Choosing Books for Reading: An Analysis of Three Types of Readers.

Abstract. This article will present the findings of a project that examined book choices made by three types of readers involved in a literature-based instructional reading program. Three below-average, three average, and three above-average students were randomly selected from a 4th-grade class, which was using a self-selection literature-based reading program. At the end of the self selection component, these students' records of conferences with the teacher were analyzed to determine what types of strategies they used to choose books and to determine the levels of books they were choosing (i.e., books at their independent, instructional, or frustration levels). The author found that the readers chose books for similar reasons, but these reasons were mentioned at different frequency with the below-average readers, whose criteria included looking at pictures, reading familiar authors, and using friends' recommendations. In judging book difficulty, the students mentioned looking at the length of the word, siz e of print, length of the book, and other book-related factors. The above-average and below-average readers showed similar patterns in that they consistently chose books that were inappropriate for their reading levels. For example, the below-average students were choosing books at their frustration level, while the above-average students were generally choosing books that were too easy.

Self-selection of books by students can be a component of a literature-based instructional reading program. While self-selection has been an option for many years in recreational reading programs, such as Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) or Drop Everything and Read (DEAR), it is less likely to occur in the instructional reading program. As teachers begin to use literature more often than basals during their instructional reading programs (Giddings, 1992; Hancock & Hill, 1988; Jipson & Paley, 1992; Ohlausen & Jepsen, 1992), it becomes important to allow students choice and freedom in selecting some of their reading material (Dellit, 1984; Raskinski, 1988).

Students are generally more motivated to read when they are allowed to choose their own materials (Palmer, Codling, & Gambrell, 1994; Spaulding, 1992). Self selection allows students more latitude to be deeply involved with the learning process, thus fostering an interest in, as well as developing an ownership of, the reading process. This independence facilitates reading growth along many dimensions (Dellit, 1984; Harmes & Lettow, 1986; Jenkins, 1955; New England Consortium, 1976). Self-selection helps students make decisions about their reading: for example, the types of reading they are going to do, the types of ideas they will gain from their various reading experiences, and the reading levels of books or other materials; it also provides students with real purposes for reading (Harmes & Lettow, 1986; Lazar, 1957; Ohlausen & Jepsen, 1992).

Having students choose their own reading material is supported by Olson's (1959) theory of child development, which states that children are "self-seeking, self-selecting, and self-pacing organisms" (p. 402). According to Olson, children will seek and select from the environment experiences that are consistent with their developmental levels. With teacher guidance, they will pace themselves through these learning experiences. Relating Olson's theory to reading, students, given a wide array of books from which to choose, will self-select books at levels appropriate for them. Furthermore, these students will pace themselves appropriately as they read their chosen selections.

The literature concerning students' ability to self-select reading materials is mixed. Some research has indicated that poor readers are generally reading books that are too difficult for them (Anderson, Higgins, & Wurster, 1985; Bristow, 1985; Kibby, 1995; Mork, 1973). Hiebert, Mervar, and Person's (1990) study, however, indicated that the reverse was true. In their study, less able readers chose easier books than did more able students. All of these studies compared the levels of books students used during free and instructional reading times.

Other studies (Fresch, 1995; Jenkins, 1955; Smith & Joyner, 1990; Timion, 1992) of book selection have found that students tend to move across different levels of reading. Some students move from an easy to a more difficult book, and then back to easy books. Others follow a different pattern. What is consistent in these studies is that students did not read increasingly more difficult books, but rather the pattern of their reading selections showed a "yo-yo" effect. In other words, the students moved back and forth between harder and easier levels of materials (Fresch, 1995).

The author will discuss her observations of the book selection strategies of above-average, average, and below-average readers during a self-selection component of a literature-based instructional program. The project compared the readers in an attempt to answer the following questions: What types of information did these students use in selecting their trade books for their instructional program? What types of books did they actually choose for their reading? What levels of book difficulty did the students choose as they progressed through the literature-based reading program?

Project

The students involved in the project attended a public school in a small community near a large Midwest city. Although the school's student population represented a variety of socio-economic levels, the majority of the students were from middleclass homes. There were 22 students enrolled in this heterogeneously grouped 4th-grade class. The classes in the school were mixed according to gender, race, ability level, and other district criteria. In this particular class, however, the boys outnumbered the girls 14 to 8.

In order to compare book selection strategies of the students reading at different reading levels, nine students were randomly selected to be included in the project: 3 below-average, 3 average, and 3 above-average readers. All of the subjects in the study were Caucasian males. The teacher determined all of the students' reading placement levels at the beginning of the year using Powell's (Lipson & Wixson, 1991) criteria. These criteria were used during reading conferences when the classroom teacher monitored the students' reading. The students' placement levels at the beginning of the year were as follows: the below-average readers' level was 2nd grade, the average was 4th, and the above-average was 6th. The students' reading conference records were analyzed to determine their book selection strategies at the end of the self-selection component of the literature based instructional program.

Classroom Reading

Instructional Program

The students in this 4th-grade class had been taught, in previous grades, through basal reading programs. Since this was the students' first introduction to a literature-based reading program, the teacher decided to move slowly into the self-selection component of her program. She started the year with a core book selection, so the students could get used to reading whole books as well as to reading for extended amounts of time. The students could choose books within a unit. Once the unit was completed, the teacher implemented the self-selection component of the reading program. The students could choose any book from within the room library, school library, or from home.

The classroom library was stocked with books geared to a range of difficulty and grade levels and that represented a variety of genres. The books from the classroom library were fairly representative of typical elementary-school fare (e.g., If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing, Tuck Everlasting, etc.).

The students were in a reading workshop schedule during the self-selection component of the instructional reading program. They spent time selecting, reading, and responding to their books (Cooper, 1997; Powell, 1994). The students started their 50-minute reading program either by selecting a new book or by continuing their current books. The book selection took about three to five minutes. After this, they read for 25-30 minutes. Once the reading period was over, the students responded in their journals or worked on book-related projects for 15-20 minutes. Each reading period ended with a general book-sharing time. The students did book talks and shared any projects that they had completed.

While the students were reading, the teacher held reading conferences and monitored the students at their desks. The conferences covered five elements: 1) The teacher would ask the students why and how they had selected their current books. The teacher was interested in the students' interests and the criteria they were using to select their books. 2) A general discussion about how the reading was progressing. 3) The student would read a portion of the text to the teacher. While the student read, the teacher kept track of any miscues, after which a rate check was done. 4) A comprehension and vocabulary check was done, in which students had to retell their book's plot. Occasionally, the teacher would prompt the student to share more information during the retelling, or the teacher would ask one or two comprehension questions. The students shared any words that they found difficult during their reading. Again, sometimes the teacher would ask the students about one or two words in the story. 5) The teacher asked the students what their plans were for the book. If the students had finished their books, they rated them and gave suggestions about who else might enjoy the book. If the students had not finished the books, the students indicated whether or not they were going to finish their books. If they were going to finish the book, they made predictions about what might happen next in the story. The conferences usually lasted about eight minutes.

Along with these activities, the teacher presented focus lessons two or three times each week. These were mini-lessons used to teach a variety of reading strategies, such as summarizing and creating story maps. The teacher did several focus lessons to orient the students to the literature-based program. Some of these lessons covered book selection, conference preparation, and the daily schedule.

Evaluation of the Project

The researcher collected the teacher's completed conference record forms from the self-selection component of the 14-week project. The researcher used Glaser and Strauss's (1967) "constant comparative" as a guide for understanding the data. The responses were listed, and the students' comments were coded into categories. Once the responses were coded and grouped, the categories were then labeled. Percentages of responses for each category were determined. To analyze Olson's theory of self-selection, the students' miscues were calculated to determine the "goodness of fit" of their choices. Powell's criteria (Lipson & Wixson, 1991) were used to determine if the books were at the students' independent, instructional, or frustration level. For the analysis, the students were assigned codes. The above-average readers were labeled as students J, N, and M. The average readers were students D, C, and K, and the below-average readers were M, K, and B.

Results

Generally, the patterns exhibited by the different readers were interesting. In some cases, the above-average and below-average students looked more alike than different. One pattern noted was the range of books these students read. Some students simply read more books during their instructional reading period than other students did. The above-average readers read 11-14 books, while the average and below-average readers read 8-11 books. No matter the level, however, the students chose books for similar reasons and used similar strategies to determine if the book was a good fit.

Why Did the Students Choose Their Books?

All the readers generated the same types of responses on why they chose to read certain books. Their responses fell into five categories. The above-average and average readers' frequency of comments had the same pattern; however, the below-average readers' responses had different patterns. The below-average readers' responses seemed to follow the results of other studies investigating how students choose books (Hepler & Hickman, 1982; Lynch-Brown, 1977; New England Consortium, 1976; Palmer, Coding, & Gambrell, 1994; Sampson, 1988; Wendelin & Zinck, 1983).

"A friend said it was good." Recommendations from peers, family, and teachers was the most frequently mentioned reason that the average and above-average readers gave for choosing their books. They seemed to pay close attention to what the other students said about books. For example, several students read Help! I Am a Prisoner in the Library simply because other students mentioned how they enjoyed reading the book. One student mentioned that his sister had read the book and really liked it. This social aspect of choosing books supports findings by Guthrie, Schafer, Wang, and Afflerbach (1993). This category, however, was mentioned the least by the below-average readers.

"Looks good." The second most frequently mentioned reason the above-average readers and average readers chose their books was the books' appearance. They made such statements as: "I thought it looked really funny," "the cover looked really good." A book's appearance, moreover, was the below-average readers' most frequently mentioned reason for selecting a book. These readers relied heavily on the cover and interior pictures when making their decisions.

"I really like Joshua Adams." Reading a book from a familiar series was the second most cited reason why the below-average readers chose a book, and the third area mentioned by the other readers in the study. The below-average readers seemed to find a particular series (or author) and stick with it rather than venturing out into different books. Such readers fit Chambers's (1996) "flat-earth" profile.

"I wanted to learn about ..." Student interest in a particular topic was another category of reasons for choosing books. The topics of interest ranged from dirt bikes to Magic Johnson to money. This area was mentioned more frequently by the above-average readers than by the other two groups of readers.

"I saw the movie." Previous experiences with books through movies and videos were not a driving force in choosing books by any of the readers. The above-average and average readers did not see a movie or video and then read the book. The below-average readers, however, did mention this as a reason for choosing a book. See Table 1 for a comparison of these categories.

What Types of Book-Selection Strategies Did the Readers Use?

Generally, the students mentioned few strategies they used to determine if the book was going to be a good fit. In this case, there was a different pattern of responses generated by the students than observed with the previous question. While all the students mentioned similar strategies, the above-average and below-average readers reported using more strategies and using the strategies more frequently than the average readers did. The strategies the students mentioned were: "flip through the book," "skim the first paragraph," "look at the book length," "consider the length of the words," and "read the first page." The students used these strategies in isolation. None mentioned using a combination of strategies to see if the book was going to be a good fit. The emphasis on book selection seemed to be based on picking a book of interest, not on a combination of interest and level. The range of books the students chose to read supports this theory. Table 2 compares the students' selection strategies.

What Levels of Book Difficulty Did the Students Choose?

The students did not usually select books at appropriate levels. The above-average readers were reading books that were too easy for their ability, while the below-average readers' books were too difficult. The average readers showed a mixed pattern. Only two students (one average reader and one above-average reader) seemed to be fluctuating consistently between different levels of difficulty, and exhibiting a "yo-yo" effect; they were students C and M.

The above-average readers predominantly picked books at their independent level. One student, J, never attempted books other than from the independent level. Students M and N did attempt some books that were challenging; only four attempts were made, however, and each student only selected one book at his instructional level. Their book selection pattern seems to support research that indicated that above-average readers are reading books too easy for them (Anderson, Higgins, & Wurster, 1985; Bristow, 1985; Kibby, 1995; Mork, 1973).

The average and below-average readers presented similar patterns, but opposite the above-average readers. Two of these students predominantly read books at their instructional and frustration levels. While student J represents one student who read books at one level, student B represents the below-average reader who just read frustration level books (see Figure 3). The below-average readers attempted more books at the frustration level than the average and above-average readers did. This result also supports other research that suggests that poorer readers are reading books that are too hard for them (Anderson et al., 1985; Bristow, 1985; Kibby, 1995; Mork, 1973). Figures 1, 2, and 3 present the students' book levels.

Limitations of the Project

Discussion

Several aspects limited the project. First, the data was collected during the students' reading conferences. Consequently, the students already had made their choices, and so their answers depended on their recall. Self-report data, such as a checklist completed at the time of book selection, could have been used in conjunction with the conference interviews. Second, the students were just beginning their self-selection component. Because of the short duration of this component, it was not possible to look at change over time. Looking at change over time would help determine if the students were becoming more thoughtful with their book choices. Next, the project did not investigate when and how frequently the teacher modeled book-selection strategies. Although the teacher did focus lessons at the beginning of the self-selection component, it was not determined if she reminded the students to use these strategies while the students were selecting their books. It would be interesting to analyze the effects of teacher modeling on students' use of selection strategies. Finally, due to the sample size and the focus of the project, it may be difficult to generalize the results. The focus of the project was to describe the strategies these students used, and to discuss how well they chose books to fit their reading levels. Therefore, students in other contexts may use different strategies in selecting materials for their instructional program.

Olson's theory is not supported by the results of this project. These students were not self-selecting books at appropriate levels. They did, however, seem to pace themselves through the books, which explains why the above-average readers read more books. They were reading books that were easy, and therefore could read them faster than the other students. The average and below-average readers were reading books that were at their instructional or frustration levels. Their reading would go slower; consequently, they finished fewer books.

The students' difficulty in selecting books could be explained by the fact that this was their first experience in choosing books for their instructional program. While they had previous experiences with choosing books for a sustained silent reading time (SSR), the expectations for selecting books for the instructional program are different. In many cases, SSR time is a fun reading time for students. Book selection for the instructional program is different in that the students have to pick books that are challenging to them, and the students are expected to complete some form of a reader response activity when they finish reading their books (Cooper, 1997; Powell, 1994).

The teacher taught the students how to determine whether a book would be too difficult. Judging by the interview, however, the students were not using much of this information consistently during book selection. Ollman (1993) suggests that it might be better for teachers to constantly model and demonstrate the use of algorithms and other book selection strategies. She found that methods modeled by the teachers were more frequently used than methods that were just taught to the students. Teachers can model multiple strategies to use, so that students can learn how to use more information when selecting a book (Ollman, 1993).

The motivating factor of allowing student choice was supported in the project. While the project was concerned with book selection strategies during the conferences, the students did make general comments about the self-selection component of the program during their conferences. They mentioned that they liked to select their books, and that they enjoyed the fact that they could read during reading time rather than do worksheets.

The students' comments also suggest that the program helped develop their awareness of themselves as readers. For example, they said that they enjoyed the independence they developed during the program. Some mentioned that they thought they had become better readers because they could read more often and had more time to read longer books. They liked the fact that they could choose books for a particular purpose. Keeping a notebook of difficult vocabulary encountered in their reading was another aspect they thought was helpful. Consequently, the students thought they were becoming better readers.

Students need to be given more time to learn how to select books for their instructional program. Choosing books requires several decisions to be made by the students (Reutzel & Gali, 1996). Learning how to make these decisions will not come quickly. Teachers, therefore, need to support the students by giving them time and by modeling strategies to help the students become proficient at selecting books. Students' self selection of books for their instructional reading program is a vital ingredient to helping students become hooked on reading, as well as to becoming independent learners. Teachers need to facilitate this process so that students will not only make progress in their reading ability, but become lifelong readers as well.

References

Anderson, G., Higgins, D., & Wurster, S. (1985). Differences in the free-reading books selected by high, average, and low average achievers. The Reading Teacher, 39, 326-330.

Bristow, P. (1985). Are poor readers passive readers? Some evidence, possible explanations, and potential solutions. The Reading Teacher, 39, 318-325.

Chambers, A. (1996). Tell me. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Cooper, J. D. (1997). Literacy: Helping children construct meaning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Dellit, J. (1984). Literature and the questions of choice. Australian Journal of Reading, 7, 200-204.

Fresch, M. (1995). Self-selection of early literacy learners. The Reading Teacher, 49, 220-227.

Giddings, L. (1992). Literature-based reading instruction: An analysis. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 18-30.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative analysis. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

Guthrie, J., Schafer, W., Wang, Y., & Afflerbach, P. (1993). Influences of instruction on reading engagement: An empirical exploration of a social-cognitive framework of reading activity. (Research Rep. No. 3). Athens, GA, and College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center, Universities of Georgia and Maryland.

Hancock, J., & Hill, S. (1988). Literature-based reading programs at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Harmes, J., & Lettow, L. (1986). Fostering ownership of the reading experience. The Reading Teacher, 40, 324-330.

Hepler, S., & Hickman, J. (1982). "The book was okay. I love you"--Social aspects of response to literature. Theory into Practice, 21, 278-283.

Hiebert, E., Mervar, K., & Person, D. (1990). Research directions: Children's selection of trade books in libraries and classrooms. Language Arts, 67, 758-763.

Jenkins, M. (1955). Here's to success in reading--Self-selection helps. Childhood Education, 32, 124-131.

Jipson, J., & Paley, N. (1992). Is there a base to today's literature-based reading programs? English Education, 24, 77-90.

Kibby, M. (1995). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: A diagnostic decision-making model. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lazar, M. (1957). Individualized reading: A program of seeking, self-selection, and pacing, part V. The reading program in actions: Demonstrations, discussions, evaluation. Reading in Action, 2, 141-144.

Lipson, A., & Wixson, K. (1991). Assessment and instruction of reading disability: An interactive approach. New York: HarperCollins.

Lynch-Brown, C. (1977). Are paperbacks magic? Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 140 324)

Mork, T. (1973). The ability of children to self-select materials at their own instructional reading level. In W. MacGinitie (Ed.), Assessment problems in reading (pp. 87-95). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

New England Consortium for the Right To Read. (1976). Fostering reading interests: A position paper. Kingston, RI: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 131 445)

Ohlausen, 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.

Ollman, H. (1993). Choosing literature wisely: Students speak out. Journal of Reading, 36, 648-653.

Olson, W. (1959). Child development. Boston: D. C. Heath.

Palmer, B., Codling, R., & Gambrell, L. (1994). In their own words: What elementary students have to say about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 48, 176-178.

Powell, W. (1994). Models for teaching reading. Unpublished manuscript.

Rasinski, T. (1988). The role of interest, purpose, and choice in early literacy. The Reading Teacher, 41, 396-400.

Reutzel, R., & Gali, K. (1996, November). The art of children's book selection: A labyrinth unexplored. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College Reading Association, Charleston, SC.

Sampson, A. (1988). Good book lookers: A three week introductory module in the language arts to foster independent reading among third graders. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 292 056)

Smith, L., & Joyner, R. (1990). Comparing recreational levels with reading levels from an informal reading inventory. Reading Horizons, 30, 293-299.

Spaulding, C. (1992). The motivation to read and write. In J. Irwin & M. Doyle (Eds.), Reading / writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 177-201). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Timion, C. (1992). Children's book selection strategies. In J. Irwin & M. Doyle (Eds.), Reading / writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 204-222). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Wendelin, K., & Zinck, R. (1983). How students make book choices. Reading Horizons, 23,84-88.