"It is more than just laughing": middle school students protect characters during talk.

Abstract. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how five middle school students examined humor and characterization used in adolescent literature according to Louise Rosenblatt's (1995) reader response transactional theory. The study was conducted with a focus group of five 6th-grade students, three girls and two boys, from a public middle school language arts classroom in the Southwest region of the United States. The guiding question for the study was: In what ways do selected middle school students talk about the connections between humor and characterization in response to adolescent literature? Methods for data collection included semistructured interviews and transcripts of audiotaped and videotaped literature circle discussions. The students read the adolescent literature both efferently and aesthetically (Rosenblatt, 1995) as they attended to humor, thus setting conditions for engaging the humor. To begin, if the situation in the text was the result of superiority humor, where the focus group members could predict the targeted character would be hurt, disappointed, or promote a negative change in the character's development, then they would not engage in the humor. Additionally, if the humor was closely related to the students' world of understanding, then the humor was embraced only after careful deliberation. Finally, if the characters presented themselves as resilient and unaffected by the humor, then the students were willing to laugh at the characters.

**********

Cross-legged, legs tucked under them, students find a comfortable position as they settle in to hear more of Jack's Black Book (1997), an adventurous and humorous story written by Jack Gantos. With each passing event in the story, laughter erupts as students predict upcoming dilemmas, pranks, and consequences. Students are eager to discuss the absurdity of Jack's actions and also comment on Gantos' effective use of language.

Humor plays an important role in the classroom depicted in the aforementioned vignette. Sadly, not all classroom teachers spend time attending to humor in literature and examining it for its literary value. E.B. White (1977) contends "the world likes humor, but it treats it patronizingly.... It feels that if a thing is funny it can be presumed to be something less than great, because if it were truly great it would be wholly serious" (p. 244).

As a researcher and teacher, I have observed how humor affords students an opportunity to make intertextual and experiential connections. I have watched as their discussions of humor have helped them understand new and varied perspectives of texts. I have recorded the excitement in their voices as they use humor to become more familiar with language and wordplay, leading them to deeper understandings of literary experiences. Lastly, I have listened to students express the enjoyment they experience by attending to humor in their reading. In this article, I share how selected middle school students talk about the connections between characterization and humor in response to adolescent literature.

Theoretical Framework

Is it the humorous glimpses at serious matters, the command of language, or parodies that draw adolescents to humorous literature? What, if anything, does this genre offer for young readers? Nilsen and Nilsen (1982) suggest humor in adolescent literature goes beyond "simple amusement." In fact, "Humorous literature forces teenagers to be active instead of passive readers. As they mentally stretch, they are training themselves to become experts in the subtle manipulation of an amazing set of symbols" (p. 64).

It is from this vantage point of supporting active readers using humorous literature as a vehicle that I present the theoretical framework in two main components: 1) the role of humor in literature and 2) reader response theories supporting the concept of learning through talk.

The Role of Humor in Literature

While laughter might be readily defined, humor remains more elusive and ambiguous, often context specific and individualized. Currently, more than 100 theories relating to humor exist dating back to Plato and Aristotle (Ziv, 1988, p. viii). Not only do theories of humor vary, but so do definitions of humor and humor-related terms. For the purpose of this article, humor is defined as "that quality in a happening, an action, a situation, or an expression of ideas which appeals to a sense of ludicrous or absurdly incongruous" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971, p. 1102).

Developmentally, as students experience multiple meanings of words and have opportunities to play with language, the humor they identify with resembles the wordplay of adults. Once preadolescents and adolescents begin experiencing the ambiguity of wordplay, they tend to prefer anecdotes, wit, and other forms of more sophisticated humor, as opposed to memorized jokes (Hill, 1988; McGhee, 1978).

Recent Research Studies Involving Humor

Kleinberg and Cockett (1996) conducted a study with a small group of adolescents regarding their perceptions of humor during a summer reading program at a public library. The researchers gave brief "book talks" about selected books; the adolescents read books individually, and shared their thoughts with the remainder of the group. Kleinberg and Cockett concluded that it is difficult to separate the role of subjectivity in humor from the social aspect of learning. The study also claimed to help participants search for deeper meanings when reading and to view humor from varied perspectives.

In 1987, a study conducted by Gentile and McMillan identified what children and adolescents depict as humorous. According to their findings, adolescents respond to various types of humor (see Table 1).

Louis (1973) investigated the responses of 216 sixth-grade students to action humor and the humorous words of characters. The students were randomly selected from 18 different classrooms in both inner-city, suburban, and rural school settings. Five hypotheses were tested regarding humor preferences and emotions toward the literature. Inner-city students responded more favorably to the action humor, whereas the students from rural settings preferred the humor created by words.

Reader Response Theories

While reader response theories vary, for the purpose of this article they are defined as "sharing a concern with how readers make meaning from their experience with the text" (Beach, 1993, p. 1). Beach describes five different reader response theories: textual, experiential, psychological, social, and cultural theories. Textual theories draw on the readers' understanding of texts or genres when reading in order to gain meaning. Experiential reader response theorists stress the relationship between the reader and the reader's experiences with literature and how a reader might "identify with characters, visualize images, relate personal experiences to the text, or construct the world of the text" (p. 8). The thrust of psychological theorists' beliefs lies within the reader's "cognitive or subconscious processes" in conjunction with personality and developmental levels. Social theorists are influenced by the transaction between the reader and the text. Lastly, cultural theorists maintain that a reader's culture, disposition, and values affect the meaning-making process. Similarly, Peterson (1992) offers that "a person's background, life experiences, and culture contribute to both the context and shape of the meaning he or she expresses" (p. 76).

Rosenblatt (1978, 1995) attests to the importance of seeing literature from varied perspectives. In 1938, she developed the transactional reading theory, which suggests readers read on a continuum, oscillating between two stances: the efferent stance, concerned with what you take away from a reading, and the aesthetic stance, representing the evocation of the literary experience. Rosenblatt developed the theory when she became dissatisfied with dichotomies and consequently, she argued a reader never reads operating solely from one stance, but rather in a combination of the two. Rosenblatt (1995) contends if each reader brings a different social, cultural, and experiential background to the text, the "transaction" or the meaning gained from the literary experience will differ. Furthermore, Rosenblatt (1978) states that "the transactional view also assumes close attention to the words of the text. But it assumes an equal closeness of attention to what that particular juxtaposition of words stirs up within each reader" (p. 137). Learners talk through their literary experiences connecting to their prior personal experiences, and ultimately "living through" literature to create meaning (Rosenblatt, 1995).

Methodology

Data for this qualitative study were collected for three days per week for approximately five hours during the first seven months of the school year. Data collection included semistructured interviews and transcripts of audiotaped and videotaped literature circle discussions. This study focused on the use of 10 semistructured interviews with individual members of the focus group members that focused on their reactions to the humor in the adolescent literature. Each interview lasted approximately 20-30 minutes; some follow-up interviews were required after the initial interviews to clarify vague responses.

The students met in literature circle discussions (Short, Harste, & Burke, 1996) to discuss the books. Literature circle discussions typically lasted 20-30 minutes and took place in the classroom, the hallway outside of the classroom, or in the administrative conference rooms. Discussions were audio-and/or videotaped and later transcribed to ensure accuracy.

The analysis of the data included analytic induction, during which I scanned the data for "categories of phenomena and for relationships among such categories, developing [hypotheses] ... and then modifying and refining them" (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, p. 254). Constant comparison was also used when combining "inductive category coding with a simultaneous comparison of all social incidents observed and coded" (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, p. 256).

Instructional Materials

The main instructional material used in this study was the adolescent literature. For the purpose of this study, adolescent literature (sometimes referred to as young adult literature) is defined as books intended for and "about young people from the age of eleven, when most students enter sixth grade (the grade that frequently marks the first year of middle school), through the age of eighteen, when the majority of students graduate from high school" (Stover, 1996, p. 5).

Summer of the Monkeys (1976) by Wilson Rawls and The Midwife's Apprentice (1995) by Karen Cushman were chosen after seeking suggestions of humorous texts from the classroom teacher and the school librarian. Because both novels were in compliance with the district-approved literature list, and having considered the amount of humor in each text, the classroom teacher and I jointly made the selection.

Summer of the Monkeys (Rawls, 1976), set in rural Oklahoma at the turn of the 20th century, is filled with humor and adventure as a young, 14-year-old boy, Jay Berry, tries to outsmart monkeys who have escaped from the traveling circus. For example, Rawls (1976) writes about Jay Berry's unfortunate encounter with the monkeys after consuming multiple servings of sour mash:

I couldn't understand why I was so cold. My teeth were chattering and I had goose bumps all over me. When I finally did discover why I was so cold, I jumped straight up and hollered in a loud voice, "Hey, my britches are gone!" (p. 137).

In Jay Berry's quest for the financial reward available to the "monkey catcher," he stumbles into a plethora of obstacles involving farm animals and family members that are sure to create a smile on many readers' faces.

The Midwife's Apprentice (1995) is a story about Brat, a young girl who is unaware of her parents, her history, or her needs. Discovered by the village's midwife in a pile of manure, Brat, later named Alyce, begins her new life as the midwife's apprentice. As the characters in this story develop, readers enter a medieval world riddled with a humorous choice of language, sarcasm, and action humor. For example, Cushman (1995) writes:

"You didn't run with the others," he said. "That were brave, Beetle."

"Naw, I be not brave," she said. "I near pissed myself. I did it for else you'd have drowned and gone to Hell, a drunken loudmouth bully like you, and I would have helped send you there and I could not have that, now, could I?" (pp. 37-38).

Catherine, Called Birdy (1994), also written by Karen Cushman, was presented to the students as a read-aloud, but at times became a central part of the focus group's literature circle discussions. Due to the focus group's interest in this text, the intertextual connections it invited, and the amount of humor in the text, it played a pivotal role in the data collection.

Catherine, an adolescent in the 1290s, is spunky and full of zest. With humor and a great sense of independence, Catherine forges through life as she systematically deconstructs her father's attempts to marry her off to the next available wealthy bachelor. Her sarcasm, choice of language, and actions come alive in this novel constructed in diary format.

In an effort to scare away a potential suitor she refers to as Shaggy Beard, Catherine alters her appearance and disposition. Cushman (1994) writes: "I blackened my hair and teeth and acted like a fool, which worked once before, and for good measure let them hear me muttering to myself.... They looked at me with astonishment as I passed. Now, let it be over" (p. 142).

Introduction to the Focus Group

The study was conducted in an upper middleclass suburb of a heavily populated city in the Southwest region of the United States in a 6th-grade honors language arts classroom. The students were placed in the honors class based on national test scores that fell in the 19th percentile or higher, teacher recommendations, and report cards.

My observations and data collection concentrated on five students, who are referred to as the "focus group." Criterion-based sampling "requires that one establish the criteria, bases, or standards necessary for units to be included in the investigation; one then finds a sample that matches these criteria" (Merriam, 1988, p. 48). For this study, the criterion-based sampling included selecting five students; a minimum of two boys and two girls. The preset criteria required all of the students in the focus group to be prolific readers, enjoy humorous books, have working knowledge of some aspects of humor (not necessarily knowledge of terms, but an understanding of them), and be able to represent different viewpoints in literature circle discussions.

The criteria were important to the study, given the nature of the questions guiding my research. I chose to work with students who could come to the study with a plethora of textual experiences that they could possibly connect with humor in the texts from this study. If I did not work with students who enjoyed humorous books and willingly offered their ideas in literature circle discussions, then I would not have been able to gather quality or quantity data. Students also needed to be able to explain to me what they found funny in order for me to answer my research questions.

The students ranged in age between 11 and 12 years old. Annabelle is soft-spoken, but deliberate in her speech. Heidi laughs freely and often asks lots of clarifying questions. The dominant listener in the group, Jake, is also soft-spoken and sometimes can be very difficult to hear. James speaks often and explores meaning through his own talk and the talk of others. The other dominant speaker in the group is Willow, who is very articulate and easily able to express her ideas and opinions.

Presentation of the Case

Essential to the story, characters "are the guides who bring the story world to life and teach us to see the rich potential human beings have for goodness, love, faith, and hope, as well as for fear and evil" (Peterson & Eeds, 1990, p. 31). Characters invite readers to read with and against the grain of the text and to make personal, cultural, and intertextual connections. Next, examples of the participants' talk about characterization and humor are explored and presented following the chronology of their reading, beginning with Summer of the Monkeys (Rawls, 1976).

Characterization in Summer of the Monkeys. Exploring humor in relation to character development became commonplace in literature circle discussions for the members of the focus group. Specifically, the complex characterization of Daisy, the main character's sister, was explored in more than one literature circle discussion. Members of the focus group built on one another's ideas as they collectively began to understand Daisy's dynamic character. In reference to Daisy and her relationship with Jay Berry, the main character, the group stated:

Heidi: She likes to scare him.

Jake: She takes advantage of him....

Heidi: She's very persuasive.

Jake: I would know because I do that to my sisters....

James: He's her guinea pig.

Heidi: It's pretty typical of a sister.

After identifying Daisy's humorous character traits, the focus group was able to compare the sibling relationship between Daisy and Jay Berry to their own lives and experiences. In this example, Heidi spoke three times, sharing her ideas about Daisy's character. Her thoughts evolved from Daisy's character merely scaring Jay Berry to a character who portrays traits commonly found in a sister. Heidi built on James' and Jake's responses, helping her gain a fuller understanding of Daisy's character while attending to humor.

Nearly five weeks following the aforementioned literature circle excerpt, Heidi reflected on t-he change in Daisy's character. In an interview, she stated:

With Daisy, when she was teasing at the very beginning of the book, I thought it was pretty mean of her and then I realized as her character changed she was being like a sister. It wasn't as serious; it was more funny.

As the story progressed, Heidi came to understand that Daisy's actions, although deliberate, were the result of a sibling relationship and not vengeful activity. As a sister, Heidi was able to relate to this character and release the protective guard she had placed around Daisy's brother, Jay Berry. With the guard disarmed, Heidi was able to enjoy the humor in Daisy's character.

Surprisingly, Heidi did not immediately define Daisy's actions as humorous, but more easily identified Jay Berry being attacked by the monkeys as humorous. The latter example seemingly contradicts her unwillingness to appreciate Daisy's character, who only teased and "nursed" Jay Berry and, unlike the monkeys, never physically harmed him. One explanation for this might be that Heidi, a sister herself, connected more readily to the sibling rivalry and was not affected by the monkeys attacking Jay Berry because that situation was so far removed from her personal life.

Humor also was evident in Jay Berry's character. Although Jay Berry was not always the instigator of the humor, he often found himself living in the midst of it. In literature circle discussions and interviews, the group cited teasing from both Grandpa and Daisy, the humiliation resulting from Daisy's and the monkeys actions, and Jay Berry's lack of maturity as contributors to the humor found in his character.

The monkeys in Summer of the Monkeys (Rawls, 1976) were discussed, as Jake explained how the monkeys entertained readers: "They're determined not to be caught because they don't want to be captive. They are smarter than Jay Berry thinks, so that puts in some humor to the story." In this example, Jake made evaluative comments concerning the characterization of the monkeys and Jay Berry. Jake recognized the humor in the situation of Jay Berry underestimating the intelligence of the monkeys and the monkey's ability to dupe Jay Berry.

When Jay Berry's attempts to capture the monkeys repeatedly fail, he turns to the library to gain new insight and ideas. His loyal canine companion, Rowdy, joins him, causing a disturbance.

Heidi: When Rowdy disturbed the library, it wasn't really, really funny, but it was sorta funny.

James: I don't think that was actually needed.

Willow: Well, it sorta was.

Heidi: It helped show his character.

James initially questioned why it was necessary for Rowdy to disturb the library environment. As Heidi stated, this example aided Rawls in revealing Rowdy's character through the use of humor.

In an additional example, Rowdy's character was again the center of the focus group's attention.

Willow: Now that's funny how Rowdy got jealous of the mare.... It adds to his character.

Jake: It kind of reveals Rowdy's character as a companion to Jay Berry.

In this example, Willow and Jake came to understand how Rawls intricately used humor to enhance the character development of the dog, Rowdy.

After reading the book in its entirety, the focus group revisited the humor in each main character from the book.

Willow: Let's talk about the different types of humor in each character.

Jake: Every character has a different type of humor.

James: Everyone is humorous except Mama. She's a little serious.

Willow: She's kind of humorous the way she's so strict.

Jake: Daisy really isn't humorous, but she creates humor.

Heidi: In teasing people.

Willow: And Jay Berry--it's funny how he is so quick to believe what everybody says. He is really gullible.

Heidi: Jimbo is really absurd....

Annabelle: He kinda has teasing and a little bit of all of it.

Jake: He is toying with Jay Berry....

Heidi: Jay Berry, I think Jay Berry's humor is not what he did, but a lot of the humor that happened to him was he was embarrassed a lot.

Group: Yeah.

Jake: That's a type of humor.

Annabelle: The author did show his embarrassment.

Jake: One of the author's strength was humor....

James: No one ever laughs at Daisy. She's never embarrassed.

Jake: She has the advantage.

James: She's mature.

The students recognized humor in nearly all of the major characters. The focus group acknowledged that the humor varied from character to character, and that they needed to alter their perception of humor in order to recognize its variants. For example, Willow cited the mother in the text as humorous, but in a more serious way because "she's so strict." Offering yet another perspective, Jake implied Daisy's actions were funny, but not her words.

Humor and embarrassment were closely connected. Jake suggested that because Daisy was never embarrassed, no one ever laughed at her. Due to her lack of embarrassment, Daisy was less apt to become the target of humor. Based on this data, Jake may believe that characters with exposed weaknesses, such as Daisy, need to invite readers to laugh with them through their actions and language by first signaling them through signs of embarrassment.

The members of the focus group were forced to alter their pending definitions of humor to match the characters in the book. As a result, focus group members were able to discuss the development of the characters in detail honoring their various viewpoints.

Characterization in The Midwife's Apprentice. Humor, according to Willow and James, resulted when Alyce, the main character in The Midwife's Apprentice (Cushman, 1995), underestimated her own ability:

Willow: One thing I like about Alyce is she's smarter than she thinks. In the devil chapter ... a lot of people have been making fun of her since she went to the village and I like how she got back at them and ... she blamed someone else--the devil.

James: And she didn't get in trouble ... and I thought that was pretty smart because like regularly you wouldn't think that a person with her intelligence would think of something like that, because she's not really trained in religion and all that and I don't think she would even know about the devil.

In this humorous scene, Alyce tricks the town into thinking that the Devil is among them, using two blocks of wood to make the supposed footprints of the devil. The focus group cited this as an example of humorous literature while exploring Alyce's character.

Speaking to the power of characterization, Jake stated that the humor was "unfolding in Beetle [Alyce]." As the humor unfolded, the focus group was transported back to medieval times during their literature group discussions. Talk offered members of the focus group an opportunity to explore social relationships and "bring life to literature" and "bring literature to life" (Hynds, 1989).

When addressing different events in the book, Jake repeatedly commented in interviews and literature circle discussions that examples of superiority humor, defined as one party putting down another with less status, were not funny because "you feel for the character." Again, returning to the notion of experience, Willow stated that feeling for the character is related to the humor. In an interview, she offered:

I think that kinda has something to do with it. Because the book was from Alyce's point of view, so, I mean, if a book is from a character's point of view you kinda become the character, you kinda see yourself in the character's place.... So if the character finds something funny, you might find it funny.

It is within this social talk that members of the focus group were invited to discover commonalties in their lives. These students did not always find humor in Alyce's character, who was the target of superiority, or putdown, humor. They had established moral and social limits to what they were willing to laugh at and at whose expense. It is unlikely that any amount of time would have altered the empathy that Jake and Willow felt for Alyce's character.

Characterization in Catherine, Called Birdy. In an interview, Annabelle stated that humor "played a big role" in Catherine, Called Birdy (Cushman, 1994). "It tied everything together.... The humor kinda adds to it and expands on ... her characterization and the way she did things and how she feels about other people."

On two separate occasions, Willow read the excerpt from the back of the text in support of her belief concerning the relationship between humor and characterization. She read, "Catherine handles tough situations in hilarious ways that no one else of the time period would have thought of" (Cushman, 1994).

In response, Annabelle stated:

I pretty much agree with that also. Catherine does handle situations, like how she set the privy on fire. Remember that guy came on the horse looking for her ... and he just thought he was talking to a villager, and she said all that bad stuff about her[self] and he ended up riding away.

To which Jake replied, "She has a really strong character."

Brown and Stephens (1995) suggest that "well-developed main characters seem real and make the work come alive. They are believable in their actions, appearance, and thoughts and are a complex mixture of desirable and undesirable traits" (p. 179). Willow, Annabelle, and Jake recognized Catherine's well-developed character. Due to the carefully constructed dynamic of the character and her daunting task of avoiding an arranged marriage by her father, the humorous actions that ensued were believable. The focus group never doubted Catherine's capability to set the privy on fire or scare away prospective suitors. These humorous events were easily embraced by readers because they were well aware of the character's many dimensions.

Being a member of the focus group led Heidi to the realization that humor could be used as a tool in literature and in writing. In a literature circle discussion, Heidi offered:

For humor, I never thought you could just use it. There are a lot of different ways you can use it with your elements of literature.... Like in characterization, like with a good character like Catherine ... I just thought that for the humor ... it was just for the events ... But now I understand you can use it.

Heidi discovered that action humor has the ability to add to the multiple facets of characters in the text. With further reflection and in a later interview, Heidi offered that humor gave Catherine "her personality" and "flavors the book."

Through talk, the focus group recognized that humor played different roles in each book; sometimes producing more rounded, dynamic, and well-developed characters, and other times inviting readers to make connections to their own world of understanding. These roles were not mutually exclusive.

As with any literary experience, the members of the focus group came to the literature circle discussions and interviews with thoughts and ideas about the books they were reading. Through their talk, the group members explored and expanded their understanding of characters in the books. They examined the different types of humor found in various characters, helping them to see humor through a different lens. As a result of this talk, they were able to not only expand their current understanding of humor in characters, but also honor responses from other group members that were different from their own.

Once the focus group members recognized the connection between humor and characterization, they also began to understand its functions. The members of the group recognized that humor added to the personalities of some characters.

Conclusions and Implications

Attending to humor added to students' understanding of characterization in the selected adolescent literature. The students made personal connections and compared their lives to the lives of the characters in the texts. Additionally, students built on their existing schemas to draw connections between the characterization and humor.

By attending to humor and characterization, the students developed broader definitions of humor. All five members of the focus group came to the study with a working definition of humor and how humor could be used in literature. Through their talk, their definitions of humor with regard to characterization were altered to meet the personalities of the characters.

Ultimately, the focus group applied three conditions for accepting or rejecting the humor within the texts: 1) if superiority or put-down humor resulted in a character becoming emotionally scarred, then focus group members would not acknowledge the humor; 2) if the humor was relevant to their own world of understanding, then the humor was embraced after focus group members had the opportunity to reflect on the situation; and 3) if the characters presented themselves as resilient and unaffected by the humor, then the focus group was more apt to laugh with the characters.

Provided the focus group members could feel assured that no harm would come to the characters, had time to think about the humor in the texts, and the characters appeared unaffected by the humor, then the focus group identified an event as humorous. The first and third conditions were apparent for all members of the focus group. The second condition surfaced through excerpts of Heidi's and James' talk.

In support of the focus group's conditions for accepting humor, Willoughby (1987) suggests:

Many writers for children use humor to reach children and some of our most serious writers for children use humor to show the truth.... They bring the reader closer to knowing the feelings of a character, to seeing confusions, complexity, and pain. They deal with topics that seem unbearable without the humor--somehow just too sad. They reveal a side to a serious issue that allows a child to keep pride and vulnerability privately. And sometimes the intimacy they create with a child can be remembered for a whole lifetime (p. 58).

Focus group members examined the actions of characters to determine if they were plausible based on what the author had already revealed about their characters. If humorous events paralleled what the focus group perceived as potentially accurate for the era and character, then they deemed the situation humorous. The students read the adolescent literature both efferently and aesthetically (Rosenblatt, 1995) as they attended to humor, thus setting conditions for engaging the humor.

Given the limited amount of research conducted in the area of humor, adolescents, and reader response, contributions to research and instruction in the field of reading has great potential. First, this study aids teachers and curriculum specialists in understanding how students can use humor to enhance their understanding of characterization.

District-approved literature lists need to be expanded to include a variety of humorous works for preadolescents and adolescents. Although I am not advocating the limitations of "approved reading lists," I suggest where they are a reality for teachers and librarians that efforts be made to include humorous works on the lists. The International Reading Association's position statement concerning adolescent literacy, in part, states "adolescents deserve access to a wide variety of reading material that they can and want to read" (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Ryckik, 1999, p. 101). The members of the focus group enjoyed and wanted to read humorous literature, and they deserve to have access to more. As discussed earlier, the limited district-approved literature list created restraints during the planning and data collection process in this study. When choosing adolescent literature, the voices of preadolescents and adolescents need to be heard and valued.

Second, this study speaks to the importance of engagement (Cambourne, 1995) to learning. Engagement, according to Cambourne (1995), is one of eight conditions of learning. The focus group needed to be engaged in reading the text in order to learn from it. Cambourne (1995) offers:

Engagement incorporates a range of different behaviors. It has overtones of attention; learning is unlikely if learners do not attend to demonstrations in which they are immersed. However, attention is unlikely if there is not perceived need or purpose for learning in the first place. Engagement also depends on active participation by the learner, which in turn involves some risk taking; learners can participate actively only if they are prepared to "have a go." (p. 185)

For Annabelle, action humor aided her engagement with the text. She willingly became engaged due to her interest in the action humor of the book.

Third, through the use of humorous text, this study examines ways for students to build on "skill and desire to read increasingly complex materials" (Moore et al., 1999), as noted in the International Reading Association's position statement on adolescent literacy. Teachers and curriculum specialists need to honor humor and support their students in attending to humor to gain a fuller appreciation of texts. Humor needs to find its way into literature circle discussions, paired sharings of books, and whole-group discussions.

If my most desired wishes are granted as a result of this study, humor will be honored in school instruction and curriculum education as a complex component to language that is to be appreciated for its layers and no longer disregarded for its assumed simplicity. I learned from and with these students about the continual complexities of humor in adolescent literature. The members of the focus group broadened my understanding of the functions of humor and various ways readers can live through humor as a vehicle for understanding. In closing, as I sit here at my computer typing these final words, the sound of Willow's voice echoes quietly: "It is more than just laughing." Humor is, indeed, so much more.

References

Beach, R. (1993). A teacher's introduction to reader/response theories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Brown, J. E., & Stephens, E. C. (1995). Teaching young adult literature: Sharing the connection. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49, 182-190.

Gentile, L. M., & McMillan, M. M. (1987). Humor in the reading program. Journal of Reading, 21,343-349.

Hill, D. J. (1988). Humor in the classroom: A handbook for teachers (and other entertainers!). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

Hynds, S. (1989). Talking life and literature. In S. Hynds & D. L. Rubin (Eds.), Perspectives on talk and learning (pp. 163-178). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Kleinberg, J., & Cockett, L. (1996). Why angels fly: Humor in young adult fiction. In K. E. Vandergrift (Ed.), Enhancing the intellectual life of young adults through story (pp. 283-314). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.

Louis, N.R. (1973). Responses of sixth-grade students to two types of humor present in fiction for children, and an investigation of the types of humor found in books for the middle school grader. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

McGhee, P. E. (1978). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J.A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement for the commission on adolescent literacy of the International Reading Association. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 97-112.

Nilsen, D. L. F., & Nilsen, A. P. (1982). An exploration and defense of the humor in young adult literature. Journal of Reading, 26, 58-65.

Peterson, R. (1992). Life in a crowded place: Making a learning community. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Peterson, R., & Eeds, M. (1990). Grand conversations: Literature groups in action. New York: Scholastic.

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

Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Short, K. G., Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Stover, L.T. (1996). Young adult literature: The heart of the middle school curriculum. Portsmouth., NH: Heinemann.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language/Unabridged. (1971). Chicago: The Lakeside Press.

White, E. B. (1977). Essays of E.B. White. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Willoughby, B. (1987). Humor tells the truth in children's books. Journal of Youth Services in Libraries, 1, 57-64.

Ziv, A. (Ed.). (1988). National styles of humor. New York: Greenwood Press.

Literature Cited

Cushman, K. (1994). Catherine, called Birdy. New York: Harper Trophy Publishers.

Cushman, K. (1995). The midwife's apprentice. New York: Harper Trophy Publishers.

Gantos, J. (1997). Jack's black book. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Rawls, W. (1976). Summer of the monkeys. New York: Bantam Books.

Karen A. Onofrey

Arizona State University at the West Campus

Table 1. Adolescents' Rsponses to Humor

Age      Type of Humor Identified

11       "'corny' and often smutty, with much laughing
         at misbehavior and minor accidents (i.e.,
         slap-stick). The child can understand a little
         adult humor, but his/her own humor is of a
         different type and still based at a literal,
         concrete level" (Gentile & McMillen, pp. 345-346)

12       responds to practical jokes, some teasing and
         harmless bantering with adults

13       sarcasm first shows its friendly face at this
         age, accompanied by "more reserved" examples
         of humor

14       parents and authority figures often become the
         targets of humor. Same-sex "off-color"
         jokes also make their debut

15       irony steps forth at this age, along with being
         able to laugh at oneself

16 and   satire, more subtle forms of humor, and more
older    evidence of sophisticated "adult-like"
         humor emerge