Example+page

=Recreational Reading and Student Achievement:= =A Case for Free Voluntary Reading= by S. Doherty


 * The Problem: The Decline of Reading in a Digital World**

In the past fifteen years, the use of technology has exploded at a pace faster than most people older than thirty can completely comprehend. However, for people younger than thirty, which includes all school-aged children, this technology is a simple fact of life. In 1990, students were just beginning to use computers in school; today, most students in theU.S. not only have access to computers and the Internet in school but also have this access in their homes. When seeking information or entertainment, this generation is more likely to look to an electronic device than it is to look to a book or other form of printed material. This development raises some serious questions for school library teachers. Are books as a means to intellectual development and reading for reading’s sake becoming quaint, antiquated notions in this high-tech environment? How important are and will books and literature be to the next generation? What can and should we, as school library teachers and educators, be doing in order to get kids reading more? media type="youtube" key="QdwFFFBCPzw" height="174" width="291" align="right" In 2002, the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) conducted a study that appears to confirm a growing movement away from reading, especially among young people. The NEA study, called the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, surveyed more than 17,000 individuals to ascertain the percentage of adults over 18 who attended artistic performances, visited museums, watched broadcasts of arts programs, or read literature in the past year. For the literary reading section of the survey, the NEA asked if the participants had read any novels, plays, short stories, or poems during their leisure time. As part of the broader survey, participants were also asked about their other leisure-time activities such as watching television, volunteering, and exercising. The results of the literary reading section of this study were used to determine trends in the number of adults who read, write, and listen to literature and then to compare these results to similar studies conducted in 1992 and 1982 (National Endowment for the Arts).

The NEA found the results of the literature portion of the survey disturbing enough to entitle the report on this section //Reading at Risk:// //Reading at Risk// provides an invaluable snapshot of the role of literature in the lives of Americans. It comes at a critical time, when electronic media are becoming the dominant influence in young people’s worlds. //Reading// //at Risk// adds new and distressing evidence to the discussion. It contains solid evidence of the declining importance of literature to our populace…If one believes that active and engaged readers lead richer intellectual lives than non-readers and that a well-read citizenry is essential to a vibrant democracy, the decline of literary reading calls for serious action (National Endowment for the Arts).

A review of //Reading// //at Risk’s// key findings does seem alarming. For example, the NEA reported that in the past twenty years, the percentage of the U.S. adult population that reads literature recreationally declined from approximately 57% to 47%. Additionally, they found that the decline in literary reading is accelerating; it declined just 5% between 1982 and 1992 but jumped to a decline of 14% between 1992 and 2002. The steepest decline the NEA found, however, was in the youngest age groups. Between 1982 and 2002, the total adult decline in literary reading was 18%; for 25 to 34-year-olds it was 23%; and for 18 to 24-year-olds it was a startling 28%. The NEA concluded that this decline correlated with increased access to and participation in leisure pursuits made available through electronic media such as the Internet, video games, portable digital devices, and television (National Endowment for the Arts).

The NEA’s findings in //Reading at Risk// detail the challenge facing all librarians, especially school library teachers and other educators who believe that books of high literary quality are irreplaceable as a means of developing students’ minds. How can school library teachers help to reverse this trend and create lifelong readers in this new environment? //School Library Journal// writer Debra Lau Whelan interviewed several library leaders for their reactions to the report and found that although they are concerned, they generally feel that it is a problem that can be addressed with new approaches. For instance, Dawn Vaughn, president of the AASL, acknowledged that promoting reading is challenging with this generation but provided several suggestions for combating the problem. For example, she has allowed students to check out as many books as they wish to over the summer and reported a tripling in circulation in the past three years. Ginger Bush, director of patron services at the Minneapolis Public Library, thought that librarians need to adapt to these changes and be more proactive to inspire a love of reading in youth: “Part of the solution is that we are held accountable as well. Young people today have competing forces in their lives, so we have to build on their interests in all mediums to enhance their lives. But we have to keep asking ourselves, ‘have we done enough to integrate all these mediums; have we done enough to electrify and engage them in reading?’”

Although these librarians seem ready to search for strategies to tackle the reading decline reported in //Reading at Risk,// not everyone agrees that there is actually a decline in literary reading that needs solving. Stephen D. Krashen, a University of Southern California education professor and a leading voice on reading and second language instruction, has disputed the NEA’s findings. Krashen has argued that the NEA’s definition of literature is too narrow because it omits currently popular reading choices such as magazines, on-line reading, graphic novels, and books-on-tape, choices that may have replaced some of the literary reading that the NEA has asserted is in serious decline. Krashen also pointed out that consideration of reading surveys conducted over a longer period of time show instability in the data, citing as an example that in 1945 only 41% of adults reported literary reading, which is less than the 47% reported in 2002. Krashen concluded that //Reading at Risk// misses the real problem and “ignores those truly at risk,” children of poverty. He maintained that research shows that when children have access to good books, they will read. His solution to the problem of getting the next generation to read more is to improve both school and public libraries for “those who need libraries the most,” the children living in poverty ("What Reading Decline?").

While the facts regarding a decline in literary reading are currently in debate, it is widely agreed that getting young people to read more and to read better is a challenge that educators and society must address.

Reading **and Achievement**: **Free Voluntary Reading Versus Direct Instruction**

Reading is a skill that is essential in almost all aspects of modern life, and our educational system is rightly concerned with how to best teach students not only how to read, but how to read well. School libraries are a natural extension of the reading classroom, a place where students can expand and hone their skills. But what is the best practice for developing literacy? On opposite ends of the debate over how to help students achieve more in their reading are the belief that giving students choices and freedom in what they read is the best method and the belief that drilling students with prescriptive, skills-based instruction is the best method.

Although Krashen disagreed with the NEA’s methods and findings in //Reading at Risk//, he has long been concerned with how to get youth to read more and to read better. Krashen (2004a) has strongly advocated for schools to integrate more “free voluntary reading” (FVR) into the curriculum, which he contends will foster an interest in reading in young people that will naturally and pleasurably lead to higher achievement in both reading and writing. According to Krashen, FVR is “reading because you want to: no book reports, no questions at the end of the chapter. In FVR, you don’t have to finish the book if you don’t like it. FVR is the kind of reading most of us do obsessively all the time” (//Power of Reading// 1). While Krashen has emphasized that FVR is not meant to be used alone as a means of encouraging higher levels of reading achievement, he has also asserted that FVR is the missing link in language arts instruction today and that advanced levels of proficiency are difficult to reach without it. His theory, reduced to the simplest terms, is that reading, like any other skill to be mastered, only gets better with practice, and that the more pleasurable the practice, the more frequently one will engage in it.

To provide evidence for his theory, Krashen has reviewed, analyzed, and drawn conclusions from his own and many other studies done on “in-school free reading programs,” where part of the school day is reserved for FVR. He has identified three such types of programs: 1) sustained silent reading (SSR), where everyone in the school stops and reads for short periods of time each day; 2) self-selected reading, as a part of the language arts program, where students choose their own reading material and discuss it with teachers in conferences; and 3) extensive reading, where students read what they want with minimal accountability required (//Power of Reading//).

Krashen’s summary of studies on the impact of FVR reading programs on reading comprehension tests, using comparisons between students participating in FVR programs and those who learned using traditional approaches to teaching reading (defined as assigned reading with direct instruction in grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and comprehension), led him to conclude that FVR programs are consistently effective. For example, Krashen found that in 51 out of 54 comparisons on tests of reading comprehension, FVR students did as well as or better than students in traditional programs. Of these 51, about half of the FVR students did as well as the students in traditional programs and the other half did better than those students. Krashen pointed out that even when there was no difference in reading comprehension scores, FVR was still better than traditional instruction because it was more pleasurable and resulted in a widening of students’ knowledge bases. Another important conclusion Krashen drew from this data was that the longer the time period devoted to in-school FVR, the more consistent the positive results. Of the ten studies Krashen reported that lasted over a year, eight found that students using FVR did better on reading comprehension tests than traditionally taught students (//Power of Reading//).

Several of the individual studies Krashen reviewed showed impressive results, especially with more challenging groups such as troubled youth and English language learners (ELL). For example, in 1976, researchers studied the effects of a FVR program on sixty reform school boys, aged 12-17. In this program, the boys read newspapers, magazines, and paperbacks and discussed them in class. After one year in the program, this group of boys’ SAT reading comprehension scores averaged a gain of 12.8%, while a control comparison group using a more traditional approach gained only 4.6% in the same time period. In a 1983 study done by reading researchers Elley and Magubhai, 4th and 5th grade ELL students were split into three comparison groups for a thirty minute English class. The first group received traditional instruction; the second group was given “free reading” time; and the third group participated in “shared reading,” where they experienced books by reading together, talking, acting, drawing, and writing. After two years in the study, the free reading and shared reading groups were achieving much higher than the traditionally taught groups in tests of reading comprehension, writing, and grammar (//Power of Reading//).

Krashen compiled, reviewed, and analyzed much other evidence in support of FVR programs that shows positive effects on all aspects of language development. As a result, he made some claims that challenge the way educators have traditionally gone about the task of teaching reading: My conclusions are simple. When children read for pleasure, when they get “hooked on books,” they acquire, involuntarily and without conscious effort, nearly all of the so-called language skills many people are so concerned about: They will become adequate readers, acquire a large vocabulary, develop the ability to understand and use complex grammatical constructions, develop a good writing style, and become good (but not necessarily perfect) spellers. Although free voluntary reading alone will not ensure the attainment of the highest levels of literacy, it will at least ensure an acceptable level. It will also provide the competence necessary for dealing with demanding texts. Without it, I suspect that children simply do not have a chance. (//Power of Reading// 149-150).

On the other hand, Krashen did not recommend FVR be done in a vacuum and proposed that it be done in conjunction with assigned reading of literature by teachers and recommended reading by teachers, librarians, and parents. Krashen has posited that through literature study, students will develop higher intellectual skills, and through FVR, students will develop higher language competence and interest in reading, which will flow back to greater comprehension of the more demanding literature. He has criticized the skills approach to developing literacy, arguing that this is “not the way the human brain operates” but that instead “reading for meaning, reading about things that matter to us, is the cause of literate language development” (//Power of Reading// 150).

Krashen’s arguments and conclusions about the value of FVR make intuitive sense and would seem to be difficult to argue against. Who would argue with the idea of fostering language skills in youth by encouraging a reading habit through texts they actually enjoy reading? Certainly not school library teachers. However, the school day has only so many hours, and there are many objectives to accomplish in this time. Are FVR programs really an effective use of this limited time? The National Reading Panel is not so sure.

In 1997, Congress asked the Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) “to convene a national panel to assess the status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read” (NRP, 2004). In consultation with the Secretary of Education, the NICHD selected 14 individuals to serve on the National Reading Panel, which was composed of reading researchers, college of education representatives, reading teachers, educational administrators, and parents. The NRP (2004) was asked to accomplish four tasks after reviewing the research: 1) report their conclusions based on the research done; 2) recommend whether the results of the research were ready for classroom use; 3) provide a strategy for quick dissemination of information to schools to aid in effective reading instruction; and 4) identify areas that required further research.

The NRP (2004) was soon overwhelmed by the vast amount of research data available on reading. An initial review of databases yielded over 100,000 research studies done on reading since 1966, so they established three general topics related to reading to aid in screening the results: alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension. In 1998, they held regional hearings for input from teachers, parents, students, and policymakers and then adopted final topics and subtopics. After developing a rigorous research review process with specific review criteria, they broke into subgroups and resumed their research. In 1999, they submitted their report to Congress. From this timeline, it appears that the NRP may have completed their work somewhat hastily, given the importance of the task and the fact that the first two of the three years they worked on the project were focused more on preparation for the research review rather than the actual review itself. Whether they gave it enough time or not, after reviewing the research the NRP (1999) recommended direct, skills-based reading instruction using methods such as phonics, guided oral reading, direct and indirect vocabulary instruction, and text comprehension instruction. They also recommended providing teachers with continuing education in reading instruction using these methods, with additional emphasis on teaching reading as a problem to be solved using strategic comprehension skills.

Controversy over the best way to improve reading achievement has been part of the educational landscape for many years, and this report has now become part of that landscape. For example, the NRP’s (1999) findings and determinations on how to best develop the ability of fluency comes into direct conflict with Krashen’s advocacy of FVR. The NRP (1999) defined fluency as the ability to “read orally with speed, accuracy, and proper expression” and labeled it a key factor of reading comprehension that is often neglected in the classroom. They identified two major methods that have been studied and are widely used in classrooms today to develop fluency: 1) guided, repeated oral reading with “systematic and explicit guidance from teachers,” and 2) independent silent reading in and outside the classroom with “minimal guidance or feedback.” After reviewing 36 studies on guided repeated oral reading, The NRP (1999) strongly recommended it as the more effective method of the two, concluding that it “had a significant and positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and comprehension across a range of grade levels.” On the other hand, after reviewing the 14 studies on independent silent reading that met their research review criteria, the NRP (1999) determined that there was not enough evidence to recommend it as a way to improve achievement: With regard to the efficacy of having students engage in independent silent reading with minimal guidance or feedback, the Panel was unable to find a positive relationship between programs and instruction that encourage large amounts of independent reading and improvements in reading achievement, including fluency. In other words, even though encouraging students to read more is intuitively appealing, there is still not sufficient research evidence obtained from studies of high methodological quality to support the idea that such efforts reliably increase how much students read or that such programs result in improved reading skills. Given the extensive use of these techniques, it is important that such research be conducted. In summary, although the NRP (1999) did acknowledge that silent independent reading may possibly have positive effects on reading fluency and other skills, they did not feel that it should be recommended as a valid part of a classroom reading program. Not surprisingly, Krashen (2001) rejected the NRP’s findings on the value of FVR. He took issue with their selection criteria for reading research studies, stating that they “claimed” to have found only 14 studies on FVR that met their stringent criteria. He especially took issue with the criteria that the research studies could focus on only K-12 English language reading instruction, since some of the positive studies on FVR have been conducted with older readers or in other countries and languages: It is only by omitting a large number of relevant studies—and misinterpreting the ones that were included—that the NRP were able to reach the startling conclusion that there is no clear evidence that encouraging children to read more actually improves reading achievement. Krashen (2001) then presented results of and examples from an “expanded” set of thirty-five studies that he considered reliable. This set of studies included the original 14 identified by the NRP as well as some studies that fell outside the NRP’s criteria such as studies of college-age, ELL, and foreign language readers. He compared the conclusions of this expanded set of studies to the NRP’s conclusions and asserted that with this expanded set of studies, there is a stronger pattern of positive outcomes with FVR, especially in studies lasting over a year. On the last point, Krashen wrote, “It is important to note that the NRP did not include any studies lasting longer than one year. A more comprehensive review of the literature [on FVR] indicates that the positive effect of recreational reading increases over time” (2001). In an era where educational policy seems to be increasingly determined by a select few for the entire country, it is imperative that there are voices such as Krashen’s consistently questioning and challenging the findings of these national studies. But the question remains: what really is the best practice for improving reading achievement? Perhaps it is through creatively combining elements of both a FVR and a skills-based approach. School libraries are a crucial element in such an approach because if they have the appropriate resources, they can be the place for students and teachers to find the variety of reading material necessary to support and attain free voluntary reading goals. In addition, research has shown that where schools have strong library programs, student achievement rises.

School Library Professionals and Their Role in Fostering Independent Reading

The American Association of School Librarians (AASL) clearly favors an approach to developing literacy that takes into account the importance of independent reading. As outlined in the AASL’s //Information Power// (2000)//,// the mission of the school library media professional is “to ensure that students…are effective users of ideas and information,” (p. 4) and a key goal in support of this mission is to provide access to “a carefully selected and systematically organized local collection of diverse learning resources that represent a wide range of subjects, levels of difficulty, and formats” (p. 7). This goal is the antithesis of a one-size-fits-all approach; rather, the goal of the school library is to develop students’ skills and abilities in a more individualized manner. Three of the nine standards outlined in //Information Power// are focused on developing independent learning skills in students, and two of these connect directly to a free voluntary reading philosophy. Standard 4 states that the “student who is an independent learner is information literate and pursues //information related to personal interests//” (AASL, 2000, p. 23; emphasis mine). Standard 5 adds that the “student who is an independent learner…appreciates literature and other creative expressions of information” (AASL, 2000, p. 26). In order to attain these standards, students need to have access to material that is relevant, comprehensible, and enjoyable, and they need time and guidance in order to develop the needed skills for truly independent learning. The AASL (2000) has recognized the need for library teachers to provide this guidance, and several of the Learning and Teaching Principles of School Library Media Programs in //Information Power// address how to help students achieve these standards. For instance, Principle 6 states that the “library media program encourages and engages students in reading, viewing, and listening for understanding and enjoyment” by “[working] collaboratively and individually to design, develop, and implement programs that encourage reading for enjoyment and for information” (pp. 66-67). In addition, Principle 7 states that the “library media program supports the learning of all students and other members of the learning community who have diverse learning abilities, styles, and needs” by “[maintaining] a collection that is diverse in format and content to support the learning needs of students…with a wide spectrum of abilities, backgrounds, needs, and learning styles” (p. 68). These //Information Power// principles mandate that school library teachers make it a high priority to connect students with texts that are comprehensible, personally meaningful, and enjoyable to them. Blanche Woolls (1999), professor and Program Director forSan JoseStateUniversity’sSchool ofLibrary and Information Science, has confirmed this mandate to foster independent reading and learning through access to an excellent school library: Although much of the world is welcoming the advent of telecommunications to provide instantaneous access to information, the emphasis on reading remains an imperative. Reading programs must be sustained by an excellent collection of materials in the school library media center. Providing this collection is a first priority in school library media centers now. (p. 25) Woolls (1999) has also reasoned that students not only need access to books but also need time to develop independent reading and learning skills. She has supported the value of FVR, calling Krashen’s //The Power of Reading// a “landmark publication” when it first appeared in 1993, and has suggested that school library teachers “allow as much free voluntary reading time as possible” (pp. 23-24). In the debate over best practices for raising reading achievement, it seems that researchers such as the NRP are charged with finding “quick fixes” rather than long-term solutions. As with most debates, the best solutions probably lie in the areas where agreement is possible. Even the NRP agrees with Krashen that getting students to read more books independently is not going to hurt and would possibly even help raise achievement.

School Libraries and Reading in an Achievement-Driven Atmosphere Finding ways to help schools meet national and local achievement benchmarks in the form of state testing has become more and more the focus of school library programs in the past few years. As a result, a number of studies have been done on the relationship between school library programs and student achievement, and most of them have found a strong correlation between well-staffed and well-funded school library programs and higher student achievement. Here inMassachusetts, for example, in 2002 Baughman found that schools with library programs have higher MCAS scores, and in 2003 inMinnesota, Baxter and Smalley found that students’ reading achievement was related to library funding and staffing (cited in Scholastic, 2004). So far, positive reports such as these exist in fourteen states. From this emerging trend in the research on school libraries and student achievement, we can infer that at least some of the positive impact on achievement is related to the role a library teacher takes in fostering independent reading skills and the desire to read in students. School library teachers play a role that supports schools’ goals for achievement by developing a collection that will appeal to students while at the same time finding ways to get appealing and appropriate books into the hands of students. In other words, it is not enough to put the books on the shelves; we need to get students need to read them. This is where the role of readers’ advisory, a role that has traditionally been assigned to public librarians, becomes important for the school library teacher. An unfortunate byproduct of the current emphasis in school libraries on raising student achievement, however, is that reliance on testing is creeping into some school libraries in a primitive and unreliable method of matching students with books. Carter (2000) has expressed concern about the growing use of reading tests that attempt to match students to school library books that are leveled by readability formulas. She reasoned there were two major problems with this approach. First, she asserted that assigning levels to students leaves out a whole range of useful texts because experienced readers read at different levels for different purposes. Second, she contended that the assumption that reading levels, once matched, will lead to comprehension is faulty because readability formulas do not take less concrete factors that affect comprehension, such as structure and style, into account. While acknowledging the need for library teachers to help students find books appropriate to their needs and interests, she insisted that there is no place in a school library for such a limiting and misguided program: In order to become lifelong readers, children must have access to books—and lots of them. They must also have help in selecting them. Librarians call that readers’ advisory, and it’s an art…It requires that librarians help youngsters find materials that speak to them rather than those that might improve them.

The Art and Science of Readers’ Advisory Readers’ advisory has been receiving a lot of attention lately in library professional journals. While many articles explore how to provide this service online through booklists and even virtual readers’ advisory services, many other articles focus on a need for more personal, face-to-face interaction between skilled and knowledgeable librarians and readers in search of advice on what to read. What exactly is readers’ advisory? Dana Watson (2000), an instructor for theSchool ofLibrary and Information Science atLouisianaStateUniversity, defined readers’ advisory as a service that “connects readers with books they would like to read” and called it “an important component of library service in today’s libraries, especially school and public libraries.” However, this simple definition masks a very complex process that requires the librarian to “understand what compels people to read, and how diverse interests, needs, and backgrounds affect genre choices” (Watson, 2000). In order to advise readers, librarians also need to know a good deal about different genres, the numerous available resources for reviews and recommendations, and how to market and present information about books to potential readers. In the past, public libraries often hired people specifically for this role, but today that is not a common practice. Therefore, librarians usually need to perform this service in addition to their other duties. In an “undercover” study of readers’ advisory services performed by students in an adult readers’ advisory course atQueens College,New York, students found that many librarians did not know how to provide this essential service (Chelton, 2005). The students pretended to be patrons seeking advice for something to read that was similar to a book they had recently read and liked. Chelton (2005) reported that a clear pattern of mistakes emerged when the students came back to class and reported on their experiences. The first mistake was that most librarians immediately turned to OPAC to identify other titles by the same author or used subject/keyword searches to find books treating the same topic rather than interacting with the reader to find out more about what the reader was looking for. The second mistake was that librarians did not understand the “appeal factors”—a book’s pacing, characterization, storyline, and frame—that cause readers to like or dislike books. This led to librarians making suggestions based on theme, topic, or genre subcategories rather than asking what the reader liked or disliked about the book and moving forward with further questions from there, based on appeal factors. A third mistake made by the librarians was reliance on personal reading experience and preference, excusing themselves from being able to make recommendations on particular genres because they were unfamiliar with them. Instead, Chelton recommended that librarians should be familiar with, consult, and use readers’ advisory reference tools for reading areas that fall out of their expertise in order to better help all patrons. A fourth mistake was not following up with patrons when the librarians were unable to help them immediately, instead of telling them to come back if they didn’t find anything or going to find and help them when time permitted. A fifth mistake was in not communicating with the patron while the librarian searched on the computer, giving the impression that the librarian was performing a “secret ritual” instead of explaining what she or he was doing and maintaining eye contact and a discussion. Related to this mistake was “consistently keeping print and web tools a secret” (Chelton, 2005). Instead, Chelton suggested the desirability of creating “readers’ corners” in libraries, set up with both electronic and print readers’ advisory tools that patrons could access independently. Another interesting study done for a readers’ advisory course found that the key determinant for readers in choosing books was their emotional state, or mood, at the time they sought a book. Catherine Ross, an MLIS professor at theUniversity ofWestern Ontario, had students in her course “Genres of Fiction andReading” interview 194 avid readers between 1985 and 2000 to discover how and why they chose recreational reading books (Ross and Chelton, 2002). Although the study found that most readers considered a variety of factors when choosing a book, the “bedrock issue [was] the reader’s mood” (Ross and Chelton, 2002). Ross found that a clear patterned emerged; because people’s moods vary, their reading choices also vary according to mood. During periods when they were busy or under stress, avid readers tended to look for books that reassured them and gave them a feeling of safety, such as “old favorites” or familiar authors. On the other hand, when they were under less stress, they were willing to take more risks in their reading and might look for unpredictability or even choose books or authors on impulse or random selection. According to Ross (2002), these readers had developed strategies that helped them to strike a balance between “safety/certainty and novelty/risk.” Ross (2002) observed that because these avid readers had developed systems for finding books, they differed from nonbook readers, reluctant readers, and novice readers, but she suggested that understanding their strategies “can help readers’ advisors work better with all readers, especially inexperienced ones.” To begin choosing a book, the most important selection strategy was finding a known and trusted author, and the second most popular strategy was choosing by genre. Once the choices were narrowed to these categories, readers used a variety of other strategies such as clues provided on the book cover, favorite character types or settings, or ruling choices out by elements they didn’t like such as length, undesirable emotional effect, or unappealing characters (Ross and Chelton, 2002). In school libraries, readers’ advisory is necessary to help students with both recreational reading choices and with independent reading assignments given by teachers. Unlike public libraries, readers’ advisory in schools is not simply a matter of finding the perfect mystery to match the mood of a fan of Sue Grafton’s who wants to try an unfamiliar author; it’s also a matter of discovering //any// book that will hook a reluctant reader who hasn’t read a book in years, or of finding a book that an ELL student who has only been reading in English for two years can comprehend and use to complete a specific assignment. As school library teachers attempt to provide readers’ advisory to students, we should constantly keep in mind the principle that one of our primary roles is to foster independent learning and reading skills by providing access to enjoyable, comprehensible, and personally relevant texts. When making recommendations to young adults, Heather Booth (2005), the Literature and Audio librarian at Downers Grove Library inIllinois, observed that because adults are authority figures to teens, they won’t necessarily trust librarians’ advice. She recommended that the librarian be approachable and keep recommendations focused on the joy of reading, even when students are looking for books to use for classroom assignments. However, in schools we also need to keep in mind that part of our mission is to help increase student reading achievement by getting //all// students to read and to create lifelong, independent readers. This means that we need to find creative ways to reach diverse populations of readers who are not necessarily making a voluntary decision to take a book out of the library, as is more often the case in public libraries. This means having on hand and being ready to recommend a wide variety of age-appropriate, appealing, “easy to finish” (Morton & Forer, 1999) books for reluctant or struggling readers. Kay Morton and Mary Forer established and promoted such a collection for students in theirWisconsinMiddle School and reported that some students read a book for the first time since elementary school. It also means responding to the changing demographics and increasing diversity present in our public schools by having on hand and being able to recommend books that enhance ELL literacy and acculturation, include and reflect our student population, help teachers meet instructional goals, and help students respect and appreciate diverse cultures (DeLaurie, 1998). And it also means encouraging those high-achievers in our midst who are often forgotten or neglected in the push to raise achievement for students who need more support. In 1980, Elena Rabban, Director of School Libraries forScarsdale,New York, was concerned about those students who were high achievers but who were under so much pressure to perform that they didn’t develop the habit of pleasure reading: “Are not skills meant for pleasures they can provide? What use is a Rolls Royce sitting in a garage, a Rembrandt not viewed, a feast not eaten, a wine not tasted, a book not enjoyed?” This emphasis on skills, achievement, and competition at the expense of exploration is still at the heart of much debate in education today. As school library teachers, we need to foster recreational reading for students at all levels.

The Use of Annotated Booklists as a Readers’ Advisory and Marketing Tool Readers’ advisory can be accomplished in two ways: interactively through interviews and discussions or more independently through booklists, websites, and other written tools. Having a range of approaches and resources is both necessary and desirable in a school library. Patrick Jones (1992), a noted young adult librarian, speaker, and author, has recommended the use of booklists as a self-help readers’ advisory strategy for young adults: “Although some studies indicate that lists are a tremendous waste of trees, others suggest they can be an effective tool for increasing patrons’ awareness of titles” (p. 90). In addition, Jones observed that the benefits of compiling focused booklists go beyond raising readers’ awareness of titles because the time spent going through catalogs and booklists gives the creator greater knowledge about titles, and working on lists with others can increase collaboration and support for young adult literature. Jones (2003) presented a sample readers’ advisory program at a YALSA (Young Adult Library Services Association) “Serving the Underserved” workshop and recommended making a readers’ notebook as a young adult readers’ advisory strategy. Items he recommended including in such a notebook included peer and professional reviews, promotional material, articles about young adult authors, and booklists—“created in house, lifted from another library, obtained through YALSA, or copies from professional journal [//sic//].” Renée Vaillancourt (2000), author of several books on young adult library services, has stated that bibliographies and bookmarks with lists of recommended titles can be useful marketing tools for young adult books, but she feels that it is better to use them in displays, hand them out to patrons, or distribute them in classes than it is to just put them on a desk or shelf. She also noted that thoughtful annotations increase their appeal. Her advice for creating an annotation was to write it as a “lure” that generates interest and hints at disaster or triumph (p. 115). For young adult annotations, she suggested incorporating the following elements: a brief, specific description of the main character; a description of the emotional involvement of the significant others to the main character; a brief description of the setting (both time and place); and the major challenge facing the main character (pp. 115-116). Heather Booth (2005), a public librarian in Illinois, has identified how to highlight book appeal factors for young adult readers that are useful to consider when creating annotations. She maintained that young adults want plot description, not general words and phrases. For example, Booth suggested that an annotation with a descriptive general phrase such as a “character-focused book about friendship and coming of age” would not appeal to young adults as much as a book “about what happens freshman year when Jess’ best friend since they were kids gets a huge crush on an older guy with a girlfriend.” She also suggested that if the book is character-driven, a good description of the main character is desirable. In addition, Booth cautioned against reliance on genre when making book recommendations for young adults since they may not have had much experience reading widely within specific genres. For example, //Harry Potter// might be the only experience some young adult readers have had with fantasy, so a list of fantasy titles might not capture their interest. She suggested that form, topic, theme, or point of view might be more important elements of what they have liked in titles they have read in the past. Going even further, Ross (2002) provided recommendations for booklists that incorporated her findings on how avid readers select books and how mood affects their choices: “Categorizing titles by mood and emotion requires librarians to think beyond literary and topical criteria for grouping books. ‘Easy’ and ‘familiar’ in this regard become desirable characteristics, not reasons for ignoring either the story or its potential readers.” She suggested that categorizing books by emotional appeal is a way to sort more general lists such as award-winning titles or recommended booklists. Some possible ways she suggested for sorting by mood is to consider factors such as happy vs. sad endings, upbeat vs. cynical tones, humorous vs. serious, or familiarity vs. novelty. Ross also suggested some useful words and phrases to use when describing emotional appeal. For example, for people who are looking for safety and reassurance, one might use words such as “clean, faithful, or tried and true” in descriptions. Conversely, for people who are looking for risk and novelty, one might describe books as being “provocative, unusual, shivery, gritty, or different takes.” Creating lists that respond to combinations of book elements such as length or treatment, or clues on the books themselves, is another method she suggested. Some examples she provides for lists like these might be entitled “Vegging Out,” “Long, Sad Stories,” “Small but Serious,” “Long on Laughter,” Bloodless Mysteries,” and “Romantic Science Fiction.” Unfortunately, while these examples of booklist titles are interesting, many of them may still be too general to appeal to teens. Jones (1992) provided excellent advice for strategies to use for creating and using booklists that will capture the interest of young adults and hopefully get them reading: Jones (1992) has laid out a complete system that we can use in our own libraries as we work to develop our own booklists and other print readers’ advisory tools. Jones, Vaillancourt, Booth, and Ross all have excellent suggestions for creating booklists and annotations to appeal to young adult readers. Because most librarians will not have the time to incorporate every suggestion made in the literature above into every booklist, the key seems to be to use a variety of the elements that have been shown to increase young people’s interest in books and to develop a systematic way of going about creating and maintaining these lists. If readers’ advisory is an art, then like any art, it will require time, practice, and a willingness to experiment with different methods in order to develop individual skills. Will one school library’s collection of booklists help to reverse the decline perceived in literary reading by the NEA? Will the same booklists raise reading achievement for ELL students or generate a love of reading in reluctant readers? Will they inspire the Harvard aspirant to pick up a novel rather than an SAT preparation book? Not on their own, they won’t. But it’s another place to start, and in the effort to raise reading achievement and to create lifelong readers, we need to start in as many places as possible.
 * Decide on a format. Consider elements such tense and length of annotations, limits on publication dates, and number of pages.
 * Make the lists “quick, not comprehensive” (p. 92). Do not catalog everything you have for a particular topic. Be selective.
 * Hook readers into lists with intriguing questions that the books in the list address.
 * Make the lists contain “active, not passive” elements (p. 92). Include some interactive elements like self-quiz questions on topics in the list.
 * List paperbacks or titles for which you hold multiple copies.
 * “Create, don’t copy” booklist titles (p. 92). Don’t use catalog subject headings to title the lists; instead, create titles using broader themes such as “teen problems;” focus on specific topics; or for “fiction, look not so much for common themes but related emotions” (p. 92).
 * “Copy, don’t create” artwork (p. 92). Use book cover art as part of the lists, with permission of the publishers.
 * “Excite, don’t annotate” (pp. 92-93). For young adults, a “one-sentence, catchy tagline that defines the book” and generates interest is preferable to a full annotation (p. 93).
 * “Borrow, don’t write” (p. 93). Use words and phrases found in promotional writing for books.
 * Use the lists to create displays.
 * Measure the impact of lists on circulation by logging status of books before and after they are generated.
 * Share the work. School and public libraries can work together to generate good lists.
 * Set up a schedule to periodically review and revise booklists.

media type="youtube" key="BuRuwR2JSXI" height="303" width="483" align="center"

**Methods**
 * Overview**

In response to a need to provide expanded readers’ advisory services for students atBrocktonHigh School, I plan to compile a number of recommended booklists, primarily fiction, in a variety of genres and categories for use with students and staff. The lists will reflect the need to provide a wide variety for both recreational reading choices and independent reading choices assigned by classroom teachers. Some of the lists will be generated based on the interests of students that I have noted as my first year in a school library has progressed, and some will be included because I perceive a need for them. Each list will contain 10-25 titles that are available in our IRCs, and I will find the titles to include using student recommendations and our card catalog and recommended booklists, both in print and online. I will incorporate recommendations and advice for compiling such lists from the research I have done for the literature review section of this independent learning project. As to the format of the booklists, for the most part I will include only books that are in print and have been published in the last twenty years or are considered to be classics in their genres. I will strive to keep the annotations to one sentence, drawing from the card catalog whenever possible but editing them as needed for clarity or conciseness. Deviating slightly from the formatting requirements of the ILP, I will use incorporate more visually appealing fonts than Times New Roman and will double-space only between titles, single spacing the actual annotations. Although I will eventually incorporate more creative elements such as quiz question, for the purposes of this project, I will include just annotated titles and relevant graphics on each list.

The recommended booklists spring from my desire to improve students’ ability to locate and select books for independent reading, whether they are doing so for recreational reading or for a class assignment. Oftentimes, I am unable to assist students one-on-one with readers’ advisory because I am working with a class or am alone in the library with many other demands on my time. In addition, because this is my first year teaching in a school library, I do not always have the knowledge needed to effectively help students find a “good book.” Beginning the process of creating focused booklists will help me to address these two problems. In addition, these booklists will be a resource that I can use to prepare for book talks, create displays, and provide to teachers for independent reading assignments. I see the creation of the booklists for this project as just the beginning of a long-term project that will be ongoing. My hope is that it will be a tool that the students and teachers atBrocktonHigh School can and will use for many years to come.
 * Rationale**

The primary population that these booklists are intended for is the student body of Brockton High School. To reflect the make-up and needs of this population, the booklists will be of a diverse and varied nature. For example, because we have a large immigrant population, a booklist about the immigrant experience will be generated, and “easy” titles that are below a 9th grade reading level will be present so that ELL students can find something they like and understand. On the other hand, because we also have many gifted, high-achieving students who excel in academics, more difficult classic titles that fit particular genres will also be included.
 * Population**

To aid in identifying, choosing, and annotating titles and in compiling the lists, I will use several resources throughout my work. These are listed below. Resources used for developing specific lists are cited in the chapter descriptions.
 * General Resources for Developing the Lists**


 * Electronic Resources**


 * //Amazon.com//.
 * Sagebrush Pinpoint. //Brockton// //High School//.
 * Follet Library Resources. //TITLEWAVE//.


 * Print Resources**


 * Jones, P., Taylor, P. & Edwards, K. (2003). //A core collection for young adults//.
 * Ayers, R., & Crawford, A. (Eds.). (2004). //Great books for high school kids//.
 * Nilsen, A.P., & Donelson, K.L. (2001). //Literature for today’s young adults// (6th ed.).


 * Chapter Descriptions**

Resources: Rationale: Many of our students are immigrants, and books that reflect the conflicts that arise from this situation may appeal to them. In addition, we live in a multicultural society, so fiction on this topic enhances understanding of our society. Finally, teachers in a senior English course entitled “Minority Literature” often assign independent reading, and this list might be a resource for them. Resources: Rationale: Many students come in requesting this title, but it is usually out. In addition, students who have read it often request a similar book. This list may aid these two groups. Resources: Rationale: Not everyone wants to read serious, realistic tales. It is also a type of fiction that students may not be aware of. Resources: Rationale: Romance is a popular genre, especially for girls. Because there are lot of titles to recommend in this genre, I decided to split them into “happy” and “sad,” keeping the idea of mood in readers’ advisory in mind. This is the happy ending list. Resources: Rationale: In real life, love isn’t always “sweet.” A lot of young adults like realistic fiction. These titles show the downside of love. Resources: Rationale: Sports fiction is a popular genre for teens, especially boys. Making it easy to find titles might inspire boys who don’t normally read to read more. Resources: Rationale: Young people who are gay or lesbian often feel confused, marginalized, and alienated. It’s important for them to find themselves and their experiences reflected in books. Resources: Rationale: Our book club just read a title on this list, and I have had many students come in looking for that book. It seems to be a popular topic, so I wanted to make a list available for interested students. Resources: Rationale: Fantasy is a popular genre, and the prevalence of series in this genre makes it a viable way to hook some kids on reading. Resources: Rationale: This list was compiled directly from a list of 30 titles that were repeatedly recommended by librarians who submitted recommended core lists to Jones for his book. This fact makes me feel confident that these titles have broad appeal. I liked the idea of including a “top” list for students who might not be attracted to any of the other lists I have developed so far, or for students who want to try something different.
 * 1) **Caught Between Cultures: The Immigrant Experience**
 * Perkins, M. (n.d.). //Bookshelf: my recommended reads//.
 * 1) **If you liked //A Child Called It,// then try…**
 * Almand, N. (2004, April). //Readalikes for Dave Pelzer/Child Called It//.
 * Keane, N. (2003, October 25). //If you liked A Child Called It//.
 * 1) **On the Lighter Side: Humorous Fiction**
 * Ayers, R., & Crawford, A. (Eds.). (2004). //Great books for high school kids//.
 * DoverPublic Library. (n.d.) //Humorous books for teens//.
 * 1) **Love, Sweet Love**
 * Ayers, R., & Crawford, A. (Eds.). (2004). //Great books for high school kids//. 221-222.
 * 1) **Uneasy Love: Stories of Heartache, Scandal, and Tragedy**
 * Ayers, R., & Crawford, A. (Eds.). (2004). //Great books for high school kids//. 221-222.
 * 1) **Sports Fiction**
 * Nilsen, A.P., & Donelson, K.L. (2001). //Literature for today’s young adults// (6th ed.). 14-25.
 * 1) **One in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Characters**
 * Cart, M. (1999, June 1 & 5). Saying no to stereotypes.
 * GLSEN (The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network). (2004). //booklink: grades 7-12.//
 * LawrenceHigh SchoolLibrary. (2004). //Gay and lesbian literature and information//.
 * Levithan, D. (2004, October). Supporting gay teen literature.
 * 1) **Growing up fast: teen parents in fiction**
 * Card catalog and student recommendations.
 * 1) **Harry Potter and Beyond: Fantastic Worlds**
 * Glen Elleyn Public Library. (2005, April). //Young adult booklist: fantasy//.
 * Hartwell, D.G. (2002, Winter). Readers advising for the young SF, fantasy, and horror reader.
 * Nilsen, A.P., & Donelson, K.L. (2001). //Literature for today’s young adults//(6th ed.). 210-21.
 * WheatonPublic Library. (n.d.). //YA titles—fantasy.//
 * Student recommendations.
 * 1) **Something for Everyone: 25 Top Titles**
 * Jones, P., Taylor, P. & Edwards, K. (2003). //A core collection for young adults//. pp. 357-358.

**Table of Contents: Chapters** **The Project Booklists**


 * 1) Caught Between Cultures: The Immigrant Experience.............................40
 * 2) If you liked //A Child Called It,//then try......................................................... 42
 * 3) On the Lighter Side: Humorous Fiction.....................................................44
 * 4) Love, Sweet Love......................................................................................46
 * 5) Uneasy Love: Stories of Heartache, Scandal, and Tragedy......................48
 * 6) Sports Fiction.............................................................................................50
 * 7) One in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Characters..................................................54
 * 8) Growing up fast: teen parents in fiction....................................................... 56
 * 9) Harry Potter and Beyond: Fantastic Worlds................................................ 57
 * 10) Something for Everyone: 25 Top Titles........................................................ 60

**Works Cited**


 * 1) Almand, N. (2004, April). //Readalikes for Dave Pelzer / Child Called It//. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from []
 * 2) //Amazon.com//. Retrieved information various dates from [|http://www.amazon.com]
 * 3) American Association of School Librarians & Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2000). //Information power: building parternships for learning.//Chicago: American Library Association.
 * 4) Ayers, R., & Crawford, A. (2004). //Great books for high school kids: a teacher’s guide to books that can change teens’ lives//.Boston: Beacon Press.
 * 5) Booth, H. (2005, January/February). RA for YA: tailoring the readers’ advisory interview to the needs of young adult patrons. //Public Libraries//, 44 (1), 33-36. Retrived April 3, 2005, from WilsonSelectPlus database (BLIB05102072).
 * 6) Cart, M. (1999, June 1 & 15). Saying no to stereotypes. [Electronic version]. //Booklist//, 95, 55.
 * 7) Carter, B. (2000, July). Formula for failure. //School Library Journal//, 46 (7), 34-37. Retrieved April 3, 2005 from WilsonSelectPlus database (BED100019020).
 * 8) Chelton, M. K. (2003, November). Readers’ advisory 101. //Library Journal//, 128 (18), 38-39. RetrievedFebruary 28, 2005 from Academic Search Premier database (11233758).
 * 9) DeLaurie, A. (1998, Spring). Diversity and the library media teacher. //CSLA Journal//, 21 (2), 23-24. Retrieved April 3, 2005 from WilsonSelectPlus database (BLIB98012776).
 * 10) Dover Public Library. (n.d.). //Humorous books for teens//. Retrieved April 23, 2005 from http://www.dover.lib.nh.us/teenpage/humorousbooks.htm.
 * 11) Eisenberg, M. (2003). Readingadvocacy: creating contagious enthusiasm for books and reading K-12. In C. Andronik (Ed.), //School Library Management//(5th ed.) (pp. 20-23).Worthington,Ohio: Linworth Publishing.
 * 12) Ellen, J.M. (2002, August). Wild about reading. //School Library Journal//, 48 (8), 54. RetrievedApril 3, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database (7095687).
 * 13) Follett Library Resources. (2005). //TITLEWAVE//. Retrieved information various dates, from http://www.titlewave.com.
 * 14) Glen Ellyn Public Library. (2005, April). //Young adult booklist: fantasy//. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://www.gepl.org/youngadult/bibfan.html.
 * 15) GLSEN (The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network). (2004). //booklink: grades 7-12//. RetrievedMay 1, 2005, from http://www.glsen.org/cgi.bin/iowa/
 * 16) all/booklink/7-12.html.
 * 17) Hartwell, D.G. (2002, Winter). Readers’ advising for the young SF, fantasy, and horror reader. //Reference & User Quarterly//, 42 (2), 133-138. Retrieved April 3, 2005, from WilsonSelectPlus database (BLIB3100943).
 * 18) Jones, P. (1992). //Connecting young adults and libraries: a how-to-do-it manual//.New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
 * 19) Jones, P., Taylor, P., & Edwards, K. (2003). //A core collection for young adults//.New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
 * 20) Jones, P. (2003). Sample Readers Advisory Program. In //Serving the Underserved @ Your Library (Topics and Techniques)//. Retrieved April 13, 2005, from http://www.ala.org/ala/yalsa/yalsamemonly/yalsamounder/yalsamotopics/readersprogram.pdf.
 * 21) Keane, N. (n.d.). //If you liked A Child Called It//. RetrievedApril 14, 2005, from http://nancykeane.com/rl/589.htm.
 * 22) Krashen, S. (2001, October). More smoke and mirrors: a critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. //Phi Delta Kappan//, 83 (2), 119-123. Retrieved April 3, 2005, from WilsonSelectPlus database (BEDI01028158).
 * 23) Krashen, S. (2004). //The power of reading: insights from the research//(2nd ed.).Portsmouth,N.H.: Heinmann/Libraries Unlimited.
 * 24) Krashen, S. (2004, November). What reading decline? //School Library Journal//, 50 (11), 13. Retrieved April 3, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database (15024255).
 * 25) Lawrence High School Library. (2004). //Gay and lesbian literature information//. Retrieved December 7, 2004, from http://library.lhs.usd497.org/gay.htm.
 * 26) Levithan, D. (2004, October). Supporting gay teen literature. //School Library Journal//, 44-45.
 * 27) Morton, K., & Forer, M. (1999, February). The big easy. //School Library Journal//, 45 (2), 47. Retrieved April 3, 2005, from WilsonSelectPlus database (BEDI99004290).
 * 28) National Endowment for the Arts. (2004, June). //Reading at risk: a survey of literary reading in America// . Research Division Report #46. [Electronic version]. Washington,D.C.: Author.
 * 29) National Reading Panel. (1999). Teaching children to read: findings and determinations of the National Reading Panel by topic areas. In //Report of the National Reading// //Panel//. Retrieved April 3, 2005, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/ publications/nrp/findings.htm.
 * 30) National Reading Panel. (2004, May 6). Teaching children to read: introduction. In //Report of the National Reading Panel//. Retrieved April 10, 2005, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/intro.html.
 * 31) Nilsen, A.P., & Donelson, K.L. (2001). //Literature for today’s young adults//(6th ed.).New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
 * 32) Perkins, M. (n.d.). //Bookshelf: my recommended reads//. Retrieved April 30, 2005, from http://www.mitaliperkins.com/bookshelf.htm.
 * 33) Rabban, E. (1980, December). Reaching the able but unwilling reader. //School Library Journal//, 27 (4), 37. RetrievedApril 3, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database (5833911).
 * 34) Ross, C.S. (2001, February 1). Readers’ advisory: matching mood and material. //Library Journal//, 126 (2), 52-55. Retrieved April 3, 2005 from WilsonSelectPlus database (BLIB01001152).
 * 35) Sagebrush Pinpoint. (n.d.). //Brockton High School//. Retrieved various dates, from http://216.20.94.1.
 * 36) Scholastic Research and Results. (2004). //School libraries work!//Retrieved April 13, 2005, from http://www.scholastic.com/librarians/printables/slp_rfp_804.pdf.
 * 37) Vaillancourt, R.J. (2000). //Bare bones young adult services: tips for public library generalists//.Chicago: American Library Association.
 * 38) Watson, D. (2000, Winter). Time to turn the page: library education for readers’ advisory services. //Reference & User Services Quarterly//, 40 (2), 143-146. Retrieved April 3, 2005, from WilsonSelectPlus database (BLIB01000499).
 * 39) Wheaton Public Library. (n.d.). //YA titles—fantasy//. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://www.wheaton.lib.il.us/library/rlyfantasy.html.
 * 40) Whelan, D.L. (2004, September). Librarians respond to decline in reading. //School Library Journal//, 50 (9), 17. RetrievedApril 3, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database (14407866).
 * 41) Woolls, B. (1999). //The school library manager// (2nd ed.).Westport,CT.: Libraries Unlimited.