Researching the Process

Palmer, Rosemary G., and Roger A. Stewart. “Nonfiction trade book use in primary grades.” The Reading Teacher 57.1 (Sept 2003): 38(11). Academic OneFile. Gale. Eastern Michigan University. 7 Oct. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.emich.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE>.

Summary

The researchers, Palmer and Stewart, had completed a study of middle-grade classes (I’m assuming grades 5–8) and their use of nonfiction in the classroom in 1998. They wanted to look further at this topic, so they studied primary-grade classes and their use of nonfiction in the classroom in an elementary school in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, though they do quote from a study set in the United Kingdom a few years previous.

Their goals were to look at if nonfiction was being used, if it was being used effectively, and how students respond to nonfiction—do they like it; do they seek it out during their weekly 30-minute library time and during the daily Drop Everything And Read (DEAR) time, which lasted 20 minutes; and how do they use the nonfiction?

Palmer and Stewart first explained how they studied nonfiction use at this elementary school (Walnut Elementary), and by outlining their methodology, I began to see how careful and thorough they were in their study. This is important when they begin to make declarations in their conclusion. They observed the students’ library time, their DEAR time, interviewed the teachers and school librarian, interviewed a set of students and used these students in a brief focus group, and analyzed library checkout patterns.

Their conclusions include the following:

–The nonfiction materials that were provided for the students were normally at inappropriate reading levels. Many students looked at the pictures and didn’t read the text because the terms were too large and/or complicated. Many teachers were unaware of the abundance of age-appropriate, quality nonfiction available to them. Also, many of the teachers did not have enough funding to purchase new books for their classrooms.

–The use of the nonfiction was teacher centered, as the teacher was the “information broker” (42). Because the materials were at inappropriate reading levels, the students could not read them on their own, so the teacher had to read the books aloud and then interpret the readings. They helped students who tried to read the texts on their own, and they continually acted as interpreters. The students did very little independent learning.

–Not only were the provided nonfiction materials written for higher reading levels, heavy concept loads were dumped on the students by either the curricula standards or the teachers, as well. Third-grade students were covering the solar system when the U.S. National Science Standards state this topic is appropriate for grades 5–8. Again, because of these complexities, the learning practices became teacher centered.

Their final conclusions and reflections contain a vision of classrooms filled with books that are reading appropriate and students reading and comprehending on their own. They also see families reading nonfiction together and not just enjoying fiction.

They also state that “[d]uring DEAR time, teachers wanted children to read and not just look at pictures, so they encouraged fiction reading” (45). Basically, teachers and librarians are put between a rock and a hard place, and “they did the best they could with their limited resources and knowledge of what was available” (45).

The researchers also outline three factors that need to be taken into consideration by teachers and administrators when making nonfiction available to students and as requirements in the classroom:

1. “[A]vailability and accessibility are key variables”(46) when choosing nonfiction to provide in the classroom. Make it reading-appropriate and provide more topics that students of that age might be interested in.

2. “[T]eachers need knowledge about informational books, including how to find and use them effectively” (46) The researchers had discovered that the only teachers they interviewed that knew about the nonfiction books available to their students and how to effectively use them in the classroom were teachers who had attended a nonfiction workshop put on by a publisher and those who had graduated within the last 5 years or continue their education.

3. “[T]eacher training is an important factor” (46) because the teachers they observed didn’t attempt to seek out more reading-appropriate nonfiction. They would just read it aloud to the student or help them. Or, worse, they would just let the students look at the pictures without reading any of the text.

Finally, Palmer and Stewart outline several research topics that should be pursued to flesh out this and other studies that have been completed along this line. They include looking at Accelerated Reader programs, why primary-grade teachers love or hate nonfiction, and “the effect of nonfiction on young children’s literacy development” (47).

Pertaining to Project

This article (which I just happened upon while researching for information on children’s nonfiction publishing) is a veritable goldmine of information about nonfiction in the classroom, which is especially important to my project because I will be looking at how to create a “quality” series. This article basically outlined what a good series is: effective, clear, and reader-friendly. Its language also needs to be reading-appropriate while containing more in-depth information. It also seems important to teachers to have accompanying worksheets and supplemental information, which I know many publishers provide.

I highlighted a great deal in this article, and I am excited to start looking more at how teachers use (or, more appropriately, don’t use) nonfiction in the classroom. I think these points are valid in my attempt to seek out a definition for “quality” when it relates to children’s nonfiction—single titles or in series.