The purpose of my action research professional development plan was to determine the best method of facilitating library book checkout by second graders. As a new librarian, I initially overestimated my second graders’ ability to choose books that they could and would really read. I also struggled with behavioral problems during free checkout and reading time. As a result, I had severely restricted the second graders’ book choices to books that I had selected and placed on the tables, but I did not feel that this was ultimately in the best interest of the students.

Best practices, research, and standards for Library Information Specialists clearly support the idea that the library should be a safe space for students in the pursuit of knowledge and the development of a personal aesthetic. The American Association of School Libraries takes a strong stance on students’ right to freely access reading materials, regardless of reading level or age. On the other hand, forces within the field of education often push for librarians to limit students’ choices using readability scales such as Lexile bands. In order to determine the best method of facilitating my second graders’ choice and checkout process, I conducted a six-week experimental action research in which I employed three different methods involving varying levels of intervention. With the first method, students were given completely unrestricted access to any book in the library with no guidance from me whatsoever. The second method still allowed unrestricted access, but with strong guidance from me and suggested books made more easily accessible. The third method allowed access only to books in the suggested second grade Lexile bands, chosen by me and placed on tables so students would not go to the shelves at all. During all weeks, I made changes in the logistics of checkout to help manage behavior as well.

I employed three different methods to document my action research and collect data. I kept field notes in a research journal, making weekly entries. I conducted a pre and post survey to determine students’ general habits and feelings regarding library books before and after implementing the action plan. I also conducted three identical book-specific surveys, one for each different method I tried.

When I analyzed the data I collected, I found that students were already reading and enjoying their library books at high levels before the action research began. This meant that my experimental methods were likely to show smaller statistical impact, but that impact could still be seen as significant. I found that allowing students full access to the shelves but suggesting specific books and making them easily accessible resulted in the highest percentage of students reporting that they read all or most of their book, the highest percentage who said they really liked their book, and the fewest who said they didn’t read it and/or didn’t like it. In the future, I plan to incorporate this method of checkout as my standard practice.

Research Question

How can I encourage autonomy while guiding and improving the reading habits of my second graders?

Context and Rationale

Who I Am As a Professional In 1994, I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. Although Rhodes did not offer an education degree, I was able to take all of the education classes required to earn a secondary teaching license with an endorsement in English. I spent a total of fifteen years teaching English in grades 7-12 at various Memphis City Schools. Although I enjoyed my time in the classroom, I was ready for a change. In the spring of 2011, I applied for and received one of only 14 grants open to current teachers to pursue my Master of Science in Instruction and Curriculum Leadership with an endorsement in Library Information Science from the University of Memphis. I began classes in the fall of 2011, and one year later I was hired as Library Information Specialist at Knight Road Elementary. I completed my clinical practicum on the job during the fall semester.

I began my first teaching job when I was barely 22 years old. I started after Christmas break teaching honors English 11 at East High School. Looking back, I can only cringe at my mistakes. I was enthusiastic, and I relied on my social nature to build a strong rapport with the students. Unfortunately, I did not realize the need to assess my students’ skills and address problem areas, or to take an aggressive, systematic path toward building skills. At that time, Memphis City Schools had no set curriculum for each course. As a result, I believe my teaching was hit or miss. Learning took place, but not at the level that it could have if I had taken a more organized approach to instruction. At the end of the school year, my new husband and I moved to Panama City, Florida, to be near the beach and his family. A year and a half later, we returned to Memphis and I once again took a job at East High School starting halfway through the school year. I remained at East for six years and became involved in the middle school remodel that was happening during the late 1990s, as Memphis moved away from the junior high concept and adopted the middle school model. I was part of a networking group called Trail Blazers under Dr. Anne Nero, and I often filled in for my assistant principal while he was out. While I learned and experienced many things, this time period showed me that I did not ever want to be an administrator, and that I preferred the high school setting.

After six years, my assistant principal became principal of the newly-built Craigmont Middle School, and I followed him as a teacher there. I taught for a year, then gave birth to my third child after the first six weeks of the next school year. At that time, I left the school system for two years. When I came back, it was once again the middle of the school year and I took a special grant-funded position at Manassas High School teaching at-risk students in a special Gateway English class. At that time, Gateway was the required high school exit exam. I enjoyed this placement because both the school and my classes were unusually small. Although their former teachers had taken the opportunity to “get rid” of difficult students by recommending them for the Gateway class, I enjoyed my classes and found the small class sizes to be beneficial in working with struggling students. Unfortunately, the grant lasted only a semester and at the end of the year I was automatically surplussed.

After Manassas, I spent a year at Kingsbury High School teaching tenth grade English. This was my most challenging school year ever. The administration had lost control of the school and made little effort to get it back. Gang problems found their way into the classrooms daily. One day, I saw a large group of older boys lining the wall across from my locked classroom. I poked my head out and asked what they were doing there and was told they were released from lunch early. I closed the locked door and told my students not to go near it. One young man wearing a “forbidden” red sweatshirt walked straight to and through the door. The boys in the hallway pulled the sweatshirt over his face and proceeded to beat him. I later learned that my student was the younger brother of a gang leader, and that his beating was an act of retribution. Students brought box cutters and, at least once, loaded guns to school. Although I felt safe and in control inside my classroom, the overall environment was discouraging and unsafe. At the end of the year I received a transfer to Central High School.

I spent the next six years teaching English 11 and 12 at Central. With its historic location and tradition of academic excellence, Central was a dream school for me. I enjoyed knowing that I was one of the last teachers to touch my students’ lives before they made their way out into the world, whether their path would be college, trade school, or work. My principal at Central had high expectations of every teacher. He helped me really understand that if I cared about my students as individuals and truly wanted to help them, then the best thing I could do was hold them to a high standard. I saw that in the past, I had probably been too lenient about things like late and incomplete assignments because I didn’t want to be mean, or because I felt sorry for students who had tough circumstances at home. I still had empathy for my students, but I realized that being too lenient is just another harmful form of social bias, and that I could best help my students by challenging them and accepting no excuses. I believe that I did the best teaching of my career at Central, but as a person who thrives on change, I began to think about where I wanted to take my career next.

As a life-long avid reader, I had always been interested in the idea of becoming a librarian. Two years before I left Central, one of my coworkers received a grant to earn her Master’s and become a librarian. She told me that the application process would be open again the next spring, and I was ready when it came. After sending college transcripts, filling out the application, writing an essay, and interviewing with Dr. Lee Allen from the University of Memphis and Margaret Montgomery, head of Memphis City Schools library services, I was accepted into the program. My classes were all online, and I took two each term, including summer. After a year in the program, I was ready to put my new skills to work.

I was highly motivated to land a position as librarian for the 2012-2013 school year, in spite of difficult odds. Openings were limited, and my seniority number reflected only half of my actual years in the district because of my hiatus after my third child was born. Although I have always seen myself as a secondary educator, I knew that I would likely need to pay my dues in an elementary school. I knew that in spite of my recent training, working as an elementary librarian would be a baptism by fire, forcing me to think on my feet and learn the ropes quickly. Because elementary librarians teach a full load of classes in addition to our other duties, I came to work ready to be organized and efficient. I didn’t think much about the actual teaching part; I figured I had it covered. I would learn, however, that teaching in this setting is very different from teaching in the secondary classroom. I am currently the Library Information Specialist (LIS) at Knight Road Elementary. I teach all students in grades K-5, including two CDC classes.

The Context and Setting of My Work

Knight Road is an urban elementary school in a formerly prosperous neighborhood in Southeast Memphis known as Parkway Village. The school has been negatively impacted by suburban sprawl, as property values plummeted when many middle-class families left the area for new suburbs farther East. The neighborhood is troubled by violent crime and the name “Parkway Village” is frequently heard on the news as part of crime reports. 96% of our students receive free or reduced lunch, making us a Title I school. Interestingly, houses and apartments that were once abandoned have recently enjoyed a second life as home to many Spanish-speaking immigrants. As a result, about 1/3 of our student population speaks Spanish at home. Many kindergarteners come to us having never heard or spoken English at home. Further complicating matters, many of our parents are from Guatemala where dialects such as Cho’lan and Mam (pronounced like mom) are spoken. Some of these dialects do not exist in written form, which means these parents have never been literate and Spanish is actually their “survival” language. Of our 486 students, about 174 identify as Hispanic, six as Asian, two as white, and 304 as African-American. We have 25 homerooms in grades K-5, plus two CDC classes of mixed-age students with various mental and physical disabilities. We also have three full-time ESL teachers, a full-time translator, and a nurse, occupational therapist, and speech therapist who are shared with other schools.

Last year, Knight Road Elementary made its own unfortunate news when two teachers got into a physical altercation in front of students. Neither teacher is still employed at the school. My principal, Dr. Yvette Williams-Renfroe has had the challenging task during her six-year tenure of rooting out an old-guard element that was very hostile to progressive change. As this is my first year at the school, I have to believe my co-workers’ stories about some of the things that went on because the current staff seems vibrant and dedicated. I see a great deal of hard work and innovative teaching happening in the classrooms. Unfortunately, the majority of our students come to us unprepared for kindergarten and struggle to catch up to their peers from more privileged backgrounds. Nevertheless, our school’s TVAAS data last year reflected scores of 5 across the board. A 5 is the highest score and reflects student growth.

The first time I saw what would become my library, I blurted out “Where are all the books?” I saw empty shelves everywhere. The entire Dewey Decimal section, from .001 to 999, took up only two narrow sections of shelving. Once I was hired, I started soliciting donations of books wherever I could. I also petitioned for extra funding from the head of library services and received $10,000 for new non-fiction after my collection analysis showed that we were nowhere near being prepared to support Common Core standards for our students. The empty shelves began to fill up with books, and I took tremendous satisfaction in the students’ excitement at being able to check them out. Teachers told me they had never seen the previous librarian read to the students, nor had she allowed many of them to check out books. I received positive feedback from all sides, which motivated me to continue building and shaping the library program.

I see about 475 students every week. I teach one class from each grade level every day with the following exceptions: my Wednesday Kindergarten class was dissolved after the teacher was surplussed early in the school year; all of my planning time is concentrated on Thursday, when I see only one kindergarten and one first grade class; and Friday I do not see fifth grade because there are only three sections. Monday through Wednesday my schedule feels like a full sprint with virtually no breaks. Complicating this schedule is the fact that the classes do not come in a smooth ascending or descending order, so I have to break down and change setups several times over the course of the day.

As each class enters the library, I stand at the door with a large basket and collect the books they are returning. I set the basket aside and begin the lesson. Some days, we might sit on the carpet while I state the objective, then read a story and ask the students questions relating to the skill we are learning and the story we just read. Other days, I might direct students to chairs in front of the smart board where I will introduce a concept and show a video or slide show that relates, then lead a discussion. Alternatively, students may enter and go straight to the computers, where they might play a keyboarding game, search the Tennessee Electronic Library for a report in another class, learn to log in and use their Gaggle accounts, or complete a research-skills activity. Every class ends with book checkout. Students in grades K-2 check out one book each week. Students in grades 3-5 may checkout two books, but at least one must be from the Dewey section.

When the school year began, I was excited to get started with my classes. I knew the kindergarteners would need a lot of instruction and orientation about using the library and that first graders would need a big refresher, but I wrongly assumed that second-fifth grade would have a reasonable level of familiarity with the library. I did spend the first two weeks explaining the shelving system and showing students how to locate books, how to use shelf markers, and other basic library skills, but in retrospect, I needed to do more. By the third week of school, I would spend the first half of each class reading and discussing a book, and the second half on free checkout and reading time. I noticed that the second graders especially had a hard time locating books independently, so I tried to address the situation with each child as he or she asked for help. Later I learned that none of the students in kindergarten through second grades had ever been allowed to check out a book.

How My Research Question Relates to My Work Context

Having always taught grades 7-12, I was unprepared for some aspects of teaching in an elementary setting. More than any other age group, the second graders have caused me to rethink and adjust my expectations and procedures over the course of the school year. Early on, I was surprised and pleased that many of my second graders were enthusiastically choosing chapter books each week. Gradually, however, I realized that these books were often above the students’ reading level, and that the books were being chosen as objects for the “coolness” factor and not being read. This realization has caused me to rethink the amount of freedom I give this group.

We have four sections of second graders at my school. Two of the classes are troubled by extreme behavioral problems. In one, the teacher is a first-year teacher with a class of seventeen boys and four girls. Four of the boys have been diagnosed with ADHD and are prescribed medication which is not given to them consistently. This class has a reputation for being the worst class in the school. Several of the boys are very angry and aggressive and fighting is a daily issue. The other “problem” class is not as extreme, but as a group the students tend to be talkative and silly, prone to being off task and ignoring instructions.

I am disturbed by the cycle of the adults in the building trying to control these groups without working to help the students develop intrinsic motivation. The physical setup of the library as well as the time structure of the classes mean that I have had to place restrictions on these classes during checkout time. When I allowed all second graders to freely get books from the shelves, there were problems with running, wrestling, yelling, and making a mess of the shelves no matter what I did to curb these behaviors. Before the start of this action research, the second graders were restricted to choosing books from the tables rather than going to the shelves because they could not be trusted to behave appropriately while browsing.

In addition to the behavior issues, second graders have proven especially tricky when it comes to book selection. There is a very wide range of reading abilities at this age. I have always believed that students will be motivated to improve their reading skills if they want to read specific books that they find appealing, even if those books are currently above their level. However, I recognize that if a book is too far out of a students’ range, the experience of trying to read it will be frustrating and discouraging rather than motivating. Some librarians address this by restricting students’ selections to only books at their tested Lexile level. Early in the year, I spoke with my district library supervisors about my reluctance to follow this method. They agreed with me and told me that they disapprove of that practice. I believe that limiting students’ book choices to their tested reading level discourages the love of reading that I hope to foster and limits intellectual freedom.

According to the American Association of School Librarians, “School library collections are not merely extensions of classroom book collections or classroom teaching methods, but rather places where children can explore interests safely and without restrictions. A minor’s right to access resources freely and without restriction has long been and continues to be the position of the American Library Association and the American Association of School Librarians” (AASL, 2011). They discuss several reasons not to label books according to reading level, including freedom of inquiry, students’ right to keep their reading level private from their peers, and the reality that grade-level labeling is often tied to external reward systems that may prevent students from following a more genuine and natural path to developing a love of reading. They even go so far as to say that “School librarians should resist labeling and advocate for development of district policies regarding leveled reading programs that rely on library staff compliance with library book labeling and non-standard shelving requirements” (AASL, 2011).

My number one goal as a librarian is to encourage an abiding love of reading and a spirit of intellectual curiosity. I believe that if I can help a child discover the joy of reading, I am paving the way for an easier, more successful educational and life experience. I know that sharing stories, providing a wide array of books, and making selecting books in the library an exciting and rewarding experience are all steps toward that goal, but I also recognize the need to guide and facilitate budding readers’ choices of books while still encouraging autonomy. That is why I have decided to use experimental action research to determine the best level of intervention with my second graders in their book choices.

My first hint that something was amiss with my second-graders’ book choices was the heavy rotation of certain books. Week after week, most of the boys would check out nothing by R. L. Stine’s Goosebumps books. I knew that these books were popular among boys ages 8-11 or 12, but I still began to wonder. The previous LIS ordered virtually every Goosebumps book, so there is an entire shelf of them, making them easy for the students to locate. The covers feature glossy, scary illustrations, and the titles sound intriguingly frightening. Boys would sometimes fight over the books. Meanwhile, many of the girls would routinely check out book from a series called How I Survived Middle School that features fashionably dressed girls on the covers and was also heavily stocked my predecessor. On the other end of the spectrum, I had students asking me where the Biscuit or Dora the Explorer books, which are at a kindergarten or first-grade reading level. I began to suspect that choices were being made based on character recognition, cover art, and other factors more than interest in reading the story.

One day about three months into the school year, a second-grade teacher came to collect her class and began looking at the books her students were still in the process of checking out. She grabbed one student’s book and said loudly “Can you even read this? You can’t even read this book! Go pick out a book you can read!” This particular student is an ESL student who has also tested with an IQ of 75, but he does not qualify for special education services because, we were told “he is working at the full capacity of a person with an IQ of 75.” This behavior by the teacher was very upsetting to me. She went on to grab other students’ books and tell them to pick out something they can read. When one student protested that she was getting the book for her big sister, the teacher exclaimed that she wasn’t trying to teach her big sister how to read. I felt stuck behind the counter checking out books to a long line of students. I felt that her actions were at least partly a passive-aggressive way of letting me know she did not approve of the students’ book selections and that I should do something about it. This is a veteran teacher who has a tendency to drop her class off early and pick them up late if I don’t walk them back to class. I am a very direct, assertive person by nature, but as a newcomer I have tried to be very friendly and accommodating to all the teachers. I struggled to decide how to respond to what I perceived to be harmful and inappropriate behavior and decided the best way to help the students was to help them make better book choices.

Professional Knowledge

Why this topic is worthwhile for school librarians

In the rapidly changing world of 21^st century education, librarians often find themselves struggling to maintain funding and justify their value to the school as a whole. As technology has changed, focus has largely shifted to the library’s role as the media or technology center, with books and reading given short shrift. This is a mistake in a time when student reading scores are dropping and parents and teachers struggle to get kids interested in reading. From 2005 to 2011, student reading scores on standardized tests improved in schools that gained or retained a school librarian (Lance & Hofschire, 2012). These findings are consistent with the report of a national analysis conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of state-level data on librarian staffing and fourth-grade reading scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The results from this study indicated that states that gained school librarians from 2004-05 to 2008-09 showed greater increases in 4th grade reading scores than did states that lost librarians during this time period (Lance & Hofschire, 2012).

Of course, just having a school librarian isn’t a magical fix for all that ails American students. Librarians must be effective in all areas of their jobs, from collection management to programming to teaching. The National Center for Education Research data shows a strong positive correlation between circulation of children’s materials in public libraries and improved fourth grade test scores in nearby schools. Of states ranking in the top half on reading scores, 70 percent ranked in the top half on attendance at library children’s programs per capita, whereas 71 percent in the bottom half on reading scores also rank in the bottom half on children’s program attendance (Lance & Marks, 2008). This data tells us something important about school library programs: in places where parents do not have or take advantage of access to children’s programming at the public library, the school library is the best hope for filling in that gap. Although there is a branch of the public library less than one mile from my current school, most of the children say they have never been there and do not have a library card.

Of course, it is possible that this correlation between children’s programming and circulation and better test scores can be explained by other factors: educated parents who take advantage of the library for their children are more likely to produce stronger students, after all. However, statistical analysis of the data shows that this is not the case.

When adult educational attainment alone is correlated with reading scores, the correlation is .576, definitely a strong relationship in this context. That strong relationship is also highly statistically significant at the .01 level. But when the effect of children’s circulation per capita is removed, the correlation between the percentage of adults age 25 and up who graduated from high school and reading scores drops to a more moderate .376. In other words, when the impact of children’s circulation is removed from the relationship between adult educational attainment and children’s reading scores, the strength of that relationship is reduced by more than a third. This finding suggests that the impact of parents borrowing children’s books from public libraries accounts for a substantial portion of the impact of parents’ education on their children’s reading scores (Lance & Marks, 2008).

Obviously, no one can force parents to take their children to participate in story time and check out books at the public library. What we can do is provide strong, effective library programs at school where all children have equal access. Even then, we can’t make up for the statistical differences in parental education attainment and involvement, but we can do other things to even the playing field. Librarians can take a research-based, systematic approach to supporting students’ reading habits in addition to providing access to books and programming.

Learning Theories that Support My Research

Reader engagement is a theory of reading development that says the joint functioning of motivation, conceptual knowledge, and social interactions during literacy activities is necessary for true reader engagement (Guthrie & Alvermann, 1999). This theory supports my belief that the process surrounding the checking out of library books is important and should be carefully considered. The atmosphere and experiences that surround the process of selecting and checking out a book will carry over into the student’s experience of reading the book. Allowing the greatest practical level of autonomy in this process contributes to the student’s engagement with the books from selection through reading.

Amritavalli puts forth a theory of learner autonomy and learner-chosen texts (Amritavalli, 2012). She states that reading is best learned when a child shows interest in reading and when every child chooses the text which is at the right level of challenge and interest for that child. This supports my belief that reader interest is a motivating factor that can overcome prescribed readability levels. The book-specific surveys in my research revealed that even when students chose books significantly above their Lexile band, they reported that they read the book alone and enjoyed it.

Professional Points of View and Issues Surrounding This Topic

Everyone in education today wants to help students improve their reading skills, but opinions differ when it comes to the best ways to do that. Differences in funding for library programs as well as varying ideas about the role of the school librarian also serve as obstacles to consistent, effective implementation of best practices in the school library. In my district, there is currently no set curriculum for library services. We have a rubric for evaluation, but it does not address the actual content of our lessons other than to allude to encouraging critical thinking skills and stipulate that we act primarily as facilitators during the lesson. In some schools, librarians focus on teaching library-specific skills like understanding the Dewey decimal system and using the internet safely and effectively for academic purposes. In others, they are assigned to help with the re-teaching schedule for TCAP skills. I have been in one school library where all the books were shelved spine-up, clearly signaling that the books were off limits to students. The previous librarian at my school reportedly wrote great lesson plans, but in my opinion she neglected important aspects of collection management and did not focus on reading. Without sufficient guidance or examples, I must turn to the literature to discover the best approach to encouraging autonomy while guiding my second graders’ reading choices and habits.

In 1923, in response to teacher complaints about jargon-laden science textbooks in junior high schools, two Ohio State University professors names Bertha A. Lively and Sydney L. Pressey published their study “A Method for Measuring the ‘Vocabulary Burden’ of Textbooks” in the journal Educational Administration and Supervision. Their study proposed that the readability of a text could be determined by finding the median of the index of words from Thordike’s Index of 10,000 Words (as cited in DuBay, 2006). According to Fry, it was this method that remained in wide use from 1923 until recently (2002). However, with the introduction of Common Core Standards to school districts across the country, there has been a shift to using Lexile levels as a marker of grade-level appropriateness for books. Lexile levels are based on something called ‘text complexity,” which involves both qualitative and quantitative analysis of each text. Qualitative dimensions of text complexity include levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands while Quantitative measures of text complexity include word frequency and sentence length, which are typically measured by computer software Metametrics, 2013). Lexile grade bands do not correspond closely to the previous system of grade level books and tend to be more demanding. It would be easy to look at Lexile levels as just a new and improved way of looking at readability levels, but a closer look shows the issue to be complex.

Lexile is a commercial brand, and one of many that claim to be “right” about readability. According to a supplemental appendix to the Common Core State Standards (2012), several other such programs include ATOS by Renaissance Learning, Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) by Questar Assessment, Inc., Reading Maturity by Pearson Learning, Source rater by Educational testing Service, and Easability Indicator by Coh-Metrix. Before the emergence of Common Core, the literature shows pushback against the heavy use of leveled reading in schools. Paris (2002) argues that there is a disconnect between the methods used to assess students’ reading levels and the methods used to assess text complexity. He states that

The main problem with using IRIs [Informal reading Assessments popular in many school districts] for measuring reading growth is that running records and miscue analyses are gathered on variable levels of text that are appropriate for each child. Thus, comparing a child's reading proficiency at two time points (or comparing various children to one another over time) usually involves comparisons of different passages and text levels so that changes in children's performance are confounded by differences in passage or level difficulty. For example, imagine that Joe is given an IRI in the fall and reads a second-grade level text with 98% accuracy, answers 75% of the comprehension questions, and has a retelling score of 4 on a four-point rubric. Then, in the spring, he reads a third-grade level passage with 94% accuracy, answers 50% of the questions correctly, and has a retelling score of 3 on the same rubric. Is he showing growth in reading? Some might say he is reading more difficult text, while others might say each measure is lower than the corresponding measure with the easier text. The bottom line is that we cannot tell if or how much Joe has progressed in reading from fall to spring.

In other words, while programs like Lexile may be useful as a guideline for choosing texts, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint a child’s real reading level and rigidly match it to texts at a certain Lexile level.

Lexile is limited in its accuracy because of the inability to account for content and subject matter. For example, Of Mice and Men, which deals with mature subjects such as rape and murder, has a Lexile rating of 630, which should be appropriate for students in grades 3-5, because of Steinbeck’s simple, direct writing style. As a professional group, librarians have tended to come down hard on the side of not using Lexile or other leveling formulas to dictate which books students can check out. Krashen, (2001) argues that “The Lexile Framework attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist” (p.25) because teachers and librarians are already well qualified and prepared to guide their own students in their choice of texts insofar as guidance is needed, and that “We need not be concerned with carefully matching the student's level for free reading, and need not be concerned with accurately monitoring the increasing difficulty level as the child reads more and improves. Childrens' own experience with texts does a much better job than any formula can” (p. 25).

Standards for Content and Professional Practice

The Tennessee Department of Education has ten reading standards for second grade, which are divided into four categories: Key Ideas and Details, Craft and Structure, Integration of Knowledge and Ideas, and Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity. Under key Ideas and Details, second grade students should be able to

1. Ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text

2. Recount stories, including fables and folktales from diverse cultures, and determine their central message, lesson, or moral

3. Describe how characters in a story respond to major events and challenges.

All of these standards require the support of a large selection of texts and reading experiences. As students focus on each skill with their classroom teacher, they need to explore the ability to apply them in their own independent reading. These standards tell me that I should be sure to include a diverse array of fables and folktales from different cultures in my book talks.

Under Craft and Structure, students should be able to

1. Describe how words and phrases (e.g., regular beats, alliteration, rhymes, repeated lines) supply rhythm and meaning in a story, poem, or song

2. Describe the overall structure of a story, including describing how the beginning introduces the story and the ending concludes the action

3. Acknowledge differences in the points of view of characters, including by speaking in a different voice for each character when reading dialogue aloud. Again, these skills are first taught in the classroom and then explored and reinforced through extensive interaction with a wide variety of texts. This group of standards specifically reminds me to include poetry and plays in my collection, read-alouds, and book talks.

Under Integration of Ideas, students should be able to

1. Use information gained from the illustrations and words in a print or digital text to demonstrate understanding of its characters, setting, or plot.

2. Compare and contrast two or more versions of the same story (e.g., Cinderella stories) by different authors or from different cultures.

And under Range of Reading and level of Text Complexity, students should, by the end of the year, be able to read and comprehend literature, including stories and poetry, in the grades 2–3 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range. Not only do these standards require a variety and range of texts and print resources, but they also emphasize the need to guide students in their reading choices to help them avoid complacency in their choices regarding style, content, and difficulty level.

The American Association of School Libraries has also developed Standards for the 21^st Century Learner. Their standard 4: Pursue Personal and Aesthetic Growth, states that students should read, view, and listen for pleasure and personal growth; read widely and fluently to make connections with own self, the world, and previous reading; seek information for personal learning in a variety of formats and genres; connect ideas to their own interests and previous knowledge and experience; and organize personal knowledge in a way that can be called upon easily. I love this standard because it asserts the value of reading for pleasure and the importance of helping students develop a personal aesthetic. By providing a wide variety of choices and helping students choose the right books for them as individuals, I am putting this standard into action.

All of these standards emphasize skills that build student autonomy through interaction with and thoughtful choice of texts. By allowing students as much freedom as is feasible in the checkout process, I hope to encourage a sense of agency that carries over into the reading experience. The purpose of my action plan is to ensure that the seemingly routine procedure of weekly book checkout is designed with thoughtful intent so that these interactions may occur naturally as the students read the books they have chosen.

Action Plan

Goals and Overview

My action plan will take six weeks to complete, with one of those weeks being spring break. I will see each of four second-grade classes once each week. I will experiment with three different methods of book selection and collect data to determine the success of each method. I will define success in terms of student-reported reading time and enjoyment of the books. In addition, I will conduct a pre and post survey about the student’s general habits and feelings regarding their library books. All surveys will be conducted online.

Week One

The first week, students were asked to fill out a pre survey about their habits and feelings regarding the books they check out from the library (see appendix A). I created the survey on surveymonkey.com and had it already pulled up on library computers when students entered. I recruited three older students to help facilitate the survey to ensure student confidentiality. When students first entered, I explained that I wanted to find out more about the best way for them to check out books, and so I was asking them to fill out a survey about their library books on the computer. I explained that their names would not be on the survey, I would not know which answers they chose individually, and my feelings would not be hurt if they said they didn’t like getting books or didn’t always read their books. I said I just wanted them to be honest, and I had helpers to help them if they needed it so they would know I wasn’t looking at their screen. The survey consisted of four questions. I stood at the front of the library and read the questions and answer choices aloud to ensure that all students understood each question.

Prior to beginning my action research, I had instituted a policy of having students select books only from choices I placed on the tables. This was an effort to control behavior problems more than book choice. I did try to put age-appropriate books out, but I included a wide range above and below second-grade level to ensure maximum choice. My checkout policy has been that every student checks out a book every week unless they have overdue books. I have never forced students to check out books, but my observation has been that virtually every student checks out a book every week when they have brought their book back from the previous week. I often make exceptions to that rule and allow students to check out a book anyway, unless they have kept a book for several weeks. For the course of my action research, I will allow students to check out a book even if they have overdue books so they can submit feedback.

After completing the survey on week one, I explained that we were going to try going to the shelves again. This week’s strategy is completely unrestricted checkout with no guidance or suggestions. I briefly reminded students where to find non-fiction, easy/picture books, and harder chapter books. I then allowed students to play a keyboarding skills game on the computers while I called students by shirt color to visit the shelves. Our students may wear red, white, or navy blue uniform shirts, and shirt color is often used as an organizational divider for student movement. This method helped keep behavior issues to a minimum during checkout while allowing students free reign of the shelves.

Week Two

Week two is Spring Break, so students will not be at school to visit the library and check out books. They will be allowed to keep their week one books an extra week.

Week Three

Normally, I collect students’ book returns as they enter the library, but this week I asked them to hold onto their book and have a seat at a computer. Again, I had created a survey and pulled it up on the library computers. This week’s survey was about their specific book from that week (see Appendix B). The book-specific survey asks students to give the title of the book they chose, tell how much of the book they read on their own, and whether or not they liked the book. This same survey will be given each week for three weeks about the book selected, but the method of selection itself will be different. I will compare the students’ responses as they correlate to method of selection. Again, students were assured of the survey’s confidentiality and purpose, and older students helped facilitate the mechanics of taking the survey online while I stayed in front and read the questions and answer choices aloud.

On week three, my strategy was still to allow unrestricted access to the shelves, but this time with substantial guidance and suggestions that were made readily accessible on the tables. I had prepared book talks about several different series and titles. I showed students the cover of each book as I gave a brief (1-2 minute) introduction to the book by describing main characters, plot twists, or background information. I included books of traditional folklore and fairy tales; a book from the You Wouldn’t Want To Be… non-fiction series, which uses graphics and intriguing themes to interest students in historical concepts; and a book from the A-Z Mysteries fiction series. I placed similar titles on the tables for ease of location, but also allowed students to visit the shelves. By allowing the students choices outside the recommended books, I was better able to measure the effectiveness of the book talks. If everyone had no choice but to check out the recommended books, then they would do so because there were no other options, not because they thought the books sounded interesting or appealing. For my book talks, I chose books that I my training experience led me to find appropriate for second graders, but I did not check any titles for their Lexile rating. I again allowed students to play a keyboarding game on the computer while calling a few at a time to check out in order to minimize behavioral problems.

Week Four

This week, I followed the same book routine and survey routine as week three, with students keeping their book to aid in filling out the book-specific survey (see appendix B), reading each question and response to the students, and having older students facilitate to ensure student confidentiality. After completing the survey, I told the students that this week, we would need to go back to selecting books only from the tables.

In selecting the books to place out for students, this week I chose only books with Lexile ratings between 140L and 500L. During weeks one and two, no consideration was given to Lexile ratings. My purpose was to find out if limiting the choices to books with “grade-level appropriate” Lexile ratings would impact the students’ reported reading of the books or their level of enjoyment of the books. I did make an effort to select a wide variety of books, keeping in mind the standards’ mention of folklore, cultural diversity, and complex texts such as non-fiction. I included picture books as well as novels. I included books from the week two book talks, but I did not conduct any new talks. Students were not forced to check out a book, but if they wanted a book they had to choose it from the tables, not the shelves.

Week Five

On week five, students were again asked to hold onto their books while they took the book-specific survey (Appendix B). The same procedures were followed in administering the survey as described in weeks two and three. This week, after completing the survey, I told the students I wanted to chat with them about what we’d been doing with the surveys and trying different ways of checking out. I asked them to raise their hand if they liked being able to go to the bookshelves on their own or if they liked just choosing from the tables. I took a quick count and made a note of the number of responses for each option in each class and later recorded this information in my journal, in addition to my normal weekly journal entry. I told them that next week, they would take one last survey about the different methods we’d tried.

I said that this week we could try going back to the shelves, but I mentioned that I also had put some suggested books out on the tables, including some of the ones we talked about before. I allowed students to play the keyboarding game while calling small groups to check out. I recorded my perceptions about where students were getting books, (shelves or tables), in my research journal. Students would not fill out the book-specific survey for the week four book selections since all three methods had now been tried and data collected for each one. Analysis of the data will determine which method of checkout we will use going forward. Upon returning, students would only fill out the post survey.

Week Six

This week was not an experimental week but was used for reflection in the form of the post survey. This survey was identical to the pre survey, but with one additional question asking which method students had liked best: checking out any book from the shelves with no suggestions from me, checking out any book but with suggestions from me, or being allowed to choose only books from the table. After completing the post survey, we went to the carpet and sat in a circle. I reminded students about the experiments we’d done with trying out different methods of checkout. I shared with them about the results of the surveys earlier surveys, summarizing by saying things like “Almost everyone said they enjoy checking out books, which I was very happy to hear. But I was a little surprised the first week that only about half of you said you always read your book. That really showed me that it was a good idea to try some different things to see if they helped more of you read your whole book each week.” I told them that next week I would share the differences between the pre and post survey [more/fewer students reported reading their whole book by the end, more/fewer students said their book was too hard on the week they had unrestricted access with no guidance, etc.] I discussed the plan we would use going forward and gauged student perception of this plan. This week, I also performed a final analysis of the data I collected from the surveys and ATRIUUM reports of books checked out each week.

Data Collection

Surveys

I used Survey Monkey to create and administer student surveys online. Using Survey Monkey’s analysis, I looked at the responses to each question each week to determine major patterns. I compared the percentage of students who said they liked or didn’t like checking out books from the library in the pre survey with the percentage in the post survey. I also compared the number of students who reported reading all, most, some, or none of their book most weeks from the pre and post surveys, as well as comparing those responses to the weekly answers about whether the student had read that week’s book. My main goal, however, was to determine which method of checking out books resulted in the highest number of students reporting that they read all or most of their book for the week.

ATRIUUM Reports

In order to track trends of the books students check out, I ran reports from ATRIUUM, the automated checkout system, to see all books checked out by second graders each week. I read the lists with an eye out for any books that were likely to fall far outside the suggested range for second graders on weeks one and two, since the students had free choice of books those weeks. ATRIUUM does not provide Lexile ratings, but I would like to see if giving students free choice automatically results in their choosing books far outside the recommended range. The reports will also serve to verify the accuracy of student-reported titles.

Research Journal

Beginning with week one, I kept a journal about the implementation of the action plan. The journal provided a format for field notes, reflection, and observations about the process. I used the online journal portal from the University of Memphis ecourseware.

Analysis and Findings

I analyzed the data to determine student’s feelings and habits regarding library books before, during, and after the action research. I was happy to see that the vast majority of students reported that they enjoy checking out and reading library books even at the beginning of the survey. However, I realized that this meant I may not see significant changes in students’ reported feelings and habits resulting from the experimental methods I tried with the students.

Research Journal

Reading back over my research journal helped me remember the wording and methods I used to introduce each new checkout method to the students. It also helped me remember any patterns in behavior that I noticed with each checkout method. Ultimately there were no surprises in the journal because I had fairly clear memories of the way things went each week. It was nice to have a written record to confirm my feeling that I had a good grasp on my students’ behavior patterns. One thing did notice my journals did document was the continued impact of previous book talks. I noted that many second graders chose Magic Treehouse books, which I introduced to them prior to the start of my research. Seeing the long-lasting effects of that book talk reinforced my findings that free access with book talks created the best method of checkout.

Surveys

The student surveys were the most important form of documentation for my research. Each week, the student surveys offered important insight into their feelings and habits regarding their books. The pre survey established a baseline in which 97 percent of students said that they like checking out library books, 60 percent reported that they always or usually read their entire book on their own, 47 percent said the books they choose are usually “just right” for them to read rather than too hard (14 percent) or too easy (39 percent), and the preference for “picture books with a few words on each page,” “picture books with a lot of words on each page,” and “chapter books” was split fairly evenly, with approximately 1/3 of students choosing each type.

After each experimental checkout method, the students filled out a book-specific survey. I wanted to determine whether the checkout method significantly impacted the number of students who reported reading all or most of their book on their own. Survey Monkey allowed me to see individual responses as well as summaries of the data from each survey. In looking at the individual responses, I could look at the title the students had typed for that week’s book in addition to his or her responses to the other questions. This meant that I could see if certain types of books were more likely to result in a “did not read” or “did not like” response.

In the book-specific survey for the week-one book, when students were granted unrestricted access to the shelves with no guidance from me, about 66 percent of the students reported reading all of their book, 22 percent reported reading most of the book, seven percent said they read a little, and 5 percent reported that they did not read their book. About 63 percent reported reading the book on their own, 31 percent said they read with an adult or someone else, and 6 percent said they did not read their book. About 75 percent said they “liked it a lot,” 21 percent said “it was okay,” and four percent said “I didn’t like it.” I was surprised that the students who checked out novels that I considered to be too challenging and advanced, including Artemis Fowl and Fablehaven, reported that they read “most” of the book on their own and “liked it a lot.” Students who checked out encyclopedic books about nonfiction subjects such as birds or dinosaurs were most likely to report that they read “a little” or none of their book.

In the book-specific survey for the week-three book, when students were granted unrestricted access to the shelves but received some intervention in the form of book talks and greater accessibility for suggested books, about 70 percent reported reading all of their book, 20 percent said they read most of the book, and approximately ten percent said they read “a little” or none of their book. 72 percent of students reported reading their library book on their own, about 23 percent read with an adult or someone else, and about 4 percent said they did not read the book. 79 percent said they “liked it a lot,” 20 percent said “it was okay,” and no students chose the “I didn’t like it” response.

On the book-specific survey for the week-four book, when students were allowed to choose only books that I chose and placed on the tables, about 68 percent of students reported reading all of their book, 14 percent said they read most of the book, 12 percent said they read a little of it, and about 6 percent said they didn’t read. About 76 percent of students said they read the book on their own, 16 percent read with an adult or someone else, and eight percent said they did not read. 77 percent said they liked their book a lot, 14 percent said it was okay, and about 9 percent said they didn’t like it.

On the post survey, almost 99 percent of students said they like checking out books from the library. About 75 percent said they always or usually read their entire library book by themselves. 52 percent said the books they choose are usually “just right” for them to read on their own, as opposed to 15 percent who reported usually choosing books that are too hard and 32 percent who reported choosing books that are “really easy” for them to read. 45 percent said they like to read picture books with just a few words on each page, 32 percent preferred picture books with a lot of words on each page, and 23 percent said they prefer chapter books. On the final question, which asked which method of checkout students liked best, 33 percent said they preferred checking out any book from the shelves with no suggestions, 47 percent said they preferred access to the shelves but with suggestions and easier access to suggested books, and 20 percent said they preferred only being able to choose books from the tables.

ATRIUUM Reports

The data from the ATRIUUM reports primarily served as additional documentation of the books that were checked out by second graders each week. These reports confirmed that the students were accurate in reporting the names of the books thay had checked out in their book-specific surveys. The surveys were more useful in linking book choice to reported reading time and satisfaction, since I was able to see the title along with the responses to the other questions for each survey individually.

Conclusions

This action research was helpful in determining the best method of checkout for my second graders. I feel that this information can also be applied to other grade levels. I was fully transparent with the students throughout this process, and they seemed to enjoy taking the surveys and thinking about their own book choices and reading habits. Participation in the surveys had the unintended but desirable consequence of giving the students a sense of agency in the way they chose and read their books. In the course of observing and recording my thoughts in my research journal, I realized that book talks I gave before the start of this research were still influencing student book choice.

Although I had sporadically conducted book talks in the past, I usually felt that I had to read long sections of the book to students to get them interested in the story. In reality, asking them to sit for too long and listen to me read probably exacerbated their behavioral problems and, in turn, my frustration with them. Conducting the book talks for a few books at once forced me to skip reading whole chapters and instead focus on just giving a few details to hook students’ interest, and the students were better able to stay focused and attentive. Using the keyboarding game during checkout and calling students in groups further cut down on behavioral problems so that I was able to allow students more freedom to browse the shelves.

If I conducted this study again, I might double the length of the data collection period so that each method could be tried twice. I think this would give a more solid picture of the impact of each method on student choice and reading time. I might also consider giving students a reading log to track their actual reading time and provide additional documentation.

Next Steps

Going forward, I plan to spend more time at the beginning of the school year helping students become oriented to library procedures and expectations so that checkout options will not have to be limited by behavioral problems. I also plan to use book talks systematically throughout the year to focus on different genres and formats of books in the library. I will periodically conduct surveys similar to the ones I used in this research because I think the act of completing the surveys prompted student self reflection and a greater sense of participation in their own learning.

I am looking forward to sharing the results of my research with the community of librarians in my school district. I’m sure that many of them struggle with the same issues I was having with my second graders when I started this research. I also plan to share with my principal and the teachers at my school. I think that some aspects of my experience can benefit classroom teachers not only of second graders, but of every grade level. I hope to encourage my coworkers to engage in action research to help work through any issues they may be having with their students.

Future Research

I am looking forward to using action research to deal with other issues that sometimes arise in the library. I would like to conduct a study to address some of the problems I have with the kindergarteners early in the school year, especially those who come to school speaking little or no English. Many times, these very young children come to the library seeming terrified and confused at the beginning of the school year. I do not always know the best way to connect with them and help them feel comfortable.

I would also like to design action research to find ways of reaching the handful of students who do not always want to check out books, which is most common in fifth grade. I think that experimenting with ways of engaging them with a variety of options and fostering a sense of reading as independence might help with this issue.

References

Amritavalli, R. (2012). Helping children become readers. Language and Language Teaching. 1 (1).

Clausen-Grace, N. & Kelley, M. (2009-2010). Facilitating engagement by differentiating independent reading. The Reading Teacher , 63, (4) pp.313-318. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30249381

Defining text complexity. (2013). The Lexile Framework for Reading. Metametrics. Retrieved from http://www.lexile.com/using-lexile/lexile-measures-and-the- ccssi/defining-text-complexity/

DuBay, William H., (ed.). (2002). The classic readability studies. Impact Information.

Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/quality/plaintalk/resources/classics.pdf

Guthrie, J.T. & Alvermann, D.E. (1999). (Eds). Engaged reading: Processes, practices, and policy implication. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus leveling. The Reading Teacher, 56, (3) pp. 286-291. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20205195

Killeen, E. (2012). Precious children. Teacher Librarian, 39(4), 60. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA288688434&v=2.1&u=tel_s_tsla &it=r&p=GPS&sw=w

Krashen, S. (2001). The lexile framework: Unnecessary and potentially harmful. California School Library Journal, 24(2): 25-26. Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/lexile_framework/all.html

Lance, K., & Hofschire, L. (2012). Change in school librarian staffing linked with change in CSAP reading performance, 2005 to 2011. Denver, CO: Colorado S State Library, Library Research Service.

Lane, K. & Marks, R. (2008). Is there a positive relationship between public library services and early reading success? School Library Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6590044.html

Paris, S. (2002). Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement: Measuring Children's Reading Development Using Leveled Texts. The Reading Teacher, 56, (2) pp. 168-170. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20205170

Position Statement on Labeling Books with Reading Levels. 2011. American Association of School Libraries. Retreived from http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslissues/positionstatements/labeling

Ray, M. (2012). A blip in a word cloud--unless we act. Teacher Librarian, 39(4), 56+. R Retrieved May 18, 2012 from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA288688430&v=2.1&u=tel_s_tsla &t=r&p=GPS&sw=w

Standards for the 21^st century learner. (2007). American Library Association. Retrieved From http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/guidelinesandstandards/lear ningstandards/AASL_LearningStandards.pdf

Supplemental information for appendix A of the common core state standards for English language arts and literacy: New research on text complexity. (2012). Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/E0813_Appendix_A_New_Research_on_Te xt_Complexity.pdf

Tap the school library to bring a wider world to students. (2012, March-April). American Teacher, 96(4), 4. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA286719701&v=2.1&u=tel_s_tsla &it=r&p=GPS&sw=w