if it’s interesting” or “I look at the title and the pictures, and then read half.” (Be-
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
93
TABLE 3
Preferred General Selection Process
Topic
Genre/
Format
Pictures
Words
Boys
Girls
Total
23
12
35
7
9
16
17
17
34
10
5
15
% of 141
25%
12%
24%
11%
Front
Cover
4
6
10
7%
Title
1
0
1
<1%
Text
Difficulty
Social
Value
Didn’t
Know
2
1
3
1
2
3
14
10
24
2%
2%
17%
cause of the potential for multiple answers, the total number of responses [n = 141]
is greater than the number of students responding to the questions.)
The strongest general selection mode among these students (25%) was relying
on the book’s topic. Another 24% of the comments referred to looking at the pictures to make a selection. Thus, nearly half of these first graders’ responses evidenced a reliance on the perceived topic or the pictures for picking out a book. Interestingly, 17% of the students claimed that they did not know (or could not
articulate) how they selected their books.
More than one third of the students (37%) in this study were able to discuss how
they picked their particular book in this specific instance. However, they did not
speak in general terms about their book selection processes, even though the question was framed in general terms. In other words, they told how they picked “this
book,” not how they pick books as a general strategy. Many struggled to articulate a
selection process; some of the students who were coded under “didn’t know” used
vague terms, such as “it’s cool,” “interesting,” or “neat” to justify their selections.
None of these first graders cited the recommendations of others as a strategy for selecting books, but this is not surprising because the study did not encourage students to discuss their preferences with one another.
Table 4 represents the data collected in response to “How did you make your decision to pick this one [book]? What did you do to decide?” Twelve students reported more than one selection strategy; therefore, the total number of responses to
this question is 134. Nearly one third of the students’ responses (32%) mentioned
visually scanning the book or books to make their selections. More girls than boys
preferred to look through the book to make a decision. Twice as many boys as girls
focused on topic, largely as presented on the front cover; 21% of the responses related to choosing on the basis of topic.
Choosing books based on topic or looking through the pages and pictures comprised 53% of the students’ responses. Another 25% of students were vague or said
they did not know how they made their specific selections; twice as many boys as
girls were unable to explain their selection processes. In addition, students seemed
confused about book selection strategies, often identifying their preferences but
not their selection processes. They also used language that indicated they per-
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
94
MOHR
TABLE 4
Specific Selection Process
Topic
Genre/
Format
Looked
Through/
Pictures
Boys
Girls
Total
19
9
28
2
3
5
17
25
42
% of 134
21%
4%
32%
Read or
Looked
at Words
Front
Cover
8
3
11
8%
Title
5
3
8
1
1
2
6%
1%
Text
Difficulty
Social
Value
1
0
1
<1%
Didn’t
Know
2
2
4
23
10
33
3%
25%
ceived their selection processes as simple, basic, or easy. None of the children
complained that selecting books was difficult, even though many took considerable time looking and deciding or had trouble explaining their thought processes.
Answers to questions about students’ perceptions of social value or connections
related to their preferred books are provided in Table 5. All but two students (both
boys) reported that others would like the books they selected. Nearly the same percentage of boys as girls named friends whom they thought would also like their selected books (74% vs. 73%, respectively). However, a much higher percentage of
boys (61%) than girls (35%) cited the book’s content/topic as the reason why others would like it. In contrast, more girls than boys gave socially oriented explanations for why others would like their selections (e.g., “When I get a good book, my
friends want to look at it”; “She’s sort of like me”; “We’re best friends and we like
the same things”). Some boys and girls made strong gender-related comments to
follow up their recommendations, for example, “Maybe a boy [would like this
book], not girls really; they don’t like cobras and stuff.”
These students were overwhelmingly sure that others would like their selected
books, citing friends most often. Approximately half of the students reported that
the content of their books would appeal to others. Far fewer students were unable
to explain their reasoning in response to this question compared to the previous
questions related to selection processes.
TABLE 5
Social References/Recommendations
Yes
Boys
Girls
Total
% of 122
69
51
120
99%
No
Friends
Family
Others
Content
Rationale
Social
Rationale
Picture
Rationale
2
0
2
53
37
90
8
9
17
4
4
8
43
23
66
12
15
27
2
1
3
1%
74%
14%
7%
54%
22%
2%
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
Gender
Comment
8
2
10
8%
Don’t
Know
6
4
10
5%
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
95
TABLE 6
Intentions for Selected Book
Read It
Read It
a Lot
Boys
Girls
Total
36
26
62
6
14
20
% of 141
44%
14%
Look
at It
1
0
1
<1%
Share
It With
Friends
Share
It With
Family
Learn
Information
From It
5
1
6
17
15
32
4
2
6
4%
23%
4%
Keep It
Special
6
8
14
9%
The next question, “What are you going to do with this new book of yours?”
also sought to determine social understandings, focusing on the students’ intentions for their books. Table 6 presents the data gleaned from this question. Again,
some students gave multiple responses to the question, so the total number of responses (n = 141) exceeds the number of students interviewed.
A majority of these students’ comments (58%) reported their intentions to
spend time reading or rereading their selected books; very few intended to look
only at the pictures. The number of girls who mentioned reading their books “a lot”
was considerably higher than the number of boys. (It is not known whether students reporting intentions to read a lot were trying to please or impress the researcher. Such influences are certainly possible.) However, these first graders were
aware that books are for reading, rather than merely looking at, whether the picture
books are narrative or informational in nature.
Although a sizable majority of students responded to the previous question that
they thought their friends would like their selected book, only 4% of the students
reported intentions of sharing their books with their friends. Nearly one quarter
claimed they would share it with family members, even though only 14% previously reported that they thought family members would also like their book. In
other words, the students’ notions about who would like their books and with
whom they would share their books did not match. Only 7% of the students commented about taking the books home, but 9% discussed ways that they would treat
the book as something special. Some of these students reported that they planned
to keep their books in special places, that they would take good care of their books,
or that they would read their books at special times (e.g., “I will read it to my
mother on Mother’s Day”).
None of the children reported planning to show their books to their teachers.
This omission was also apparent in responses to the question about who else might
like the selected book. These first graders did not cite or refer to their teachers in
their responses, even though the interviews were conducted at school and teachers
were aware and supportive of the selection task. Perhaps the students assumed that
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
96
MOHR
TABLE 7
Determination of Text Difficulty
Easy
Boys
Girls
Total
% of total
responses
(n = 143)
% of students
responding
(n = 61)
Difficult
Both
Confident
About
Reading
Worried
About
Words
Spoke
About
Length
Get
Parent
to
Help
Sounding
Out
Words
Commented
About
Book’s
Content
8
15
23
22
8
30
3
5
8
6
14
20
13
13
26
9
0
9
3
5
8
1
3
4
16
2
18
16%
21%
5%
14%
18%
6%
5%
3%
12%
38%
49%
13%
33%
43%
15%
13%
7%
30%
their teachers already knew about these (or all) books, but their not wanting to
share or read their books with their respective teachers seems quite telling.
The last few questions of the student interview were “Do you think this book is
easy or hard [difficult] to read? Why do you think so?” These questions were not
posed to all the students in the study because I added the questions, based on some
student responses, after the first day of interviews. In addition, many students
chose not to answer either question. Table 7 presents the responses of 61 students
(50% of the students; 33 boys and 28 girls). Even though only half of the students
were prompted to respond to this question, they generated 143 different comments,
more than any other question in the interview. Students had a variety of things to
say in response to this question, and most had more than one comment.
Many students assessed their books as difficult to read, but they chose them
anyway. Almost three times as many boys as girls perceived their selected books as
difficult. Only 18% of the boys expressed confidence in their ability to read their
selected books compared to 50% of the girls. Close to half (43%) of these first
graders based their assessment of text difficulty on the length of words. No girls
mentioned book length as a source of difficulty, but 27% of the boys (9 of the 61 respondents to the question) referred to the quantity of words or pages as making a
book difficult to read. When probed for more explanation, 15 students (nearly
25%) reported a strategy for handling difficult words: getting a parent to help
(13%), sounding out unknown words (7%), waiting until they were older before
tackling the text (3%), or getting a reading teacher to help (2%). (These last two
strategies were mentioned by only one or two students and are not represented in
the table.) Only one student mentioned more than one strategy for handling difficult text (i.e., “asking for help and sounding out a word”). So, even though half of
the students perceived their books to be difficult to read, only one quarter men-
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
97
tioned a strategy for handling a selected text. Of particular interest is that four
times as many students mentioned getting help from their parents as from their
teachers.
DISCUSSION
From the data presented, a few salient summaries emerge. First of all, the first
graders in this study showed an overwhelming preference for nonfiction texts and
for books featuring animals. When given an opportunity to self-select, both boys
and girls chose nonfiction, although the girls selected a wider variety of texts overall than did the boys. This finding counters previous studies reporting that younger
readers prefer fiction (e.g., Moss & McDonald, 2004). These 7- and 8-year-olds
preferred nonfiction. The results of this study question that youngsters want books
that mirror them in important ways. The majority of these students chose books
that served as windows to the world around them, especially the animal kingdom,
rather than texts with characters reflecting their gender, ethnicity, or cultural backgrounds. This does not diminish the need for multicultural literature in the classroom. Although these young readers did not prefer multicultural books, such texts
may be more important to students in higher grades, thus reflecting a development
process in readers that warrants further investigation.
Regarding their selection rationales, the majority of students commented on a
book’s topic, with only 30% of students citing illustrations as a reason to pick a
book to keep, although all of the featured books were well illustrated. A considerable number of students did not know or could not relate their selection strategies.
Those who did seemed to rely on topic or illustrations, with nearly twice as many
boys reporting a reliance on topic or basic content that interested them. When
asked if others would also like their selections, a vast majority answered affirmatively, but boys believed others would share their interest in the topic, whereas
more girls cited social similarities as reasons that others would also like their selected book. These students proclaimed their intentions to read their new books
and to share them with family. These first graders believed that their friends and
families would share their book interests but did not mention that their teachers
would approve of their choices.
These students seemed to see these books as recreational in that they were not
intimidated about perceived text difficulty and were generally confident that they
would eventually be successful reading the selected books. Moreover, if help were
needed, these students reported that they would get a parent, not a teacher, to help.
For some reason, these students rarely mentioned their teachers with regard to who
could help select, who would like to read, or who would help with reading these
books, even though the selection process occurred during school hours and just
outside their classroom doors.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
98
MOHR
As with many previous studies, there were gender differences (e.g., Chick &
Heilman-Houser, 2000). The girls were more varied in their selections, but in this
case many more girls mirrored the male preference for nonfiction over narrative.
This finding is perhaps the most salient of the study in that there is some indication
of gender equity and a surprising focus on informational text. A higher percentage
of boys than girls reported attending to book topic or the words in the text when selecting books. The girls gave more attention to the illustrations. Boys in this study
evidenced more difficulty explaining their selection strategies than did girls. Boys
were more adamant and made more references to the content or topic of the selected books as reasons for others also liking them. More boys than girls likewise
related text topic with text difficulty. The boys were drawn to the topic of a book,
despite its perceived level of difficulty. Some boys but no girls expressed a concern
about book length. Girls in this study expressed more confidence in their reading
of self-selected books than did boys. Thus, the question added to the initial interview—“Do you think this book is easy or hard [difficult] to read?”—proved to be
one of the most interesting. The richness of these data warrants further research
into perceived text difficulty among young readers and how text difficulty influences text selection and independent reading strategy use across genders.
Another more contemporary need is to look at format and book browsing more
closely. As noted by Moss and McDonald (2004), books that allow readers to “dip
in and out” via nonlinear reading paths are commonly checked out of libraries,
compared to texts that are linear and thus require sequenced reading. They suggest
a new approach to understanding children’s choices: “starting from the potential
importance of the design characteristics of different text types and how this might
steer text choice, by both suggesting and enabling different kinds of reading experience” (p. 402). The present study supports a perspective that, as with Internet
sites and Web pages, contemporary consumers appreciate being able to browse
through books. Informational texts afford the dip in and out approach to leisure
reading and allow access to more difficult texts that do not have to be read in their
entirety to be appreciated. This relates to what Barron (2001) refers to as children
“doing books,” a combination of flipping through, looking at, reading some, sharing with another, and closely examining illustrations that young readers in her
study evidenced during their self-selected reading time. Consuming books appears
to involve more than traditional reading, and such aspects of literacy development
deserve more critical analysis.
Some important limitations to this study should be noted. Of course, the inclusion of only first-grade subjects, the use of a limited number of books, and
classroom factors limit the generalizability of these findings. To offset the narrow grade-level focus and the influence of particular teachers and classroom issues, 10 different classrooms with a total of 190 students of diverse backgrounds
participated. The perusal process afforded only nine books from which to
choose; however, these books varied in genre, topic, format, illustration style,
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
99
and text difficulty. The students were not rushed to choose a book, and their selection process was not timed; recording the amount of time students took to
pick a book and to compare any time differences across gender, ethnicity, and
reading level would have added more data. The current study did not incorporate
information about students’ reading levels or verbal skills as they might have related to the selection or interview aspects of the study. More important, however,
this study encouraged students to select a book that they wanted to own, rather
than just check out of a library. So, although a longitudinal study of text selection would yield a variety of benefits, this snapshot profile renders many insights
and possibilities for further study.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Student text selection processes is a recurring research topic but one that remains
fertile for additional research. Replicating this study with newer books (including
sports books, for example) with similar genres would help clarify and confirm the
findings presented here. Completing a follow-up study of the same student population would also add information about changes related to developmental or cultural influences. Conducting a similar study with students in older grades would
provide a developmental comparison to this study.
Because students could clearly articulate their preferences, but many could not
articulate their selection processes, the careful crafting of questions used in student
interviews is crucial. Further research might include asking readers additional
questions, such as, “How do you plan to read this book?” and in more than one context (e.g., at home or at school). Students could also be queried during their
book-choosing times to determine if the same or other selection processes are revealed. Combining interviews with journal entries and library records would certainly yield more triangulated data (Moss & McDonald, 2004).
This study included evidence of considerable confusion about book genre.
Here are some students’ responses to the question “What kind of book is it?”:
“It’s real and it’s fantasy”; “It’s information and that means it’s not real”; “It’s a
story because it has pictures”; and “It’s not no information book. It’s too much
like a kid’s book.” A practical implication of this is that teachers should model
and teach book language that helps students understand text genre. One resultant
study might assess students’ selection rationales before and after explicit instruction on text genre.
Even among these young first graders there was evidence of gender stereotyping, with more and stronger comments from boys about which books would appeal
to which gender. Other studies confirm this stronger gender bias among boys
(Dutro, 2001–2002). More studies that pursue students’ perceptions of “girls’
books versus boys’ books” among modern picture books should be conducted.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
100
MOHR
Observing teachers regarding their selection and presentation of books in the classroom might augment a gender-based investigation.
Nearly 75% of these first graders felt that their friends would like their respective book choices, whereas only 14% reported that family members would like
their selections. However, when asked what they would do with their books, far
more students evidenced intentions to share their books with their families (23%)
than with their friends (4%). This discrepancy warrants further research. These
findings may indicate issues related to social status that accompanied this study or
reflect students’ impressions that independent reading is done at home, not at
school. Social aspects generally correlate with student age and development.
Studies that compare social factors related to text selection processes among younger versus older readers could better address these issues.
Teachers did not figure prominently in this study or in some other studies targeting recreational reading (Rasinski et al., 1994). Students rarely mentioned teachers
as persons who might like the selected texts; they were not mentioned when students talked about with whom they would share their books. In addition, only 2%
of the students who discussed ways to read their selected texts mentioned getting
help from their teachers. These findings were surprising and may indicate a need
for renewed research regarding the role of teachers in students’ selection of recreational reading materials. Promoting books is different than promoting book selection strategies (Linek, Mohr, & Rasinski; 1994; Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi, 1996).
Although the goal is certainly not to make students more dependent on teachers,
exposure is not enough if students are to become independent readers. Direct instruction of text structure seems critical.
An aspect related to teachers and classroom instruction is the use of reading
strategies. These students did not evidence multiple strategies in their text-selection processes or in how they planned to read their books (if they were deemed difficult to read). Their reported strategies for handling difficult texts were getting
help (from a parent or teacher), sounding out unknown words, or waiting until they
were older. Given that the books were all picture books and that the students selected texts that appealed to their interests, one would expect some comprehension
strategies that referred to using picture clues or prior knowledge. Close observation of such young students’ reading behaviors of selected texts would shed light
on this important process.
The analysis of students’ recreational reading behaviors and their instructional
implications contain many layers. Although recreational reading has been an ongoing emphasis among literacy educators and researchers, the conversation should
continue because the recent focus on developing readers, more varied books, and
expanded literacies demand a consistently updated understanding of recreational
reading (Kincade, 1991). In this case, the strong preference for informational
books among first graders may indicate that the information age has truly taken
hold in even the youngest literacy learners.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
101
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was supported by a Research Initiation Grant from the University of
North Texas.
REFERENCES
Advantage Learning Systems. (1993). How to create world champion readers (2nd ed.). Wisconsin
Rapids, WI: Author.
Allington, R. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs.
New York: Longman.
Anderson, N. A. (2002). Elementary children’s literature: The basics for teachers and parents. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Au, K. H., Kunitake, M. M., & Blake, K. M. (1992, December). Students’ perceptions of how they became interested in reading. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San
Antonio, TX.
Barron, M. (2001). Doing books: Children “reading” without teachers. Montessori Life, 13(4), 42–47.
Barrs, M., & Pidgeon, S. (1994). Reading the difference. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Biggers, D. (2001). The argument against Accelerated Reader. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45, 72–75.
Burgess, S. A. (1985). Reading but not literature: The ChildRead survey. School Library Journal, 31,
27–30.
Carter, M. A. (1988). How children choose their books: Implications for helping develop readers. Ohio
Reading Teacher, 22, 115–121.
Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. K. (1998). Non-narrative as a catalyst for literacy development. Language
Arts, 75, 108–117.
Chavarria-Chairez, B. (2000). Magda’s tortillas. Houston, TX: Piñata Books.
Chen, K. (2000). Lord of the cranes. New York: North-South Books.
Chick, K. A., & Heilman-Houser, R. A. (2000). Children’s literature choices: Gender stereotypes prevail. Pennsylvania Reading: Journal of the Keystone State Reading Association, 1(2), 3–13.
Childress, G. T. (1985). Gender gap in the library: Different choices for girls and boys. Top of the News,
42(1), 69–73.
Clay, M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Collins-Standley, T., Gan, S., & Yu, H. (1996). Choice of romantic, violent, and scary fairy-tale books
by preschool girls and boys. Child Study Journal, 26, 279–302.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998). “Can I say ‘Once upon a time’?”: Kindergarten children developing
knowledge of information book language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 295–318.
Dutro, E. (2001–2002). “But that’s a girls’ book!” Exploring gender boundaries in children’s reading
practices. The Reading Teacher, 55, 376–384.
Feeley, J. T. (1982). Content interests and media preferences of middle graders: Differences in a decade. Reading World, 22, 11–16.
Fleener, C. E., Morrison, S. L., Linek, W. M., & Rasinski, T. V. (1997). Recreational reading choices:
How do children select books? In W. M. Linek & E. G. Sturtevant (Eds.), Exploring literacy (pp.
75–84). Commerce, TX: College Reading Association.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
102
MOHR
Fresch, M. J. (1995). Self-selection of early literacy learners. The Reading Teacher, 49, 220–227.
Gambrell, L. B., & Marinak, B. A. (1997). Incentives and intrinsic motivation to read. In J. T. Guthrie &
A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp.
205–217). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research.
San Diego: Academic.
Goldstone, B. (1999). Brave new worlds: The changing image of the picture book. The New Advocate,
12, 331–334.
Goldstone, B. (2001–2002). Whaz up with our books? Changing picture book codes and teaching implications. The Reading Teacher, 55, 362–370.
Greaney, S. (1999). Student book choices: What influences their choices? The New England Reading
Association Journal, 35(2), 12–15.
Greenlaw, M. J., & Wielan, O. P. (1979). Reading interests revisited. Language Arts, 56, 432–434.
Hall, C., & Cole, M. (1999). Children’s reading choices. London: Routledge.
Haynes, C. (1988). Explanatory power of content for identifying children’s literature preferences. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(12), 3617A. (UMI No. DEW8900468)
Herrera, J. F. (2000). The upside down boy: El niño de cabeza. San Francisco: Children’s Book Press.
Hiebert, E. H., Mervar, K. B., & Person, J. (1990). Research directions: Children’s selections of trade
books in libraries and classrooms. Language Arts, 67, 758–763.
Hopson, D. P., & Hopson, D. S. (1993). Raising the rainbow generation: Teaching your children to be
successful in a multicultural society. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Isaacs, K. T. (1992). Go ask Alice: What middle schoolers choose to read. The New Advocate, 5,
129–143.
Jenkins, M. (1955). Here’s to success in reading—Self-selection helps. Childhood Education, 32,
124–131.
Katz, P. A. (1983). Developmental foundations of gender and racial attitudes. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), The
child’s construction of social inequality (pp. 79–107). New York: Academic.
Kincade, K. M. (1991). Patterns in children’s ability to recall explicit, implicit, and metaphorical information. Journal of Research in Reading, 14(2), 81–98.
Kragler, S. (2000). Choosing books for reading: An analysis of three types of readers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 133–141.
Kropp, J. J., & Halverson, C. F. (1983). Preschool children’s preferences and recall for stereotyped versus nonstereotyped stories. Sex Roles, 2, 261–264.
Langerman, D. (1990). Books & boys: Gender preferences and book selection. School Library Journal,
36, 132–136.
Laumbach, B. (1995). Reading interests of rural bilingual children. Rural Educator, 16, 12–14.
Lawson, D. V. (1972). Children’s reasons and motivation for the selection of favorite books. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32(09), 4840A. (UMI No. AAT8900468)
Lehman, B. A. (1991). Children’s choices and critical acclaim: A united perspective for children’s literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 30, 1–20.
Linek, W. M., Mohr, K. A. J., & Rasinski, T. (1994, November). Voluntary reading choices: The strategies employed by intermediate students. Paper presented at the meeting of the College Reading Association, New Orleans, LA.
Lysaker, J. T. (1997). Learning to read from self-selected texts: The book choices of six first graders. In C.
K. Kinzer, K. A. Hinchman, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice: The forty-sixth
yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 273–283). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Mohr, K. A. J. (2003a). Children’s choices: A comparison of book preferences between Hispanic and
non-Hispanic first graders. Reading Psychology, 24, 163–176.
Mohr, K. A. J. (2003b). “I want this book!”: First graders’ preferences for expository text. The College
Reading Association Yearbook, 25, 12–27.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
CHILDREN’S CHOICES FOR RECREATIONAL READING
103
Mollel, T. (2000). Subira, subira. New York: Clarion.
Moss, G., & McDonald, J. W. (2004). The borrowers: Library records as unobtrusive measures of children’s reading preferences. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 401–412.
Ohlhausen, M. M., & Jepsen, M. (1992). Lessons from Goldilocks: “Somebody’s been choosing my
books but I can make my own choices now.” The New Advocate, 5, 31–46.
Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative “primary”?: Some insights from kindergartners pretend readings of
stories and information books. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 97–129.
Peterson, G. C. (1971). A study of library books selected by second grade boys and girls in the Iowa
City, Iowa schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32(09), 4847A. (UMI No. AAT7208307)
Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers
nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal, 96, 333–384.
Purves, A., & Beach, R. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in response to literature, reading
interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Radencich, M. C. (1985). Books that promote positive attitudes toward second language learning. The
Reading Teacher, 38, 528–530.
Ramsey, P. (1987). Teaching and learning in a diverse world: Multicultural education for young children. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rasinski, T., Mohr, K. A. J., & Linek, W. M. (1994, November). “What do you plan to read next?”: Aspects of teachers’ facilitation of students’ reading selections. Paper presented at the meeting of the
College Reading Association, New Orleans, LA.
Reutzel, D. R., & Gali, K. (1998). The art of children’s book selection: A labyrinth unexplored. Reading Psychology, 19, 3–50.
Rudman, M. K. (1984). Children’s literature: An issues approach. New York: Longman.
Schultheis, C. (1990). A study of the relationship between gender and reading preferences in adolescents. Kent, OH: Kent State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED367376)
Serafini, F. (2005). Voices in the park, voices in the classroom: Readers responding to postmodern picture books. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(3), 47–64.
Sierra, J. (2000). There’s a zoo in room 22. San Diego: Harcourt.
Simon, S. (2001). Animals nobody loves. New York: Seastar.
Simpson, A. (1996). Facts and fictions: An investigation of the reading practices of girls and boys. English Education, 28, 268–279.
Sims Bishop, R. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives, 6, ix–xi.
Stewig, J. (1972). Children’s preferences in picture book illustration. Educational Leadership, 30,
276–277.
Stoodt-Hill, B. D., & Amspaugh-Corson, L. B. (2001). Children’s literature: Discovery for a lifetime
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Swanton, S. (1984). Minds alive! What and why gifted students read for pleasure. School Library Journal, 30, 99–102.
Timion, C. S. (1992). Children’s book selection strategies. In J. W. Irwin & M. A. Doyle (Eds.), Reading and writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 204–222). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Timm, J. S. (1988, April). Cultural bias in children’s storybooks: Implications for education. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA.
Van Steenwyk, E. (2000). When Abraham talked to the trees. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Weintraub, S. (1977). Two significant trends in reading research. In H. A. Robinson (Ed.), Reading and
writing instruction in the United States: Historical trends (pp. 59–68). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Wendelin, K. H., & Zinck, R. A. (1988). How do students make book choices? Reading Horizons, 23,
84–88.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013
104
MOHR
White, H. (1986). Damsels in distress: Dependency themes in fiction for children and adolescents. Adolescence, 21, 251–256.
Wigfield, A., & Asher, S. R. (1984). Social and motivational influences on reading. In P. D. Pearson, R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 423–452). New
York: Longman.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and
breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 430–432.
Wong, J. (2000). The trip back home. San Diego: Harcourt.
Wood, D. (2000). What moms can’t do. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2000). Sharing informational text with young children. The Reading
Teacher, 53, 410–423.
APPENDIX:
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL OF CHILDREN’S BOOK
PREFERENCES
I have many books here for you to look at. Look carefully at all these books and
then decide which one book you would like to have as your own. You can only pick
one of these books to keep, so take your time to choose your favorite one.
1. Did you pick one book that you would like to keep? Show me which one is
your favorite. I would like to ask you a few questions about this book and I
want to write down some of what you say. Is that okay?
2. What kind of book is it? [If the student needs help, ask,] Is this book a story
book or an information book? How do you know? (focus on genre)
3. What do you think the book is about? (focus on topic)
4. Tell me, why did you pick this book to keep? Why is this one [book] your
favorite one in this group [of books]? (focus on personal connection)
5. What makes this book so special? What do you like about this book? (focus
on features)
6. When you look at books, what do you look at in [or notice about] books
that makes you want to read them? (focus on general selection strategies)
7. How did you make your decision to pick this one [book]? What did you do
to decide? (focus on selection strategies for this book)
8. Do you think other students will like this book? Who else do you think
might like this book? Why or why not? (focus on social aspects)
9. What are you going to do with this new book of yours? (focus on purpose
and intent)
10. Is there anything else you want to tell me about this book?
Thank you for talking to me about these books. I will put your name down for this
book and bring it to you in your classroom next week so that you can take it home
with you.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2013