26 minute read
Choice, with Conditions: Popular Culture Texts and Independent Reading
by Melinda S. Butler
Advertisement
Melinda S. Butler, EdD, is an assistant professor of literacy in the Department of Literacy, Language, and Culture at the University of Southern Maine and the Director of the USM Summer Reading and Writing Workshop. Her research interests include popular culture texts, student access to texts, and independent reading.
In an elementary classroom, students sit in comfortable chairs or recline on pillows on the floor. The room is silent, except for an occasional chuckle from a student reader, the hushed voices of a teacher and student engaged in a reading conference, and the rustle of a page turn. Over by the fish tank, Deepak is reading Rodrick Rules: Diary of a Wimpy Kid (Kinney, 2008). In the beanbag chair, Ayesha is devouring Guts (Telgemeier, 2019), the latest graphic novel by Raina Telgemeier. Ayesha is a passionate Raina Telgemeier fan and cherishes her dog-eared copies of Smile, Drama, and Sisters (Telgemeier, 2010, 2012, 2014). Over there, under the teacher’s desk, Avery is poring over a Spiderman comic book. Every student is immersed in a book. Indeed, they are in the reading zone (Atwell & Merkel, 2016). Deepak, Ayesha, and Avery are reading texts they selected based on their interests. Regardless of text level. Regardless of genre. Mr. Noyes, their teacher, has created a safe environment for free voluntary reading (Krashen, 2011): free choice, an abundance of time, and a plethora of texts in his classroom library from which to choose. Importantly, Mr. Noyes’s classroom library contains popular culture texts: texts based on television, movies, sports, and videogames. Is there anything wrong with this vignette? It depends upon whom you ask. Although many elementary students are provided choice in selecting texts for independent reading, the “choice” is often conditional (Butler, 2018). For instance, in some classrooms, students choose texts from leveled book bins. That is, teachers assess students at the beginning of the school year, determine students’ reading levels, and require students to select independent reading texts at or around their reading level. Although this is a prevalent practice, Fountas and Pinnell (2018) advised teachers to use reading levels primarily for guided reading instruction. Simply put, Fountas and Pinnell (2018) advised teachers not to restrict students from selecting texts for independent reading based on a predetermined reading level
(Parrott, 2017). As Fountas and Pinnell (2018) noted, “All children deserve access to an authentic, rich, and diverse text base, including a robust classroom library, where levels have no place” (para. 6). In other classrooms, teachers may prefer that students select their independent reading from a collection of chapter books, thus preventing students from reading picture books or graphic novels (Butler, 2018; Miller, 1998). Miller (1998) stated, “The picture books and short, illustrated books so prevalent in primary grades classrooms have generally not been found in intermediate grades and middle school classrooms” (p. 376). And importantly, in many of these classrooms, popular culture texts may be excluded from classroom libraries when teachers do not value
such texts (Butler, 2018). What are popular culture texts? Alvermann and Hong Xu (2003) posited, “Trying to define popular culture is like nailing gelatin to a wall” (p. 146). Some researchers have defined popular culture as what is currently popular: music, dance, television, movies, comic books, graphic novels, and the Internet (Maderazo & Martens, 2008; Storey, 2001). In Mr. Noyes’ classroom, popular culture texts are the texts that students crave: the
Dog Man series, the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series, Star Wars texts, Disney stories based on movies, superhero texts, and World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) wrestling biographies. While serving teachers and students on a Title I, suburban elementary campus as an instructional reading coach, I became curious about the text choice practices of teachers, especially during daily independent reading. Many teachers placed limitations on what students could read. For
example, a fourth-grade teacher insisted that students only read chapter books in her classroom library, although the classroom library contained many picture books. In another classroom, a fifthgrade teacher complained about the graphic novels in the library and requested permission to lock them up. In a like manner, a fourth-grade teacher explained that she permitted popular culture texts in the fall semester, but prohibited students from reading popular culture texts during the spring semester. Granted, many teachers provide daily time and choice for independent reading. However, the choice is often based on teacher preferences.
Purpose of This Article
The purpose of my study was to explore teachers’ perceptions and censorship concerning student choice of popular culture texts during independent reading. Exploring ways that teachers unintentionally prevent students from reading the texts they want to read may impede their path to becoming a lifelong reader. In this article, I share the findings and implications from a qualitative study of two grade three teachers’ perceptions of popular culture texts.
Student Choice
Much has been written on the necessity and importance of student choice in literacy (Allington,
1994, 2013; Allington & Gabriel, 2012; Worthy et al., 1999). Importantly, Gutiérrez (2011) noted, “The bottom line is, if we don’t let kids read what they want, they will do other things they want to doand reading will get left behind” (p. 228). Employing grounded theory to ascertain how children make book choices during independent reading, and the manner in which teachers teach students to choose books, Ryan (2013) determined that teachers used three types of teaching when instructing students about book choice: a) concrete (e.g., explicit teaching about choosing books; b) discreet (e.g., gradual release; and c) retreat teaching (e.g., scaffolds are removed, and students make their own choices). Additionally, Ryan (2013) speculated that students need to have vast choices of books and should possess at least two locations from which to choose (e.g., classroom library and school library). Importantly, when students are permitted the freedom to select texts for independent reading, they become more engaged, critical readers (Ryan, 2013). In a 1999 study, Worthy et al. suggested that students from low socioeconomic status (SES) environments, who could not afford to buy books, borrowed books from their friends or checked them out from public libraries. Disturbingly, books that low-SES students wanted to read were usually not available (Worthy et al., 1999). In 2008, Williams conducted grounded theory research on book choices of Black elementary students from low-SES environments. As a part of a longitudinal summer book study, Williams (2008) researched book choices students made as they chose 15 books from a book fair. Employing a purposeful sample of 15 students from ten schools, Williams (2008) interviewed the students, instructing some students to hold a microphone and record what they were thinking as they chose their books. Williams (2008) found that Black students chose popular culture books, books about animals, and series books. Black males tended to choose the Captain Underpants series, drawing books, sports books, and nature books; Black females preferred popular singer biographies (e.g., Lil Romeo and Destiny’s Child).
Popular Culture Texts and Censorship
A plethora of research exists to support the idea that popular culture texts have a place in school and classroom libraries (Block, 2013, Worthy, 1996; Worthy et al., 1999). Block (2013) surveyed elementary and middle school teachers to determine perceptions of the use of graphic novels in the classroom. Interestingly, while the majority of the teachers surveyed reported that they included graphic novels in their classroom libraries and permitted students to read graphic novels during independent reading, most teachers revealed that they did not integrate graphic novels into curricula. Similarly, Kittle (2013) argued that school and classroom libraries should contain texts
that students want to read: graphic novels, comic books, magazines, eBooks, and newspapers. Many students read these texts outside of school, and researchers suggest that popular culture texts should be widely available inside schools
(Allington, 2013; Wilhelm & Smith, 2014). Researchers and teachers who intentionally and thoughtfully plan for instruction, consider students’ background knowledge of popular culture, including popular culture texts, observe that students’ literacy skills are strengthened (Alvermann & Hong Xu, 2003; Dyson, 2001, 2003). For example, Morrell (2002) developed lessons incorporating popular culture (e.g., hip-hop music, movies) for a high school class. Students compared and contrasted popular culture texts to classical texts and engaged in critical discussions. Based on his experiences, Morrell (2002) explained that there is a need for students to critically analyze and evaluate popular culture texts in order to understand society, traditional literature, and themselves more deeply. Similarly, Hunt and Hunt (2004) suggested that by connecting popular culture to required classical texts, students will be more engaged, and will see the connections to and the importance of reading the classics. Employing a South Park episode to help students understand satire in a classic text, the researchers asserted that student engagement increased by incorporating student interest and popular culture texts into the classroom curriculum.
Popular culture texts have been under the censorship microscope for many years. In her history of youth librarians, Jenkins (1995) pointed out the inconsistencies in early youth librarians’ perceptions of what was considered well-written and what was considered garbage: poorly written, written for the masses, and liable to shape a child’s brain to be less than he or she could be. Early in the last century, Hunt (1929) warned parents that popular culture texts would stifle children’s imaginations. In fact, Hunt (1929) admonished: . . . we find in many prosperous American nurseries little ones who are never read to or
whose only reading is the inane bedtime story of the daily newspaper. The comic supplement is the picture book of these children, and, as they grow older, they are presented with sets of the cheap series stuff . . . (p. 65). More recent popular culture censorship examples abound. From 2001-2003, Harry Potter texts were on the American Library Association’s (ALA) Top Ten Banned Books list (ALA, 2016). Additionally, Dav Pilkey’s (1997-2014) Captain Underpants series climbed to the top of the 2012 and 2013’s ALA’s list of banned books; Pilkey’s books have been challenged for “offensive language, unsuitable for age group, violence” (ALA, 2016). In fact, the author of Captain Underpants stated, “There are some adults out there who are not amused by the things that make most children laugh, and so they try to stomp these things out” (Pilkey, 2014, para. 2).
Selection vs. Censorship and Silent Censorship
Selection of texts for public, school, or classroom libraries should be based on teachers’
and librarians’ knowledge of books, subject matter, and potential for teaching (NCTE, 2018). Text selection emanates from an optimistic stance, and
censorship springs from a pessimistic stance (Asheim, 1953; Kidd, 2009). Indeed, Asheim (1953) alleged that a text selector typically views the texts as a whole, and a text censor parses the text to find objectionable words or sections. Importantly, Asheim (1953) declared, “Selection, then, begins with a presumption in favor of liberty of thought; censorship, with a presumption in favor of thought control” (p. 67). Disturbingly, some texts are never made available to students
because teachers decide not to use controversial or
other questionable texts in the classroom. Person (1998) referred to this form of censorship as “silent censorship” (p. 119) and affirmed, It is easier to deal with censorship that is out loud and in the open; it is often more difficult to deal with censorship from those charged with protecting young readers from its influence and effects and who deny its existence (p. 121).
Method
Curious about teacher preferences for and censorship of particular texts, I was determined to study teachers’ perceptions of popular culture texts. The research questions guiding this study were: 1) How do teachers perceive the use of popular culture texts during independent reading?; and 2) How do teachers make decisions about student choices of popular culture texts during independent reading? The study was conducted at Robert B. Dow, Sr. Elementary School (pseudonym), which was located near a major Texas city and served students from prekindergarten to the fifth grade. At the time of the study, 74 percent of the students were economically disadvantaged, 59 percent of the students were Hispanic, 22 percent of the students were Black, and 12 percent of the students were White. The method of sampling design most conducive to the research was purposive sampling, wherein participants’ qualifications are determined, and the researcher asks individuals with preferred qualifications to participate in the study (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Specifically, typical case sampling was employed (Patton, 2002); I created a questionnaire to search for participants who taught third, fourth, or fifth grade in high-poverty schools and implemented daily independent reading in their classrooms. Two grade three teachers, Deborah and Joanna (pseudonyms), agreed to participate in the study. Deborah and Joanna were White teachers in their thirties with over ten years of experience teaching reading to elementary students. Both teachers had recently obtained a graduate degree, Deborah in Instructional Technology and Joanna in Administration. Because the administration at Robert B. Dow, Sr. Elementary did not provide classroom libraries for teachers, Deborah and Joanna provided their own classroom libraries, purchasing books to add to their personal classroom library collections. The study was a qualitative, multiple-case study. The data collection plan consisted of preand post- semi-structured teacher interviews, teacher observation protocols, pictures of the
classroom libraries, and reflexive journaling. In addition, I followed Leech and Onwuegbuzie’s (2010) 13-step methodological framework for qualitative research. To establish triangulation, I employed three separate methods of analysis: a) thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; b) Keywords-in-context (Bernard & Ryan, 2010); and c) visual analysis techniques used in visual ethnography (Pink, 2007). During the first cycle of coding, I employed In Vivo and process coding (Saldaña, 2012), extracting important words and phrases directly from the transcripts and scrutinizing those words and phrases, searching for themes. Once the In Vivo process was complete, I employed process coding, inferring the gerunds or actions present in captured words and phrases. As I inferred themes, I created reflexive, analytic memos, and I constructed a codebook of pertinent themes. Subsequently, during the second cycle of thematic analysis, I continued to narrow themes and categories (See Tables 1 and 2). After completing thematic analysis, I employed Keywords-in-context (Bernard & Ryan, 2010) and created a simple concordance, which involves counting every word and the frequency of every word in a document. Upon completion, I examined the simple concordance for salient words, and scrutinized the sentences and fragments that contained the important words. (See Tables 3 and 4). Concurrently, I continued to
Table 1 Code Map for Deborah
In Vivo
Lower kids
My high kids
Encouraged to read
Comic book type things
Do reader response
Building up skills
Lower level kids
Flipping pages
Table 2 Code Map for Joanna
In Vivo
Looks different for certain kids Give them the option They play a lot They go more for graphic novels At least this way they’re reading something To encourage them Boys getting graphic novels Process Reading Providing choices Discussing Allowing or limiting Liking, loving, enjoying Teaching, Planning Assessing, assigning Preparing Striving, endeavoring
Process
Explaining Providing Choices Differentiating Observing Reflecting
write analytic memos. Additionally, I employed visual analysis methods from visual ethnography (Pink, 2007) to analyze the photographs taken during every classroom visit. In so doing, I examined the pictures, reflecting upon the context (e.g., the classroom during independent and guided reading) in which the pictures were taken. In other words, as I studied the photographs, I connected them to pertinent quotes from the interviews and important notes from the teacher observation protocols. Lastly, I employed member checking by asking Deborah and Joanna to read their transcripts and inferred themes to ascertain if their responses were transcribed correctly.
Deborah’s Classroom
I visited Deborah’s class eight times over a nine-week period (Deborah was ill during one of my visits). I wrote field notes using a Teacher Observation Protocol. Visits were scheduled to
coincide with the daily independent reading time in the classroom. Of the eight visits to Deborah’s classroom, she facilitated independent reading five times. During the other classroom visits, Deborah administered standardized test-taking practice, read books out loud, and assigned a writing project for an impending campus Open House. On the last visit, Deborah conferred with students individually, first communicating their reading level to them, and then directing students to select
Table 3. Words Selected From the Concordance for Deborah First Interview Post Interview Quotes – Teacher Protocol
Words Quantity Words Quantity Words Quantity
Reading 17 Reading 16 Reading 13
Kids 20 Book 13 Book 18
Library 16
Table 4 Words Selected From the Concordance for Joanna First Interview Post Interview Word Read Quantity Word 21 Read Quotes – Teacher Protocol Quantity Word 13 Read Quantity 6
Reading 34 Book 28 Reading 33 Book 12 Reading 4 Book 3
Books 39 Books Group 17 18 Group Stop 4 8
a chapter book from her classroom library based on that reading level. While visiting Deborah’s classroom, I photographed her classroom library, which consisted of two sets of bookshelves; one bookshelf containing fiction was located along one classroom wall, and Deborah’s other bookshelf containing nonfiction texts was located on the opposite wall. The book titles in the photographs of the texts did not change drastically from week to week, and the book displays on the top of the bookcases were not replaced during the nine weeks of visits.
Joanna’s Classroom
I visited Joanna’s classroom for 20 minutes per week for a total of eight times in a nine-week time frame. During those eight visits, Joanna met with small groups for guided reading and administered individual reading assessments. While meeting with small groups of students, Joanna sat at a large kidney-shaped reading table in the front of her classroom where she could observe the
remainder of the students working in centers (e.g., independent reading, computer assisted reading instruction, and vocabulary and grammar stations). While meeting in small groups, Joanna constantly scanned the classroom, frequently redirecting offtask student behavior.
During each teacher observation visit to Joanna’s room, I took photographs of her classroom library. Although the library did not change demonstrably from week to week, the photographs demonstrated the inclusion of popular culture texts. For instance, in her “Redbox Books” section, several book bins were filled with graphic novels, books based on videogames, and books based on popular television and movies.
Overview and Findings
The benefits of integrating popular culture texts into the classroom are numerous, yet many teachers may not see the advantages of integration. In studies, researchers have interviewed teachers about the use of popular culture texts in the classroom, and many teachers asserted that they did not see the value of integrating popular culture texts, they did not possess a knowledge of popular culture materials, or they were concerned what their colleagues would think (Gerber & Price, 2013; Lambirth, 2003; Marsh, 2006). Additionally, when employing a balanced literacy framework, independent reading is a vital component of that framework (Allington, 2000; Kittle, 2013; Miller, 2009). As I analyzed the interview transcripts, teacher observation protocols, classroom library photographs, and analytic memos, the theme of choice with conditions was prominent.
Deborah’s Conditional Choice
During the pre-interview, I asked Deborah about choice of texts, and she indicated that students were allowed to choose books from her
library, provided that they selected books at their independent reading level. When queried about the texts students were interested in checking out from the school library, Deborah elicited, “A lot of the
boys like to get the comic book type things, and you know some of the kids, girls love the Junie B. Jones books …” Deborah emphasized her frustration in that many of the male students were reading comic books, and stated, “… that does not keep their attention for long, but it’s also not geared towards comprehension.” Further, Deborah specified that because she did not consider comic books appropriate independent reading material, the students were required to select chapter books. The students’ second book choice might be a comic book, but the chapter book took priority during independent reading time. At the conclusion of my visits to Deborah’s classroom, I interviewed her a second time. When asked if she still allowed students to check out one
chapter book and one comic book, Deborah indicated that checking out comic books from her classroom library was a problem, because her library did not contain enough comic books and graphic novels to support students’ choice and interest.
Joanna’s Conditional Choice
During Joanna’s pre-interview, she explained that students were permitted to check out books from her classroom library or school library to read for independent reading, but stressed that she wanted students to read books that were on their
reading level, so students did not struggle with difficult text or select texts that were too easy to read. Additionally, students were required to provide Joanna with a written reading response for the text before checking out a new text. Joanna added that students read independently in centers while she implemented guided reading. That is, while Joanna worked with small reading groups, other students were scheduled at an independent reading center, computers, grammar centers, and book clubs. When asked about the books that
students were selecting for independent reading, Joanna replied that the male students liked to read Diary of a Wimpy Kid graphic novels, Minecraft, and nonfiction picture books depicting popular sports figures. In addition, Joanna mentioned that earlier in the school year, she found the male students in her classroom very difficult to motivate to read, explaining that they often played and were off-task. Consequently, Joanna added additional texts based on videogames, graphic novels, and sports books to her classroom library. As a result, Joanna reported that the male students were more motivated to read. However, because of many students’ off-task reading behaviors during independent reading at the beginning of the school year, Joanna explained that she had eliminated whole-class independent reading time and replaced it with an independent reading center during guided reading time. Therefore, only three to four students read in the independent reading center each day. During independent center reading time, Joanna indicated that students read self-selected texts and wrote reading responses. Once students completed a reading response, they were permitted to check out one new book from the classroom
library. Interestingly, Joanna mentioned that
although students were permitted to self-select any text at their reading level, her goal was to entice students to select alternate genres by delivering brief book talks (e.g., book commercials) and by displaying alternate genres prominently in the classroom. When describing the type of texts Joanna provided in her classroom library, she mentioned series books such as The Magic Tree House, Junie B. Jones, and Geronimo Stilton, which she placed in red book bins with a sign lettered “Redbox Books” (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: Joanna’s Classroom Library
Choice . . . With Conditions
Although both Deborah and Joanna promoted choice during independent reading, the choice was limited by conditions and rules. For example, in Deborah’s classroom, students were permitted to read popular culture texts only at the end of the independent reading period. During her interviews, Deborah explained that comic books did not “aid comprehension.” Deborah explained that students did not read comic books; they looked at the pictures and they flipped pages without reading the words. Therefore, Deborah may have engaged in silent censorship by limiting the popular culture texts in her own classroom library, and severely limiting the time that students were permitted to read popular culture texts during independent reading. Contrastingly, although Joanna permitted free choice of any popular culture text in her classroom library and her popular culture text inventory was extensive, time to read was severely limited, as only three to four students per day were permitted to read in an independent reading center. Additionally, reading of popular culture texts was limited because Joanna required students to craft a reading response after reading each text, and students were not permitted to check out a new text until the reading response was completed. Ultimately, student choice of popular culture texts during independent reading depended on the perceptions of the teacher. Both participants provided choice with conditions. In the case of Deborah, popular culture texts were employed as a reward for application of reading strategies while reading chapter books. For Joanna, popular culture texts were perceived as a necessary evil, to provide engaging materials for male students during independent reading. As Joanna stated in her interview, “At least they’re reading something.”
Implications for Educators
Although few researchers have investigated educator perceptions of popular culture (Block, 2013; Gerber & Price, 2013; Lambirth, 2003; Marsh, 2006), the benefits of integrating popular culture into the classroom include student
engagement, critical literacy, and bridging students’ literacies across home and school (Gerber, 2008; Morrell, 2002; Worthy et al., 1999). Teacher education programs and curriculum coordinators in both public and private schools might offer college courses and professional development wherein students gain a knowledge of popular culture and study the advantages of integrating popular culture into school curricula (Marsh, 2006). A more viable option for educators might be to locate the abundant popular culture education and resources available in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and Open Educational Resources (OER). In addition, popular culture resources, such as practitioner journals, and topical online learning can be accessed through professional educator associations such as the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Conclusion
Many factors play into teacher decisionmaking of the use of popular culture texts in the classroom. Undoubtedly, teachers consider their own personal biases, likes, and dislikes about popular culture texts for decision making of inclusion or exclusion of these texts in their
classroom libraries, independent reading, and curricula. However, the decisions that teachers make about what texts are included in the
classroom may have long lasting effects. In 2000, Von Sprecken, Kim, & Krashen, discussed the term “home run” book, a text that may transform a nonreader into a reader (Von Sprecken, Kim, & Krashen, 2000). When teachers provide conditional text choice, some students may never find their “home run” book.
References
Allington, R. L. (1994). The schools we have. The schools we need. Reading Teacher, 48, 1414. Allington, R. L. (2013, April 19-22). What the
Research Says About Teaching So That All
Children Are Reading on Grade Level [Conference session]. The International Reading Association National Conference, San Antonio, TX. Allington, R. L. (2000). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. Allyn & Bacon Publishing. Allington, R. L., & Gabriel, R. E. (2012). Every child, every day. Educational Leadership, 69(6), 10-15. Alvermann, D. E., & Hong Xu, S. (2003). Children’s everyday literacies: Intersections of popular culture and language arts instruction. Language Arts, 81(2), 145-154. American Library Association (2016). Top ten most frequently challenged book lists. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequ frequentlychallenged/top10#2001 Asheim, L. (1953). Not censorship, but selection
Wilson Library Bulletin, 28(1), 63-67. Atwell, N., & Merkel, A. A. (2016). The reading zone: How to help kids become passionate, skilled, habitual, critical readers. Scholastic. Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010).
Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Sage Publications.
Block, K. (2013). Teacher perceptions of graphic novels. [Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Northern Iowa)Retrieved from: https: //scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1030&context=grpB Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Butler, M. S. (2018). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of popular culture texts (Publication No. 10903545) [Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University]. ProQuest Dissertations. Dyson, A. H. (2001). Donkey Kong in Little Bear country: A first grader’s composing development in the media spotlight. The
Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 417-433. https://doi:10.1086/499679 Dyson, A. H. (2003). Popular literacies and the “all” children: Rethinking literacy development for contemporary childhoods. Language
Arts, 81(2), 100-109. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (Education Week) (2018, September 6). Levels are teachers’ tool, not a child’s label [Webinar]. https://www.fountas andpinnell.com/resourcelibrary/resource?id =428 Gerber, H. (2008). New literacy studies: Intersections and disjunctures between in-school and out-ofschool literacies with adolescent males (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama). Gerber, H., & Price, D. P. (2013). Fighting baddies and collecting bananas; Teachers’ perceptions of game-based literacy learning. Education Media International, 50(1), 51-62. Gutiérrez, P. (2011). Focus on policy: The right to be a fan. Language Arts, 88(3), 226-231. Hunt, C. W. (1929). Some recent books for the younger children. The Elementary English Review 6(3), 65-68. Hunt, T. J., & Hunt, B. (2004). New voices: Popular culture: Building connections with our students. The English Journal, 93, 80-83. https://doi:10.2307/4128814 Jenkins, C. A. (1997). The Strength of the inconspicuous: Youth services librarians, the American Library Association, and intellectual freedom for the young, 1939-1955. (Doctoral dissertation, University of WisconsinMadison. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019).
Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE Publications, Incorporated. Kidd, K. (2009). “Not Censorship but Selection”: Censorship and/as Prizing. Children’s
Literature in Education 40(3), 197-216. Kinney, J. (2008). Rodrick rules: Diary of a wimpy kid. Amulet Books. Kittle, P. (2013). Book love: Developing depth, stamina, and passion in adolescent readers. Heinemann Publishing. Krashen, S. (2011). Free voluntary reading. Libraries Unlimited. Lambirth, A. (2003). “They get enough of that at home”: Understanding aversion to popular culture in schools. Reading: Literacy and learning 37(1), 9-14. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010).
Qualitative data analysis: A Step-by-Step approach. Unpublished book. Maderazo, C., & Martens, P. (2008). What young children teach us about literacy learning. In S. B. Kucer, (Ed.), What research really says about teaching and learning to read (99-157). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Marsh, J. (2006). Tightropes, tactics, and taboos: Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices in relation to popular culture and literacy. In J. Marsh & E. Millard (Eds.) Popular literacies, childhood, and schooling, 179-199. Routledge Publishing.
Miller, D. (2009). The book whisperer: Awakening the inner reader in every child. Jossey-Bass Publishing. Miller, T. (1998). The place of picture books in middle-level classrooms. Journal of Adult &
Adolescent Literacy, 41(5), 376-381. Morrell, E. (2002). Toward a critical pedagogy of popular culture: Literacy development among urban youth. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 46(1), 72-77. National Council of Teachers of English (2018). The student’s right to read. https://ncte.org/ /statement/righttoreadguideline/ Parrott, K. (2017). Fountas and Pinnell lament labels: SLJ talks to the creators of a reading system, widely used and controversial.
School Library Journal, 63(11), 15. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Person, D. (1998). Censorship: Confronting the sound of silence. Journal of Children’s Literature, 24(1), 118-121. Pilkey, D. (2014, September 24). My book makes kids laugh, and it was banned anyway.
HuffPost.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/c aptain-underpants-banned-book_ b_583980 Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media, and representation in research. SAGE Publications. Ryan, D. M. (2013). Teaching communication and book choice processes. (Publication No. 35656 90) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison].Pro Quest Dissertations. Saldaña, J. (2012. The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Storey, J. (2001). Cultural theory and popular culture
An introduction (3rd ed.). Pearson Education Limited. Telgemeier, R. (2012). Drama. GRAPHIX. Telgemeier, R. (2019). Guts. GRAPHIX. Telgemeier, R. (2014). Sisters. GRAPHIX. Telgemeier, R. (2010). Smile. GRAPHIX Von Sprecken, D. V., Kim, J., & Krashen, S. (2000). The home run book: Can one positive reading experience create a reader? California
State Library Journal, 23(2), 8-9. Wilhelm, J. D., & Smith, M. W. (2014). Reading unbound: Why kids need to read what they want-and why we should let them. Scholastic. Williams, L. (2008). Book Selections of economically disadvantaged Black elementary students. Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 51-63.https://doi:10.3200/JOER.102.1.51-64 Worthy, J. (1996). Removing barriers to voluntary reading for reluctant readers: The role of classroom and school libraries.
Language Arts, 73(7), 483-492. Worthy, J., Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to read is hard to find in school. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), 12-27. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.34.1.2
References continued from Page 42. Enhancing Student Engagement Through the Use of Representative Texts and Grade-Level Literacy Partners
Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written communication, 25(3), 389-411. Smith, R. L. (2018). Black Panther: The young prince. New York, NY: Marvel Press. Toppel, K. (2015). Enhancing core reading programs with culturally responsive practices. The Reading Teacher, 68(7), 552-559.
