Understanding the Availability of Nonfiction Books in Child Care Center
Preschool Classrooms: A Mixed Methods Inquiry
by
Holly E. Follmer, M.S.
A Dissertation
In
Curriculum and Instruction
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Approved
Dr. Kathryn Button
Chair of Committee
Dr. Kamau Siwatu
Dr. Amma Akrofi
Dr. Yvonne Caldera
Mark Sheridan
Dean of the Graduate School
December, 2015
Copyright 2015, Holly E. Follmer
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research uses data obtained from teachers and directors of child care centers.
Their willingness to allow me into their classrooms and centers, and their willingness to
answer my many questions made this research possible. I would like to express my
sincerest appreciation for their participation.
I would also like to acknowledge the members of my dissertation committee.
Their support and feedback helped make this dissertation a work of which to be proud. I
thank them for not giving up on me during my hiatus when I decided to enjoy the
changes going on in my life, and for being available to me when I decided to return to
working on my dissertation. I am especially appreciative for my chair, Dr. Kathryn
Button. The amazing experience I had in her children’s literature course put me on the
track toward my doctoral degree and ultimately topic for this this dissertation. I
appreciate her carving out extra time that did not seem to exist with her current position
within the College of Education to help move my dissertation along toward completion. I
am grateful for Dr. Kamau Siwatu and Dr. Amma Akrofi and my experiences in their
courses that provided me the foundational framework for this study. I would also like to
thank Dr. Yvonne Caldera for nurturing my interest in child care systems and for sticking
with me throughout my Masters and Doctoral programs.
Staff from the College of Education’s Doctoral Support Center also deserve to be
acknowledged. I would like to thank Dr. Amber Lancaster for helping me establish a plan
of attack for my writing, creating reasonable work timelines, and providing writing tips,
constructive feedback, and editing. I would also like to thank Dr. Marcelo Schmidt for
ii
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
walking me through my quantitative analysis, from start to finish, to make sure my results
were accurate. I also appreciate the feedback I received from Dr. Sonya Sherrod on my
qualitative analysis.
Finally, I would like to thank my dear friend, Dr. Erin Kostina-Ritchey, and my
amazing husband, Ronnie Reece. Both of these wonderful people served as sounding
boards for me when I was stuck with my ideas and cared for me in innumerable ways so
that I could focus on completing my dissertation. I firmly believe that I would not have
reached this point without their love, support, belief in me, and belief in my work.
iii
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... ii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... x
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 1
Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 8
Delimitations ........................................................................................................... 9
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 10
Operational Definitions ......................................................................................... 12
Nonfiction ................................................................................................. 13
Child Care ................................................................................................. 17
Preschool ................................................................................................... 20
Availability ............................................................................................... 20
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................... 21
II. Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 22
Benefits of Incorporating Nonfiction in Early Childhood Classrooms ................ 23
Nonfiction Inspires Curiosity and Reading Engagement.......................... 23
Nonfiction Enhances Student Performance .............................................. 27
Summary ................................................................................................... 31
Structural Factors Affecting Nonfiction Availability ........................................... 32
Social Capital Theory ............................................................................... 33
Socio-Economic Status ............................................................................. 36
Teacher Education .................................................................................... 40
Literacy Environment Quality .................................................................. 44
Size of Center Book Collection ................................................................ 50
Summary ................................................................................................... 52
Process Factors Affecting Nonfiction Availability ............................................... 52
Social Cognitive Theory ........................................................................... 54
Teacher Book Selection Process ............................................................... 55
iv
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Factors Teachers Should Consider When Selecting Nonfiction Books.... 62
Summary ................................................................................................... 70
III. Methods ..................................................................................................................... 72
Rationale for Using a Mixed Methods Research Design ...................................... 72
Recruitment of Participants................................................................................... 73
Participants and Setting......................................................................................... 76
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 82
Center Characteristics ............................................................................... 83
Observation ............................................................................................... 83
Interview ................................................................................................... 87
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 90
Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................ 90
Qualitative Analysis .................................................................................. 92
Inference Process ...................................................................................... 93
Significance of Study ............................................................................................ 95
IV. Results ........................................................................................................................ 97
Quantitative Analyses ........................................................................................... 97
Nonfiction Availability ............................................................................. 99
Predicting Nonfiction Availability.......................................................... 100
Qualitative Analysis ............................................................................................ 106
Children’s Literature Beliefs................................................................... 107
Source of Beliefs ..................................................................................... 110
Selection Considerations ......................................................................... 112
Book Resources ...................................................................................... 120
Classroom Books .................................................................................... 129
Nonfiction ............................................................................................... 137
V. Discussion.................................................................................................................. 142
Availability of Nonfiction Books........................................................................ 144
Predicting Nonfiction Availability...................................................................... 146
Center Socio-Economic Status ............................................................... 148
Teacher Education .................................................................................. 148
Quality of Literacy Environment ............................................................ 150
v
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Size of Center Book Collection .............................................................. 151
Teacher Reported Factors Influencing Nonfiction Availability ......................... 153
How Nonfiction Fits into the Teacher Book Selection Process .............. 154
Teachers’ Book Selection Process in Light of Social Cognitive Theory 163
Mixing Research Methods to Address Nonfiction Availability ......................... 167
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 170
Implications......................................................................................................... 176
Practice .................................................................................................... 176
Future Research ...................................................................................... 180
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 182
References ...................................................................................................................... 184
Appendices .................................................................................................................... 195
A: Visual Model for Parallel Mixed Methods Research Design ........................ 195
B: Script for Contacting Center Directors via Telephone ................................... 196
C: Script for Recruiting Preschool Teachers ...................................................... 197
D: Consent Form ................................................................................................. 198
E: Teacher/Classroom Characteristics ................................................................ 200
F: Sample Prompts for Teacher Explanation of Books in the Classroom .......... 201
G: Teacher Interview Questions ......................................................................... 202
vi
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
ABSTRACT
Early exposure to nonfiction literature is an important aspect of literacy
development necessary for future success in school. Previous research documents that
classrooms for young children are deficient in providing adequate amounts of nonfiction
books, yet this research fails to examine why there is a lack of this resource. Informed by
social capital theory and social cognitive theory, the current study extends prior work on
children’s early exposure to nonfiction literature in two ways. First, this study extends
educational settings to child care center preschool classrooms. Second, this study
explains the proportion of nonfiction books in classrooms by investigating the influence
of structural and process factors. This study employed a parallel mixed methods research
design in which quantitative and qualitative data were obtained through classroom
observations and interviews with teachers.
The findings from the research show that the proportion of nonfiction books in
child care preschool classrooms is more than that reported in other studies and accounted
for nearly half of the books in the classroom. Findings also show structural and process
factors indirectly, rather than directly, influence the amount of nonfiction books in the
classroom. Most importantly, findings show that teachers do not intentionally chose
nonfiction books for their classroom. Instead, teachers inadvertently select this genre
because it is available within the center and fits other selection criteria they employ. The
implication of these findings is a need to address the resources available to child care
centers and teachers that enable teachers to select nonfiction books for their classrooms.
Additionally, teachers’ inadvertent selection of nonfiction books suggests that teachers
vii
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
are not providing familiarity with text type distinctions that equip children with the
foundational skills necessary to later be successful with nonfiction literature.
viii
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
LIST OF TABLES
3.1
Descriptive statistics of the sample ....................................................................... 77
3.2
Frequency table for classroom book characteristics ............................................. 79
3.3
Data Analysis Plan ................................................................................................ 91
4.1
Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables ................................................... 98
4.2
Frequency Table for Categorical Variable ............................................................ 98
4.3
Descriptive Statistics for Classroom Book Counts ............................................. 100
4.4
Correlation matrix of continuous variables......................................................... 103
4.5
Regression Models of Predictors of Nonfiction Book Proportion in Classrooms
............................................................................................................................. 105
ix
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1.
Front-facing bookshelf. ......................................................................................... 80
3.2.
Traditional bookcase with book spine facing out. ................................................ 80
3.3.
Books stacked with cover facing upwards. ........................................................... 81
3.4.
Books vertically stacked with cover facing forward............................................. 81
3.5.
Disorganized book display. ................................................................................... 82
4.1.
Conceptual model demonstrating the flow of teachers’ process for selecting books
for the classroom. ................................................................................................ 107
5.1.
Conceptual model demonstrating the influence of nonfiction books on teachers’
book selection process. ....................................................................................... 155
5.2.
Conceptual model of teachers’ book selection process indicating the cumulative
effects of model components. ............................................................................. 165
5.3.
Conceptual model of teachers’ book selection as a self-reinforcing process. .... 166
5.4.
Conceptual model of teachers’ book selection process with cross-component
influences ............................................................................................................ 167
x
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study was born out of the misalignment of my personal experiences with
teaching at a child development center and research presented to me during my graduate
studies. I started my graduate studies after spending four wonderful years as an early
childhood educator. Because my experiences teaching were so salient, I drew upon these
memories to help make sense of, and give meaning to, the information presented to me in
courses on early childhood education and children’s literature. During a course on
children’s nonfiction literature, I was introduced (figuratively) to Nell K. Duke,
specifically to her 2000 study on inclusion of informational texts in early grade
classrooms. Her findings were contradictory to my experience as an educator. In my
classroom, I made it a point to include lots of nonfiction. I always included books about
animals, seasons, and other concepts the children needed to master. It was important to
me to have books that presented factual information to balance out the narrative stories
presented in other books. This was not the case for other early childhood classrooms as
presented by Duke. And so it began…my quest to understand how Duke’s findings (and
those of other researchers) could be so different from the experiences I recalled from my
classroom.
Statement of the Problem
Birth through 8 years of age is the most critical period of time for literacy
development. Although literacy support in early school grades is implicit, child care
1
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
classrooms also serve as important contexts for children’s development of literacy skills
prior to formally starting school. As of spring 2011, approximately 61% of U.S. children
under the age of 5 were in some type of regular care arrangement (Laughlin, 2013).
According to Laughlin (2013), child care centers served more of these children (2.7
million) than any other form of care. Children in child care centers spent more time there
(weekly average of 33 hours) than children did in any other form of care (Laughlin,
2013). For some children, the child care classroom can supplement the rich literacy
experiences received in the home. For others, the child care classroom may be the
primary environment in which they experience literacy.
Early exposure to nonfiction is an essential, and often overlooked, component of
young children’s literacy experiences. The ability to understand and navigate nonfiction
text is a critical skill children need to be successful in school. The majority of passages
on standardized tests of which students read and respond to are nonfiction (Hoyt,
Mooney, & Parkes, 2003). Hoyt and colleagues further suggest that adult reading and
writing is primarily nonfiction in nature. Based upon the pervasiveness of nonfiction text
within the academic and social world, young children should have early exposure to this
genre so that they may develop the necessary background knowledge needed to be
successful. The current joint position statement of developmentally appropriate literacy
2
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
practices adopted by the International Reading Association (IRA)1 and the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAYEC) underscores the importance
of nonfiction inclusion in early childhood classrooms. Within the statement, nonfiction is
given equal weight to fiction in regards to inclusion in the classroom library, daily
reading and writing experiences, and exposure to vocabulary text forms.
Scholars in education and literacy have been calling for children’s early exposure
to nonfiction literature (e.g. Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; Pappas 1991; Sanacore,
1991) for more than two decades. And yet, inclusion of nonfiction literature in the early
grades remains very minimal. Duke (2000) was the first to systematically and
longitudinally document the lack of young children’s exposure to nonfiction in her study
measuring both the amount of exposure and time spent with informational texts2. After 79
full days of observation in 20 first grade classrooms, Duke found that informational text
accounted for 12.7% of the library materials in high socio-economic status (SES)
classrooms and 6.9% in low-SES classrooms. In another study, Pressley, Rankin, and
Yokoi (1996) surveyed instructional practices of America’s exemplary reading teachers
(kindergarten, first, and second grade) and found that they, like the teachers in Duke’s
(2000) study, heavily relied upon fictional literature. Teachers reported nonfiction
1
The International Reading Association changed its name to the International Literacy Association on
January 26, 2015.
2
Informational texts are a sub-genre of nonfiction. These texts focus exclusively on the social or natural
world, have particular linguistic features such as timeless verb and generic noun construction, and convey
information about something instead of someone or how to do something (Duke, 2000; Duke & BennettArmistead, 2003).
3
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
accounting for only 6% of classroom materials (Pressley et al., 1996). These studies
demonstrate that early exposure to nonfiction is minimal, at best, even among schools
with the most access to resources and in classrooms with the best teachers.
Other research on the availability of nonfiction in early childhood classrooms
focuses on teachers reading aloud to students. In a brief survey on read aloud practices
and use of genres by 101 preschool through second grade teachers, Bortnem (2008) found
that teachers devoted less than half the amount of attention to nonfiction read alouds as
they did fiction. A similar study with a larger sample size was conducted by Yopp and
Yopp (2006). In their study, Yopp and Yopp surveyed book titles read aloud to young
children by 1,144 teachers representing grades kindergarten through third. After
categorizing titles by genre, the researchers concluded that nonfiction accounted for a
very small proportion of the books read (9%, n = 1,487). This figure is lower than the
14% in Yopp and Yopp’s (2000) informal study of 126 primary grade teachers’ reports of
read alouds. Data for preschool classrooms, specifically, is just as bleak. Grade level data
presented in Yopp and Yopp’s (2006) report show that preschool classrooms had the
lowest percentage (5%) of nonfiction read alouds as compared to other grades. Rates of
nonfiction read alouds appear to be a little better when titles are recorded over a period of
time, thus possibly providing a more accurate portrayal. Pentimonti, Zucker, Justice, and
Kaderavek (2010) analyzed read aloud logs of preschool teachers sampled from a larger
study (Justice, Kaderavek, Fan, Sofka, & Hunt, 2009). Of the 733 titles coded for genre,
17% were determined to be nonfiction. This figure is much higher than that seen in Yopp
4
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
and Yopp’s (2006) study. These studies demonstrate that nonfiction as a genre is poorly
represented in classrooms as a teacher read aloud.
Just as teachers read few nonfiction books aloud, they also spent a limited amount
of time reading nonfiction books aloud. Pentimonti et al. (2010) estimated that
approximately 55 seconds a day was spent on nonfiction read alouds. This figure is
slightly lower than what Duke (2000) documented in her study. According to Duke,
children spent an average of 1.4 to 3.6 minutes a day (depending on SES level)
interacting with informational text. Important to note is that the time reported by Duke
includes read alouds as well as other activities while Pentimonti and colleagues report
only on time spent in read alouds.
The literature cited above paints a dismal picture of young children’s access to,
and the availability of, nonfiction books in the classroom. The accuracy of this picture,
however, is questionable. In an article proposing a method for more accurately
categorizing nonfiction texts, Williams (2009) argued that the inconsistency in terms
applied to research on nonfiction may lead to an underestimation of the impact, use,
exposure, and availability of nonfiction in classrooms. For example, Colman (2011)
believes that nonfiction should have no made up material at all—even illustrations cause
a departure from nonfiction as they are a product of an illustrator’s imagination. And yet,
teacher/educator resources (Avery, 2003; Bamford & Kristo, 2003; Hepler, 2003) do
classify books with narrative and even fictional elements as nonfiction. In some of the
literature, it is unclear if concept books (i.e. counting, color, shape, alphabet) common in
5
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
preschool classrooms are categorized as nonfiction even though they portray durable,
factual information. It is possible that nonfiction has been too narrowly defined and, thus,
is incorrectly reported in some of the literature.
Literature on the presence of nonfiction in the classroom is lacking in several
other ways as well. First, the method used to determine the existence of nonfiction books
may be flawed. Duke (2000) was the only researcher who actually tallied the materials in
a classroom. Other studies (Pentimonti et al., 2010; Yopp & Yopp, 2000, 2006) based
their conclusions on the titles of books read aloud. Read alouds are an essential way of
introducing this genre to young children, but are not always indicative of other materials
contained in the classroom. Even though one can interpret a correlation in Duke’s (2000)
study, it is possible that teachers have responded to the call for more nonfiction in their
libraries without increasing the amount of it included in their read alouds.
Second, few of the studies found on nonfiction availability in early childhood
education classrooms included preschool (e.g. Pentimonti et al., 2010; Yopp & Yopp,
2006). Those that did include preschool classrooms were associated with Pre-K programs
linked to school districts or Head Start. No study examined the availability of nonfiction
in child care center preschool classrooms. Given that child care centers serve more
children than any other type of care system, the existing research fails to represent a large
portion of the population that may be affected by this suggested nonfiction literature
paucity.
6
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
And third, these studies fail to look at why there is a lack of nonfiction in the
classrooms. Children’s nonfiction is more available now than ever; over half of the 9,000
children’s books published in 2001 were nonfiction (Hepler, 2003). Citing the library of
congress, Hepler (2003) reports the cataloging of children’s nonfiction increased 10%
from the previous decade. Kiefer (2007) and Gill (2009) suggested that the increase in the
number and quality of children’s nonfiction is a trend that shows no signs of stopping.
Despite the increasing availability of high quality children’s nonfiction in the market
economy, early childhood classrooms remain deficient in this valuable educational
resource.
Many advocates for early exposure to nonfiction attribute its paucity to adult
misconceptions of the nature of children and their literacy development, such as children
prefer fictional narrative or nonfiction is too hard read (e.g. Colman, 1999; Duke,
Bennett-Armistead, & Roberts, 2003; Kristo, Colman, & Wilson, 2008). Two issues arise
from this logic. One, empirical research from which these misconceptions may find base
is scant. Rather, the misconceptions arose from general perceptions of the adult
population. Regardless of how these misconceptions came to be, no research actually
establishes a causal link between the misconceptions and nonfiction availability. Two,
research that contradicts these misconceptions (e.g. Duke & Kays, 1998; Pappas, 1991,
1993) has been readily available and widely cited for a number of years. And still, the
amount of nonfiction books in early childhood education classrooms continues to be
minimal. Missing from the current literature is a systematic study to uncover the why
7
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
behind the lack of nonfiction in early childhood classrooms. This study is intended to
address this void in the literature.
Purpose of Study
The purposes for this mixed methods study are three-fold. First, this study will
add another dimension to the growing literature on young children’s early exposure to (or
lack thereof) nonfiction literature by including preschool classrooms in child care centers.
This particular purpose gains in importance as (a) more of the nation’s children become
patrons of child care centers and (b) educational expectations of preschool increase to
meet the greater demands of kindergarten. Second, this study will aid in the
understanding of the complex phenomenon of nonfiction paucity in early grade
classrooms by offering viable explanations as to why there is a shortage despite the
advocacy for, market availability of, and benefits from its inclusion. Third, this study will
inform constituencies as to how well child care center preschool classrooms are preparing
children for later school experiences. Many child care centers are accountable to the
community at large who use this service and whose tax dollars feed into the child care
subsidies for low income families. To achieve these purposes, this study was designed to
answer four research questions:

What is the availability of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms?

Do center socio-economic status, teacher education, quality of classroom
literacy environment, and size of center book collection predict the
availability of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms?
8
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015

How do teachers explain the factors that influence the availability of
nonfiction books in the preschool classroom?

To what extent and in what ways do quantitative and qualitative findings work
together to contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of
the availability of nonfiction books in the preschool classroom and the factors
that influence the availability?
The first research question was intended to establish a baseline for the proportion
of nonfiction books in child care center preschool classrooms. The second research
question explored the relationship between structural factors shaping the child care
environment and nonfiction books in the classroom. I used quantitative research methods
to answer these two questions. The third research question aimed to identify possible
forces driving teachers’ decision-making processes for selecting and including nonfiction
books in the classroom environment. I used qualitative research methods to answer this
question. For the fourth research question, I illuminated the interplay of statistically
measurable factors and subjective processes to provide a more complete understanding of
the availability of nonfiction books in the preschool classroom.
Delimitations
Delimitations for the current study were set to maintain a narrow focus and
manageability. This study examined preschool-aged classrooms only in child care centers
licensed by the state, thus Head Start and school-district sponsored Pre-Kindergarten
programs were not included. This study focused on the presence of nonfiction books for
9
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
which children had physical and temporal access. This study did not examine use of
nonfiction by the children or the teachers, nonfiction writing activities, the quality of
nonfiction books available, or other nonfiction materials such as posters, computer
programs, or electronic books.
Limitations
Limitations are inherent in every study, and I attempted to control for some of the
limitations I saw as possible threats to this study. First, I anticipated some participation
resistance from both the center directors (the gatekeepers to the child care centers) and
the teachers themselves. Directors and teachers may feel they are being judged in general
or against some criteria to which they were unaware. Directors and teachers also may feel
as though they are busy enough with daily duties and responsibilities that having an
outsider come into the classroom would add to their burdens or create a disturbance for
the children which in turn would add to the burdens. And finally, directors and teachers
may be reluctant because they do not see the benefits of participation for themselves. I
attempted to assuage possible resistance by communicating that the directors and teachers
were the resident experts and I wanted to learn from them—they were the best judges as
to which materials preschool-aged children should be exposed. To ease the burden I may
cause, I assured and reassured that I did not want to interrupt the normal daily routines
the teachers had in place; I would minimize disruption by working with the teachers’
schedules for the interviews, and working around the children’s schedules for
documentation of the classroom materials. And finally, I promised that I would provide a
10
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
summary of findings upon conclusion of the study. This summary will be provided to
both the participating teacher and the directors of the participating centers.
A second possible limitation to this study was the threat of social desirability—
participants showing or telling me what they thought I wanted to see or hear. Inferences
should adequately and accurately reflect the daily reality of the classrooms and teacher
practices. For example, changing classroom set-ups and routines take time. The amount
of time teachers had to change their daily practices was minimized by scheduling the
recruiting appointment within a week of contacting the center director and then
conducting the classroom observation immediately after obtaining teacher consent. Social
desirability was also a threat during the qualitative interviews. Participants may have
answered questions in a way that did not reflect their practices, but conformed to what
they thought I wanted to hear or to what the teachers thought they should do as opposed
to what they actually do. Although this threat could not be controlled completely,
reported practices were compared to practices observed first-hand and tempered with the
teacher’s explanation for choosing specific books present in the classroom at the time of
the observation and interview.
The third and final limitation anticipated for the current study was potential bias
stemming from my personal assumptions. Research is inherently biased. Subjective
personal, professional, and educational experiences, in combination with values, beliefs,
and preferences, influence decisions researchers make throughout the entire research
process. I attempted to limit the influence of my assumptions by explicitly recognizing
11
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
them. The current study was informed, in part, by my experience as a master teacher in
an NAEYC accredited child care center and my many years of studying child care
systems and the women employed by them. In light of these experiences, I approached
this study with the following assumptions:

Book selection is part of the lesson plan for each classroom.

Teachers have the autonomy to select books for their classrooms.

Each center owns a collection of books from which teachers may draw for use
in their classrooms. This collection will contain more books than the number
available to children in the preschool classroom at any given time. The center
collection may be distributed among multiple classrooms in the center, but
teachers are able to trade their books with other teachers to maximize their
access to the center collection.

Directors are the curators of their respective center’s book collection. As such,
they determine the proportion of the budget to be allocated to book purchases
as well as how, to whom, where, and under what circumstances that money is
to be dispersed.

Child care centers function similarly in the summer months as they do during
the school year.
Operational Definitions
To reduce possible limitations spurred by communication errors and to enhance
clarity, I provide operational definitions for a few key terms used throughout this study.
12
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Nonfiction, child care, preschool, and availability are all terms that appear to be
commonsense in the English language, at least as used by Americans. However, the
generality and commonality of these terms warrant specificity as to how I used them in
this study.
Nonfiction
Determining an operational definition for nonfiction is a difficult endeavor as
research on children’s nonfiction literature has been inconsistent in its terminology.
Terms such as information(al), expository, and nonfiction seem similar or synonymous,
but such terms may have completely different operational definitions depending upon
who is providing the definition. Furthermore, according to Kristo and colleagues (2008),
narrowly defined terms may “miseducate children and young adults about what to expect
from fiction as well as nonfiction” (p. 340).
Some scholars define nonfiction by what it is not, juxtaposing it to the parallel
form of fiction (Colman, 2011; Kiefer & Wilson, 2011; Williams, 2009). In fiction, all of
the elements are a product of the author’s imagination—the character, the setting, the
events, the problem. Nonfiction, in contrast, is based on some degree of truth or fact.
Although this fiction-nonfiction dichotomy appears to be clear-cut, Bamford and Kristo
(2003) argue that children’s books defy easy classification. Children’s book authors and
illustrators increasingly experiment with unconventional formats and approaches such as
combining elements of fact and fiction into one book (Kiefer, 2007; Kristo et al., 2008).
This new “genre” again lacks consistent terminology as it has been referred to as hybrid,
13
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
grey, blended, mixed, informational storybook, informational picture book, and many
other terms. The ratio of fictional elements to nonfiction elements fall into a continuum
from all fiction to all nonfiction. Consequently, existing research on nonfiction
availability for preschool may be even greater when taking into account the books that
may fall within this blended genre.
Some scholars have attempted to bring clarity to the murky waters by creating
tools that help assess genres. For example, Colman (2007) presents a visual model for
analyzing fiction and nonfiction texts on nine different elements. This tool is intended to
assist teachers in determining the extent to which a book contains made-up material,
factual information, complex structure, narrative text, expository text, literary devices,
author’s voice, front/back matter, and visual material. Williams (2009) also proposes a
framework in which to classify nonfiction of any kind based on structural elements and
media modalities. Although these two models seem both user-friendly and
comprehensive, neither are applicable to, nor were intended to be used with, books for
very young children or emerging readers. Many books frequently found in a preschoolage child care classroom are classified as Books to Begin On (Kiefer, 2007). Baby’s first
books, toy books, alphabet books, counting books, and many other concept books that
may or may not contain print typically do double duty as an introduction to literacy and
as an introduction to nonfiction in its simplest, most direct forms.
Due to the current literature’s inability to provide a clear definition of nonfiction
or to provide a nonfiction framework that is compatible with the types of books
14
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
commonly found in a preschool-age child care classroom, I propose my own operational
definition. In the spirit of scholars who advocate for early exposure to a wide variety of
texts (i.e. Duke, Bennett-Armistead, & Roberts, 2003; Pappas, 1991), I adopted a broad
definition that would encompass the full variety of nonfiction variants. For the current
study, nonfiction is any book (or magazine if it is treated in the same manner as a book)
that is based on fact. The author’s intent is to convey some aspect of truthful, verifiable,
well-established information or abstract concept. Included in this broad classification are
(a) various formats including concept, survey, identification, photo essay, life-cycle,
how-to, reference, life stories, specialized, informational picture storybook (Hepler,
2003); (b) a wide variety of organizational structures such as enumerative, sequenced,
chronological, compare-contrast, cause-effect, and narrative (Bamford & Kristo, 2003);
(c) any number or type of access features to include table of contents, index, glossary,
sidebars, inserted information, and notes from author and/ or illustrator (Kerper, 2003a);
and (d) visual displays like photographs, diagrams, maps, and overlays (Kerper, 2003a).
This definition is not restricted or limited to specific linguistic characteristics such as
plural verbs, present tense, or timeless verb construction or generic noun constructions,
nor is it confined to certain content areas or subject matter. Elements that blur the line
between nonfiction and fiction are determined to be nonfiction as long as the author’s
intent was to impart fact-based information or demonstrate abstract concepts. As
mentioned before, fiction contains only products of the author’s imagination.
15
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
To demonstrate, consider three types of books about visiting a doctor’s office. The
Doctor’s Office by Gail Saunders-Smith (1998) is a purely nonfiction book with no
fictional elements. This survey book addresses the duties of the doctor, nurse, and
receptionist while introducing technical vocabulary. The author employs an enumerative
structure and includes a table of contents, glossary, bibliography, index, and note to
parents/teachers. The text is in present tense and refers to types of people (a doctor, a
nurse, a patient) rather than focusing on one main character. The illustrations are
photographs of real people in real doctor offices. In contrast, Froggy Goes to the Doctor
by Jonathan London (2002) is a fictional story in which the main character Froggy
expresses his fear of going to the doctor. All of the characters in the story are imaginary
as is their dialogue. In typical fiction-fashion, there is a clear beginning, middle, and end
to the story which lays out Froggy’s dilemma and how he overcomes it. Although
children can relate to the story and may have shared a similar experience, the author does
not advance any specific concepts, technical vocabulary, or bits of information that add to
children’s knowledge of doctors or concept of fear or feelings. As a middle ground to
these two children’s books is Elmo Goes to the Doctor by Sarah Albee (2001). This book
contains fictional elements in that Elmo is a Sesame Street monster character, the other
characters are also monsters, and the dialogue is made up as are the events. Elmo faces
the same fear of going to the doctor as Froggy does; however, the reader learns through
Elmo’s experience what typical actions the doctor will take during a check-up (i.e.
listening to the heart) and the names of items that might be encountered (i.e. stethoscope).
16
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
The author’s intent is to inform the reader of what to expect from this experience, but
cases this information in the context of a loveable, fictional character’s experience.
Child Care
For this study, the term child care represents both a location and the services
rendered at that location. The location is a building, referred to as a center, which has
been licensed by the state as meeting specific safety standards and is where parents or
guardians leave their children to be cared for by others for a portion of the day. The
services provided at this location are educational, custodial (e.g. feeding, toileting), and
supervisory in nature and provided by employees (who meet minimum state standards) of
the state-licensed center.
As child care is a term used to describe a wide variety of non-parental, noncustodial supervision and needs tending for children, the operational definition will be
further clarified by distinguishing it from other forms of child care. For example, child
care is typically divided into either family child care or center-based child care. Family
child care implies that services are offered within the child’s home or the care provider’s
home. Family child care providers are self-employed, autonomous, and may not be
required to meet any state standards for quality (or they may be able to function “under
the radar”). Center-based child care, however, is performed at non-residential locations
by adults employed by the center for at least minimum wage. The center must be licensed
by the state and meet minimal standards imposed by the governing state department. For
this study, child care refers to center-based child care and not family child care.
17
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Center-based child care is commonly mistaken for Head Start or Pre-K programs
linked to particular school districts. Although these three types of care programs overlap
to some degree, Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, and Thornburg (2009) explain in their
summary on the effects of preschool education that each program is reasonably distinct in
terms of “governance and administration, funding, and program standards” (p. 53). Child
care is regulated through state social services or health departments and is less regulated
than Head Start or Pre-K. Head Start is federally regulated through the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, with no state administrative authority, and Pre-K
programs may be governed through state education departments or local school boards
who are accountable to the state education department.
The primary focus of child care is to facilitate parental employment by providing
a safe environment for young children. Support for children’s learning and development
may be an auxiliary service for some centers, but child care regulations infrequently have
provisions for this goal. Typically, licensing standards address structural features of child
care that help ensure children’s physiological and safety needs (Jones-Branch, Torquati,
Raikes, & Edwards, 2009). In contrast, the goal of Head Start is to promote child
development while Pre-K programs focus on education and school-readiness. Given the
purpose and regulating authority of these different center-based child care programs,
teachers in child care centers are not held to the same standards as those teaching in Head
Start or Pre-K. For example, 17 states do not require child care center teachers to have a
18
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
high school diploma or GED and only one state requires a bachelor’s degree (Child Care
Aware of America, 2013).
Federal funding supports Head Start while Pre-K typically is state supported as
public education. Funding for child care may be more piecemeal. Parents are primarily
responsible for footing the bill for child care. Families experiencing economic hardship
may apply for government assistance through a variety of programs to pay for child care.
This assistance may be paid directly to the parent or, pending a legal agreement between
parties, directly to the child care center.
For this study, I chose to focus on child care centers specifically. Only child care
centers licensed by the state, meeting minimum standards set by the state licensing
authority, with teachers meeting the minimum state child care standards, and paid for by
parents and/or government subsidies were considered for inclusion. Thus, this study does
not include Head Start or Pre-K programs. The inherent differences among these three
program types render them as distinctly different contexts that may not be comparable.
My decision to focus exclusively on child care centers was based upon three reasons.
One, child care centers serve more children than Head Start and Pre-K combined (see
Laughlin, 2013). By focusing on child care centers, this study has the potential to yield
important information about educational experiences of a majority of young children.
Two, child care centers receive the least amount of educational and financial support of
the three programs. This study will document the extent to which child care centers are
able to expose children to the rich educational experiences provided through
19
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
incorporation of nonfiction books. And three, the child care context is of personal and
professional interest to me and is the area within which I have experience.
Preschool
For the current study, the term preschool is used to indicate an academic
classification similar to grade (i.e. kindergarten, 1st grade, etc.). Preschoolers are children
varying in ages from 36 months up to the age in which a child enters kindergarten
(typically 5-years-old, but may include 6-year-olds who were not developmentally ready
to enter kindergarten at the age of five). The preschool classroom is a physically defined
space in which preschoolers receive educational, custodial, and supervisory services. The
preschool teacher is the person designated as in charge of implementing and enforcing
routines, activities, and rules within the classroom.
Availability
Availability is predicated on meeting three specific criteria that must occur
simultaneously: physical location, time allocation, and freedom of choice. For physical
location, books must be within reach of children without the use of stools (or other
boosting device) or adult assistance. Books must be in this physically accessible location
for a minimum of one hour a day, cumulative. Within this one-hour minimum timeframe,
classroom children may freely choose and change their activity as guided by their
interests rather than as dictated by the teacher. Therefore, a teacher may store books on a
shelf or in a cupboard and have these books considered available if she relocates these
books to be within reach of children for a total of one hour a day when the children are
20
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
allowed to decide for themselves if they want to read/look at books, play with blocks,
dress up, etc. Conversely, books that are kept out at children’s level would not be
considered available if the children are not given an opportunity to willingly select the
books as an activity, or if the opportunities afforded did not total 60 minutes within an
eight hour time period.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter reviewed the evidence
demonstrating that the genre of nonfiction is not well represented in early childhood
classrooms. The study purpose, research questions, delimitations, limitations, and key
terminology were explicated. Chapter II provides a review of current literature shaping
the scope of the current study. Topics of the importance of early exposure to nonfiction,
and the structure and process factors in child care that influence nonfiction availability in
preschool classrooms lead the reader forward in gaining a deeper understanding of the
scholarly research in these areas. Chapter III details the parallel mixed methods research
design for this study as well as the study’s research participants, research settings, and
data sources. In Chapter IV, results from quantitative and qualitative research strands of
this study are assessed and analyzed. Chapter V provides a synthesis of the research
results in light of the literature and the theoretical frameworks that guided the study.
Concluding Chapter V is a discussion of study limitations and implications for practice
and further research on nonfiction availability in child care center preschool classrooms.
21
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Empirical research has documented that the availability of nonfiction books in
early childhood classrooms is minimal. An examination as to why this paucity exists is
vacant from the current literature. Also lacking from the literature is the inclusion of child
care centers as viable settings that should provide children access to nonfiction books.
This study aims to bring child care into the fold of the discourse on children’s early
exposure to nonfiction and to provide understanding of the factors that promote or hinder
the availability of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms. This study is novel in that it
addresses a very clear hole in the research base, and it incorporates a new context that has
been largely overlooked in consideration of the issue. As no precedence has been set for
how to address the why behind the lack of nonfiction availability, nor what theories to use
to guide such an investigation, this study was informed by (a) other literature that linked
young children and nonfiction, (b) literature on child care quality and quality literacy
environments, and (c) the researcher’s personal, professional, and educational
experiences with child care systems and the women they employ. Connections among the
literature reviewed and the researcher’s unique perspectives were then used to identify
theories that helped provide understanding to those connections, directions for additional
literature to review, and frameworks in which to conduct the study.
Implicit in the argument for nonfiction in early childhood classrooms is that
nonfiction affords certain benefits to children that fiction does not. Based upon this
22
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
supposition, literature demonstrating the value of children’s early exposure to nonfiction
will be reviewed. After this review, the discussion will turn toward factors derived from
literature (featuring child care quality and literacy environment quality) that could
potentially explain the availability of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms.
Consistent with research and literature on child care quality, the literature reviewed in
this particular section will be divided into structural and process factors. Structural
factors relate to the features of the physical environment and staffing requirements and
process factors include elements pertaining to curricular practices (Barbour, Barbour, &
Scully, 2015). Included in the discussion on structural and process factors are
descriptions of the theoretical frameworks which aligned with the literature that informed
the design of this study and served as the lenses through which the quantitative and
qualitative strands of the current study were analyzed.
Benefits of Incorporating Nonfiction in Early Childhood Classrooms
To set the stage for why the current study is important, I briefly review some of
the literature that demonstrates the benefits to children when nonfiction books are
incorporated into the early childhood classroom. In particular, I address how nonfiction
inspires curiosity and reading engagement and how nonfiction may enhance student
performance by fostering particular reading skills.
Nonfiction Inspires Curiosity and Reading Engagement
Many scholars have investigated the importance and connection of nonfiction
books to curiosity, learning, and reading. In an article highlighting the appropriateness of
23
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
informational text for young children, Duke (2003b) argued that children’s desire to learn
is fueled by an inherent curiosity about the world. Children’s desire to satisfy their
curiosity by obtaining information was documented by Yopp and Yopp (2000) who kept
anecdotal records of questions asked by two young children over several days. Other
scholars have connected this curiosity and information seeking more specifically to the
role that nonfiction books play in fulfilling children’s needs to learn. When children seek
information and ask questions about their world, adults should take the opportunity to
demonstrate how to find the answer using nonfiction resources (Duke, 2007; Kristo et al.,
2008; McMath, King, & Smith, 1998). Scholars note this action is important for two
reasons: (a) it creates an opportunity to use nonfiction for an authentic purpose (Duke,
2004, 2007), and (b) the answer found in a book commonly leads to more questions,
which leads to more research in more books for more answers (McMath et al., 1998). An
iterative question-research cycle is created when curiosity leads to learning and reading to
learn, which then inspires more curiosity about what is still not known, which starts the
process over again.
This process of how curiosity leads to inquiry, which leads to seeking answers,
was observed by Brassell (2006) in a case study of a teacher’s efforts to increase her
students’ use of nonfiction by increasing the amount of nonfiction books in both the
classroom reading area and her read alouds. Student questions on a topic, such as human
digestion, recycling, and insects, inspired the teacher to feature that topic in her
classroom reading area and read alouds. After being exposed to the read alouds, students
24
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
voluntarily selected books on the topic for personal reading, asked more questions about
the topic, and were inspired to ask questions about other topics of interest. Similar results
were found in another case study conducted by Correia (2011) who tried to determine if
children preferred fiction or nonfiction. Correia increased the amount of nonfiction in her
classroom reading area and read alouds (presumptively to balance this exposure with
fiction). After 19 weeks of observing student discussion, writing, and book selection,
Correia (2011) concluded that students’ flourishing curiosity was the product of and
antecedent to students’ reading of nonfiction books. The significance of both Brassell’s
(2006) and Correia’s (2011) studies is that they offer first-hand accounts of children’s
curiosity inspiring the use of nonfiction books. Though the use of nonfiction needed to be
demonstrated first, the students learned their curiosity could be both satiated and inspired
by books that offered factual information on topics of interest.
Because nonfiction books can satisfy children’s thirst for knowledge and may
address topics of interests not typically addressed in fictional literature, nonfiction may
motivate and engage reluctant readers. For example, in a case study of two boys with
severe reading and writing difficulties, Caswell and Duke (1998) noted the boys
responded differently to fiction and nonfiction after Harvard Literacy Laboratory teachers
incorporated nonfiction into the individualized lesson plans. One boy learned he could
control and manipulate literacy for his individual needs and purposes, and the other had a
desire to gather and communicate information about topics of interest. Additionally, the
boys’ experiences with nonfiction books in the school context matched their home
25
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
literacy experiences. Fictional narratives failed to engage these two students and served
as a source of frustration. In contrast, nonfiction satisfied purposes that were meaningful
to the boys. Nonfiction afforded these children a more enjoyable reading experience and
resulted in their increased interest and preference for the genre. Increased reading and
reading engagement among reluctant readers was also demonstrated in the case study
conducted by Correia (2011) described above. Correia observed a student known to resist
independent reading “pouring over the nonfiction books with an excitement and interest
he had never before expressed” (p. 103). The children represented in the two case studies
featured above failed to thrive on a literature diet of exclusive fictional narrative. This
literature suggests that introducing nonfiction to low performing or reluctant readers
offers a different venue into reading which the readers may find more interesting and
meaningful than fiction, thus promoting reading engagement and inspiring more reading.
Reluctant readers are not the only students to derive pleasure, engagement, and
motivation from reading nonfiction books. Nonfiction books appeal to a range of readers
who have varying reading abilities and interests. For example, in their qualitative study
aimed at refuting the notion that young children are incapable of successfully dealing
with expository texts, Duke and Kays (1998) witnessed kindergarteners’ spontaneous and
voluntary interactions with nonfiction. Throughout the study, preliterate kindergarteners
willingly selected nonfiction books during reading and free choice times, even when
fiction books were available. Such action demonstrates that young children are not only
capable of interacting with the more demanding, complex features of nonfiction, but they
26
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
genuinely enjoy interacting with the text. Similarly, Correia (2011) found that some
children prefer nonfiction over other genres. In 14 of the 19 weeks she tracked students’
library book selections, more than half the books checked out were nonfiction. When
given the opportunity to write about the genre they liked best, 10 of 15 students wrote
about nonfiction. As suggested by the literature, an exclusive focus on fiction in early
childhood classrooms, as is the norm, may rob some children of the opportunity to
engage in enjoyable and fruitful reading experiences. In contrast, literature also suggests
that early exposure to nonfiction may provide rich soil in which future learning can take
root.
Nonfiction Enhances Student Performance
Engaged reading on topics of interest does double duty of addressing children’s
curiosity (by satiating and inspiring) and providing background knowledge from which
children may draw in future academic situations. Marzano (2000) found in his summary
of 40 years of cumulative research on characteristics of effective schools and effective
teaching that background knowledge accounted for as much as 33% of student
achievement. Early exposure to nonfiction books can concurrently create background
knowledge and build upon background knowledge (Caswell & Duke, 1998; McMath et
al., 1998). This assertion finds backing from a study on children’s responses to different
genres of children’s books (Shine & Roser, 1999). Post-read aloud discussions with nine
children revealed that children relied upon and called attention to factual information
gleaned from their background knowledge and experiences more often with information
27
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
books than with fantasy, realistic fiction, or poetry. This finding, coupled with assertions
from scholars (e.g. Duke, 2004; Gill, 2009), advances the idea that nonfiction helps
mitigate future difficulties in school.
In an article proposing an evidence-based framework for incorporating nonfiction,
Palmer and Stewart (2005) claimed that there is “evidence that achievement improves
when students read nonfiction” (p. 427). Preceding and aligning with Palmer and Stewart,
Caswell and Duke’s (1998) case study of two struggling students who improved
dramatically over a two year intervention provides, perhaps, the best foundation for this
claim. The long-term effects of early exposure to nonfiction on later academic
achievement still needs to be explored systematically. Research on student achievement
in late adolescence suggests the ability to navigate complex text, such as that found in
nonfiction literature, increases the probability of obtaining higher grades in some reading
intensive introductory-level college courses (see ACT, 2009; National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). It
stands to reason that early exposure to nonfiction not only may help students develop
these abilities, but provides time to practice and hone the skills.
A growing body of research suggests that including nonfiction books early in a
child’s educational experiences enhances reading skills. Of particular interest to
researchers are vocabulary and linguistic features that distinguish nonfiction from fiction.
Pappas (1993) was among the first to empirically study children’s ability to understand,
learn, and use genre specific vocabulary and linguistic features. In her study, 20
28
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
kindergarten children individually listened to repeated readings of both narrative and
informational (expository nonfiction) book sets and then were asked to read the books to
the researcher. Children’s readings of the books revealed they were attuned to the
specialized linguistic features characteristic of nonfiction text (i.e. timeless verb
construction3, co-classification4) and acquired technical vocabulary. These skills were
then properly applied to children’s pretend readings. Important to note is that most
children maintained genre fidelity as the vocabulary and linguistic features of nonfiction
texts were applied to the pretend readings of nonfiction books, but not fiction. Children’s
abilities generally improved in each successive reading.
Other studies corroborate the findings of Pappas’ (1993) research when using a
similar approach. In their pre-intervention assessment of 20 kindergarten children’s
pretend readings Duke and Kays (1998) determined that children had some basic
knowledge of information book language before the intervention as they used linguistic
features for pretend informational book reading, but not fictional narrative book reading.
After a three month classroom intervention consisting of nearly daily extended read aloud
time where narrative and expository books were read, children exhibited a marked
increase in the use of certain linguistic features such as timeless verb construction and
generically referenced nouns. Like the children in Pappas’ (1993) study, children in the
3
Timeless verb construction is the term used in many studies to indicate use of present tense of verbs (i.e.
doctors treat patients, frogs eat flies) (Pappas, 1993).
4
Co-classification is the term used when referring to classes of objects (i.e. dogs bark instead of this dog
barks or these dogs bark) (Pappas, 1993).
29
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Duke and Kays’ (1998) study performed even better in their pretend readings after
receiving additional exposure to nonfiction through read alouds. In both of these studies,
the researchers observed children generalizing these linguistic features to nonfiction
books, but not to books of other genres. Again, these findings were corroborated by Shine
and Roser (1999) who extended the research protocol to four genres: nonfiction, fantasy,
realistic fiction, and poetry. Like the other studies, books from each genre were read
aloud to preschool age children. Instead of children pretend-reading the books afterwards,
children discussed each book upon its conclusion. Children’s discussions of information
books, but not other genres, were saturated with language typically associated with
informational discourse such as timeless verb construction and co-classification. These
three studies (Duke & Kays, 1998; Pappas, 1993; Shine & Roser, 1999) exhibit young
children’s ability to master technical vocabulary and linguistic features of nonfiction
books even as pre-literate readers. Salient to these skills are children’s early and repeated
exposure to nonfiction in the classroom.
Early and repeated exposure to nonfiction helps children develop other reading
skills as well. Preliminary findings from a longitudinal, experimental study investigating
child outcomes from multi-year exposure to genre-balanced classrooms revealed that
children with low literacy levels had better reading comprehension after one year than
children in classrooms that did not intentionally increase the representation of this genre
(Duke, 2003a). Increased reading comprehension was demonstrated by children in a
qualitative assessment of first graders’ retelling of an expository text (Moss, 1997). Moss
30
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
found that after a nonfiction read aloud, children could relay main ideas completely,
accurately, and sequentially. Not only could children adequately demonstrate their
comprehension of the text, they could summarize it, identify important or new
information, express their opinions about the text, provide a rationale for their opinions,
and infer beyond the text to their own lives and experiences. Similarly, Shine and Roser
(1999) reported that children recalled events and sequence of events more confidently for
nonfiction books than they did for books of other genres. Children also spoke differently
about the illustrations in informational books than other types of books, focusing on the
format and medium and using information inferred from the text. These studies provide
evidence that reading comprehension skills can be fostered through early nonfiction
exposure. Additionally, these studies imply that nonfiction may serve as a better catalyst
for this development than other literature genres.
Summary
Nonfiction may provide benefits to children that fiction does not. For many
children, nonfiction helps answer questions that stem from their inherent curiosity about
their worlds. When children satisfy this curiosity with information gathered from
nonfiction books, new questions arise which inspires more reading, thus creating a
reiterative question-answer cycle. The desire for more information fosters engagement
with nonfiction books. Furthermore, nonfiction books help children develop specific
reading skills that help set them up for success in later schooling. Specifically, nonfiction
aids with learning of vocabulary, linguistic features such as timeless verb construction,
31
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
and reading comprehension. This section provided a brief overview of the important
contributions classroom inclusion of nonfiction books can make for emergent and early
readers. The discussion now turns toward literature that helped shape the current
investigation into why nonfiction, despite its benefits, is lacking in early childhood
education classrooms.
Structural Factors Affecting Nonfiction Availability
Structural factors in child care were defined by Cassidy et al. (2005) as
environmental characteristics of the classroom that are independent of inter-personal
interaction. Included in this definition are materials, equipment, rules, and guidelines.
The thought process behind how these factors came to be is not included. According to
Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes, and Cryer (1997), structural factors also include
“regulatable” features such as teacher qualifications. Structural factors are impacted by
macro- and micro-level systems such as state and individual center policies as well as
economic climates of the community and individual child care patrons (Phillipsen et al.,
1997). Based upon a review of the literature, center socio-economic status, teacher
education level, classroom literacy environment quality, and size of center book
collections emerged as structural factors that may impact the availability of nonfiction
books in the child care center preschool classroom. A theoretical framework that
complemented these structural factors, and potentially could explain the variance within
these factors, is social capital theory. This theory will be described first to color the lens
through which the literature on the structural factors were viewed. Following the
32
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
theoretical framework is a review of the literature on these particular structural factors.
Social capital theory and structural factors informed the quantitative research strand of
this parallel mixed methods study.
Social Capital Theory
The old adage “it’s not what you know, but who you know” draws credence from
social capital theory. Most people are embedded in a variety of complex relationships or
networks of association. We go to work and interact with colleagues or clients. We may
be members of a union, club, fraternity, church, or professional organization that provide
opportunities to interact with others who have similar interests or goals. We consume
services, play sports, or at the very least maintain some sort of contact with friends and
family members. Halpern (2005) notes that networks can be characterized by several
different dimensions: (a) degree of familiarity from recognition by sight to intimate
connections and mutual sharing of emotional and material support, (b) valence of
relationship such as positive or marked by ill feelings, (c) defined geographically as in
close physical proximity or by ill-defined boundaries such as membership in a national
organization or different branches of an office, (d) density or the proportion of people in
the network who know each other, and (e) closure or the extent of intra-community links
versus inter-community links.
Every person with whom we each come into contact with as individuals holds
resources that only become accessible to us through our social interaction with them
(Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2001; Parcel, 2007; Rothstein, 2005). What these
33
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
resources are may vary, but when we gain access to these resources through our
association with someone within our social networks we are using social capital. The
more social capital one possesses, the more one can accomplish than without it as social
networks provide economic (money), human (knowledge, skills), cultural (social
structure, values), symbolic (prestige, honor), or additional social capital (Field, 2003;
Grootaert, 2001; Halpern, 2005; Lin, 2001). Additionally, social networks have
embedded resources that enhance outcomes such as information flow, exertion of
influence, certification of individual’s social credentials, reinforcement of identity, and
recognition (Lin, 2001).
Social capital can exist on an aggregate level among a group of individuals, such
as when having membership in a club or organization (i.e. work place). According to
Bourdieu (1986), members of the organization then have some degree of access to the
social capital possessed by other members. The structure of the institution provides a
framework for sharing information, coordinating activities, and making collective
decisions (Grootaert, 2001). The organization itself benefits as members share goals,
have common frames of reference, and experience a cooperative spirit within the
organization as well as between the organization and its patrons (Cohen & Prusak, 2001).
As applied to the current study, the child care setting serves as an aggregate of
individuals. Teachers and parents of children attending the child care center have varying
degrees of social capital individually which combine at the institution/organization level.
This aggregated social capital then becomes an asset to the teachers on behalf of the
34
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
children. Teachers and parents have the assumed common goal of providing enriched
learning opportunities for children; as they work together toward this goal, their
individual networks may lead to different avenues for obtaining resources (i.e. nonfiction
books) necessary to achieve the goal.
There is no common, systematic way for assessing social capital, thus measuring
social capital is a difficult endeavor (Grootaert, 2001; Rothstein, 2005). This study,
therefore, includes measurement of indicators typically associated with social capital
rather than social capital itself. These indicators were analyzed in conjunction with the
amount of nonfiction books in the preschool classrooms to test indicators’ ability to
predict the prevalence of this genre. First, the socioeconomic status of the child care
centers were gauged on the basis of the percentage of children receiving government
sponsored child care subsidies, or free services. This indicator represents the
socioeconomic status of the families using the facilities which is positively correlated
with social capital (Coleman, 1990). Second, education level of the teacher was
categorized. Educational attainment is commonly associated with greater levels of, and
access to, numerous quality networks (Parcel, 2007). Third, child care centers included in
the sampling frame are assumed to vary greatly in terms of the social capital available
due to their clientele, funding streams, and educational attainment of the staff and are
thus likely to vary in terms of quality. Therefore, the classroom literacy environment
served as a third indicator. Fourth, social capital aids in the attainment of tangible
resources. In this study, the size of the collection of books available to teachers from
35
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
which they may select for their classroom libraries was measured and served as the final
indictor.
Socio-Economic Status
Literature suggests that the amount of books available to students differs on the
basis of socio-economic level. As noted above in Duke’s (2000) study, classrooms in
high socio-economic status (SES) school districts had significantly more nonfiction texts
than classrooms in low-SES school districts. Few other studies investigated the
connection between SES and nonfiction availability in early childhood classrooms, yet
researchers have established differences in access to literacy materials. For example,
Neuman and Celano (2001) examined four neighborhoods in Philadelphia, two low- and
two middle-SES, to develop an understanding of ecological variability in regards to
access to print. The study addressed quantity and quality of books in child care, schools,
and public libraries as well as the quantity and type of books available for purchase in the
local economy. Neuman and Celano noted that the number of places selling print
materials for children in low-SES neighborhoods was less than half that in middle-SES
neighbors. Even more discrepant was low-SES neighborhoods did not have any
bookstores. The stores that contained children’s print materials had an average of 13 titles
(books, magazines, comic books, coloring books) for every 1 child in the middle-SES
neighborhoods and the low-SES neighborhoods had an average of 1 title for every 180
children. Neuman and Celano concluded that it was nearly impossible to purchase a book
of any quality in low-SES neighborhoods. The researchers also noted discrepancies
36
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
within the availability and quality of the book collections offered in the neighborhood
child care centers. Middle-SES child care centers had significantly better availability and
quality of book collections than low-SES child care centers. Findings from Neuman and
Celano (2001) and Duke (2000) exhibit strong evidence that SES likely plays a part in the
availability of nonfiction books in child care center preschool classrooms.
Further strengthening the argument that SES may impact nonfiction availability is
the research that establishes a relationship between SES levels and child care quality.
Low-, middle-, and high-SES programs for children were assessed by Phillips, Voran,
Kisker, Howes, and Whitebook (1994). Using data from the Profiles of Child Care
Settings Study (a nationally representative sample) and the National Child Care Staffing
Study (not a representative sample), the researchers attempted to characterize the quality
of care in programs where low-income children are enrolled, examine variance in
different types of early care and education settings, and examine equity of access to
quality programs serving low-, middle-, and high-SES families. Findings revealed that
the majority of classrooms, regardless of SES, scored less than a 5.0 in quality ratings (on
a scale of 1 to 7 where 7 is excellent, 5 is good, 3 is minimal, and 1 is inadequate).
However, high-SES preschool classrooms had significantly more appropriate care giving
than low- and middle-SES classrooms. Middle-SES classrooms scored significantly
lower in appropriate activities than did high- and low-SES classrooms. Low-SES children
received the poorest quality of care in respect to teacher-child interactions, teacher
sensitivity, and detachment. High-SES classrooms provided highest quality of care
37
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
overall. Low- and middle- SES centers varied within the quality index considered, but
generally low-SES centers provided better quality care than middle-SES centers. This
finding suggested a curvilinear relationship between child care quality and family income
(Phillips et al., 1994). A similar relationship was noted by Pianta and colleagues (2009)
in their review of 20-years-worth of policy-practice misalignment. In regards to SES, the
authors concluded that children from low-SES households have limited access to higherquality preschool care and lower-middle-SES have the least access. As a categorical
variable, SES has an association with certain indicators of child care quality.
Common among child care programs is a combination of patrons representing a
range of SES. Rather than categorizing centers as high- or low-SES, it may be useful to
consider the concentration of poverty. For example, Pianta et al. (2005) studied 238 statefunded Pre-Kindergarten classrooms in the public education system in 6 different states.
The researchers investigated attributes of program, classroom, and teachers and their
ability to predict quality and teacher-child interactions. Classrooms in which more than
60 percent of the children were below the poverty line scored lower on global quality
measures than did classrooms with the smaller proportions of low income children.
Similar results were found for children in the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes study
(Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1995). In this study, children in child care centers with
higher concentration of subsidies scored lower in language skills, pre-academic skills,
view of self, and perception of child care experience than children in centers with a lower
concentration of subsidies.
38
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Corroborative results were seen in two studies specifically assessing the
relationship among child care subsidy density (concentration of subsidies) and child care
quality. Jones-Branch and colleagues (2004) investigated measures of classroom quality
for 34 child care centers in one county in Nebraska. By comparing the 19 centers that
serve children receiving government subsidies with the 15 centers that did not serve
subsidized children, the researchers found that subsidy status (a categorical variable
indicating if a center served children receiving subsidies or not) was not associated with
outcomes. However, subsidy density (a continuous variable) was more strongly and
significantly related to outcomes; programs with no subsidized children rated higher in
overall quality. Additionally, programs with no subsidized children rated higher in
literacy environment ratings (Jones-Branch et al., 2004). These findings were replicated
in another study by Antle et al. (2008). The researchers investigated subsidy density and
child care quality outcomes for infant and preschool classrooms in Kentucky using
interview data from 110 child care center directors and observations of 47 infant/toddler
classrooms and 44 preschool classrooms. Subsidy density was not found to predict
quality for infant/toddler classrooms, but did predict quality for preschool classrooms. As
subsidy density increased, observed quality in preschool classrooms decreased. The same
effect was seen for measures of the language and literacy environment in the same
classrooms. Of the variables investigated by Antle and colleagues (2008), subsidy density
was the best predictor of the language and literacy environment quality.
39
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
The implication of these studies on SES or subsidy density and exposure to
literacy or other child care quality outcomes is that child care centers serving
economically disadvantaged children are likely to be disadvantaged as well. The
subsidies which are intended to defray the cost of child care are not likely sufficient. As
stated by Pianta and colleagues (2005), “the fact that saturation of poverty in the
classroom is related to lower quality suggests that the available resources in these
classrooms (e.g., personnel, training, etc.) for counteracting the effects of poverty may
not be sufficient” (p. 156). Nonfiction books may be another resource that is lacking in a
classroom with children from low-SES backgrounds or classrooms with higher rates of
subsidy density.
Teacher Education
National and multi-state studies of child care quality provide strong evidence for
considering teacher education level as a factor related to various indicators of quality care
for young children. Findings from the National Child Care Staffing Study (Howes,
Whitebook, & Phillips, 1992) indicated teacher education level was the strongest
predictor of care quality and teacher sensitivity for infant, toddler, and preschool
classrooms. For preschool teachers specifically, those with higher education levels
provided higher quality care, were more sensitive, and were less harsh or detached than
teachers with lower levels of education. Similarly, the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD
ECCRN, 2005) found infant teachers with higher levels of education gave more positive
40
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
caregiving than teachers with only child care experience. Teacher education was also
found as a strong, positive correlate to child care quality for infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers in a multi-state study reported by Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, and
Abbott-Shim (2001). In that study, teacher education was a predictor of quality only for
infant and toddler classrooms; other indicators of quality cancelled out the effects of
teacher education for preschool classrooms. These studies demonstrate that teacher
education level may not predict every indicator of child care quality, but there is a strong
relationship with several quality indicators.
Complicating the effect of teacher education level on child care quality is the
confounding effect of specialized training (child development-related coursework
received from an educational institution). Teachers with higher levels of education tend
to have more specialized training which makes it difficult to tease apart the effects of the
training from the degree. For example, child care teachers in the treatment group of
Cassidy, Buell, Pugh-Hoese, and Russell’s (1995) experiment on community college
course work’s impact on teacher performance enrolled in an A.A.S. degree program.
After completing 12 to 20 credit hours of child development or early childhood education
coursework, teachers in the treatment group scored significantly better than teachers in
the control group on measures of child care environment quality and teacher beliefs. A
blurring of the distinction between education and training was seen by Howes and
colleagues (1992) as well. In that study, the level of child development coursework
served as a separate variable from teacher education level and was found to also predict
41
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
quality care. For both of these studies, many of the teachers with degrees had degrees in
child-development related fields.
Given the difficulty noted above, some researchers choose to investigate
education level and specialized training as a single construct. When Howes and
colleagues (1992) considered education level and child development-related coursework
together in their study, they found teachers with a Bachelor’s degree and/or college-level
child development coursework provided higher quality care than teachers with no
Bachelor’s degree and lower levels (or none) of child development coursework. They
argued that that the combination of these credentials is more effective than either alone.
In an effort to test this conclusion, Howes (1997) examined two representative samples of
child care teachers from the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study and the Florida Quality
Improvement Study. Only teachers with both education and training (which included both
child-related coursework and workshops) were included in the analysis. Howes found a
linear relationship in which teachers with the most advanced levels of both education and
training were most effective, and those with an Associate’s level of degree and training
were more effective than those with some college or those who completed high school
and attended child-related workshops. Using national, multi-state, and representative
samples, child care researchers substantiate the value of higher levels of teacher
education and the additive effect of child-related coursework at the post-secondary level.
Child care literature consistently supports a direct correlation between teacher
education and child care quality, yet, important to note is the conflicting results of
42
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
literature from other areas of early childhood education. Specifically, Early and
colleagues (2006, 2007) investigated various conceptualizations of teacher education
qualifications in Pre-K programs. Using data from the National Center for Early
Development and Learning (NCEDL) Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten, Early and
colleagues (2006) found teacher education predicted only one of four quality indicators
(teaching/interactions) and one of seven child-academic outcomes (math reasoning). In
an effort to better understand why teacher education had a nearly null effect on outcomes,
the NCEDL was examined in light of six other studies that examined comparable
constructs (Early et al., 2007). Most analyses yielded null results. Although researchers
noted few significant findings for individual studies, no clear associations or patterns
emerged across studies. Interpretations as to the potential reasons for the lack of
associations were similar for both studies: teacher education programs were lacking in
their content, support for effective teacher implementation of knowledge was lacking, or
market forces drove higher quality teachers to older grades. Claiming that these
discussion points were not well developed, Bogard, Traylor, and Takanishi (2008)
provided additional commentary on the dual system of Pre-K and K-3 education. The
authors pointed out that K-12 teachers have Bachelor’s degrees, but Pre-K teachers’
education level varies widely. This variation may reinforce current quality (high or low)
and discontinuity among programs.
Important to note is literature that reports conflicting findings for teacher
education level and classroom quality is focused on Pre-K programs and not child care.
43
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Research examining child care classrooms reports more consistent relationships between
teacher education and quality care. The conflicting findings may stem from the different
nature of child care and Pre-K programs which lead to different measures of quality.
Quality indicators in the child care studies centered on facets of the physical, social, and
emotional environment in the classroom. The setting of Pre-K is more similar to that
found in elementary schools than child care centers (Pianta et al., 2005). As such, the PreK studies reviewed above assessed quality indicators more indicative of formal schooling
practices such as instructional practices and children’s academic skills. As the current
study investigates availability of nonfiction books—a component of the physical
environment—in child care center preschool classrooms, the empirical literature
substantiates the inclusion of teacher education level as a factor to consider.
Literacy Environment Quality
Literacy environment of classrooms contain both elements of structure and
process. As with structure in child care quality, structure in the literacy environment
relates to the physical part of the literacy environment: the type, quality, and quantity of
literacy materials and the organization of such materials in the classroom. Process relates
to the psychological part of the literacy environment: interactions between teachers and
children with literacy related objects and activities as well as individual interaction with
the materials. Scholars (e.g. Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005; Neuman 1999; Neuman &
Celano, 2001; Vukelick & Christie, 2009; Wolfersberger, Reutzel, Sudweeks, & Fawson,
44
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
2004) have posited that the combination of literacy environment structure and process
yield the best outcomes for children.
Although typically considered in conjunction, the structure and process of literacy
environments are distinctly different features. The independent and interactive relations
among these features of the literacy environment, and their association with children’s
literacy development, was the target of investigation for Guo, Kaderavek, and McGinty
(2012). As assessed by Guo and colleagues during their observations of 38 Head Start
and state funded Pre-K classrooms, literacy environment structure is comprised of
materials (amount, variety, placement, and accessibility of books) and the organization of
the classroom reading area. Process included instructional support. Reading materials,
namely books, were not predictive of children’s literacy outcomes of alphabet recognition
and name-writing abilities; however organizational elements of the physical literacy
environment were related to quality of instruction as well as children’s literacy outcomes.
Guo and colleagues surmised that well organized reading areas may motivate children to
use books, thus resulting in exploration of and learning about literacy. Furthermore, the
organization of the reading area reflected teachers’ use of books for the purpose of
facilitating children’s learning. Based upon these findings, the researchers concluded that
classroom reading areas may serve as a merging of the structure and process features of
the literacy environment (Guo et al., 2012).
Structure and process both contribute to print-rich literacy environments. Both
aspects are represented equally in Wolfersberger and colleagues’ (2004) model for
45
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
implementing a print-rich classroom. The model was based upon four features that
emerged from a review of 223 articles, books, and chapters on creating print-rich
classrooms: equipping the classroom with literacy materials, organizing reading
space/materials, promoting interest, and sustaining interaction with literacy materials.
Similarly, Reutzel and Jones (2010) derived seven overarching themes from their
examination of literacy environment rating tools. Five themes appear to be ways to
achieve the “promotion of reading interest” and “sustained interaction with materials”
features of Wolfersberger and colleagues’ (2004) model. Of particular interest to the
current study is Reutzel and Jones’ (2010) identification of two themes that reflect the
first two features of Wolfersberger and colleagues’ (2004) print-rich classroom model:
equipping classrooms with literacy materials and organizing reading space/materials.
These two features are explored below.
Equipped classrooms are an indispensable, essential feature of quality literacy
environments. The existence and interaction of all other features of literacy environments
are dependent upon the presence of literacy materials (Wolfersberger et al., 2004). For
example, greater quantities of books increase the chances for children to find something
of interest to read which inspires reading engagement (Chambliss & McKillop, 2000).
Additionally, greater quantities of books encourage both the quantity and quality of
literacy behaviors and activities (Reutzel & Jones, 2010).
Determining how many books are necessary to support the additional features of
literacy environments is a matter of opinion. Young and Moss (2006) favored quality of
46
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
books over a large quantity of books. According to Neuman (2001), quality includes the
physical appearance: “Rather than some old tattered books from garage sales, books need
to look physically attractive, with fresh covers and interesting, bright illustrations” (p.
12). Classrooms should have enough books to adequately represent a variety of genres,
topics, characters, perspectives, literary forms, reading levels (Neuman, 2001; Routman,
2003; Young & Moss, 2006), and the ethnic-cultural heritage of classroom children and
people in society (Chambliss & McKillop, 2000). In terms of measureable quantity, there
is a wide range. Fractor, Woodruff, Martinez, and Teal (1993) recommended five to eight
books per child in the classroom, Neuman (2001) suggested at least seven books per
child, and Routman (2003) told readers that teachers should aim for a minimum of seven
to 10 books per child. As a bare minimum, classrooms should have at least one book for
every two children enrolled in the class or enough books to avoid conflict among children
(Harms et al., 2005). An additional consideration for book quantity is the number of
books needed to have a “revolving” collection that changes periodically to refresh
children’s interests in the books (Neuman, 2001; Routman, 2003; Vukelick & Christie,
2009).
The positive effects of having a literacy-rich classroom can be undermined if
other aspects of the classroom structure—organization of space and materials—do not
facilitate children’s use of the books. According to Vukelick and Christie (2009) the
literacy environment needs to coax children into using the books; the better the design of
the environment, the more children use the materials. Many overlapping
47
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
recommendations have been made for establishing an effective, inviting classroom
literacy environment (Chambliss & McKillop, 2000; Factor et al., 1993; Neuman, 2001;
Routman, 2003; Reutzel & Jones, 2010; Vukelick & Christie, 2009; Young et al., 2006,
2007). For a truly literacy-rich environment, books should be placed throughout the
classroom in various learning areas (e.g. block/construction area, science/math area,
dramatic play area) to make reading a part of every activity (Vukelick & Christie, 2009).
At a minimum, classrooms should have a reading area (commonly referred to as a
classroom library) that is separated from the rest of the classroom. Reading areas should:

Be well defined by use of bookcases, book displays, and other furnishings.

Accommodate about five children at a time. Smaller spaces facilitate verbal
interaction and cooperative activity (Reutzel & Jones, 2010).

Have soft, cozy seating and warm lighting for comfort and appeal.

Use open-faced bookshelves. According to Routman (2003), front facing
books is a technique used by retailers and is applicable to classrooms. Young
children reportedly select front facing books considerably more often than
spine-facing books stored in traditional bookcases (Chambliss & McKillop,
2000; Fractor et al., 2003).

Feature attractive book displays and literacy props to entice children into the
area and encourage voluntary reading.

Provide easy access to books. Children read more when they have easy access
to books (Routman, 2003). Having books at hand, rather than stored away
48
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
from the area or in location that requires teacher assistance, can increase
children’s sense of efficacy (Chambliss & McKillop, 2000).
Classroom reading areas are an essential element of the literacy environment and
children’s literacy development. Chambliss and McKillop (2000) suggest that classroom
reading areas may provide resources that may not be available at home or children’s
neighborhoods. Unfortunately, many classrooms either fail to provide these resources, or
do not provide optimal literacy environments. In a study that examined, in part, the
quality and accessibility of children’s books in child care classrooms, Stone and
Twardosz (2001) found that only six of 21 classrooms serving 4-year-old children
provided a well-defined reading area. Variety of books in any of the participating
classrooms was lacking as most books were mainstream fictional narratives featuring
popular cartoon characters. Findings from a study conducted by Fractor and colleagues
(1993) provided more promising results. The study assessed children’s access to welldesigned classroom reading areas in 183 grade school classrooms from kindergarten to
5th grade. The researchers noted if a classroom contained a reading area and, if so,
assessed the quality of the reading area as basic, good, or excellent. Just under half of the
classrooms observed had a reading area. Kindergarten had the largest percentage of
classrooms with reading areas: 18 out of 25. The quality of the reading area, however,
was characteristically low. For kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd, grades, 92% of the classrooms
that had a reading area received a “basic” rating, leaving only 8% of the classrooms (4
out of 52 classrooms in total) with a “good” or “excellent” rating (Fractor et al., 1993).
49
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Citing other empirical studies, Fractor and colleagues relayed that children in classrooms
with well-designed reading areas have more interaction with books, display more positive
attitudes toward reading, read more during leisure time, spend more time reading, and
have higher levels of reading achievement than children in classrooms with no reading
areas or poorly designed reading areas.
Evidenced by this review of the literature on literacy environment quality in early
childhood classrooms is a lack of a particular focus on nonfiction. Most literature implies
that nonfiction will be represented if the books in the classroom are varied in terms of
genre, topic, and literary forms. As I was unable to locate literature that demonstrated
early childhood classrooms could have a high-quality literacy environment and be
deficient in nonfiction books, I am left to assume that higher literacy environment ratings
in child care center preschool classrooms will correlate with greater availability of
nonfiction books.
Size of Center Book Collection
Part of the quality child care settings and literacy environments stem from the
resources available to teachers and classrooms. In child care centers, these resources
often are property of the centers. In an informal pilot study testing the data collection
techniques proposed for this study, I found that 115 of the 116 books in the preschool
classrooms observed came from the child care center’s book collection. This finding was
not surprising as selecting books from the center’s collection to use in the classroom was
a common practice for me when I taught in an early childhood education setting.
50
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
The size of the center’s collection can have a substantial impact on the presence
of books in the classroom as demonstrated by Neuman’s (1999) Books Aloud
intervention program. Employing the book flood model, the Books Aloud program in
Pennsylvania provided 88,960 high-quality hard-back books (5 books per child) to 337
nonprofit child care centers demonstrating economic need. One hundred centers were
selected for a follow-up study. After the flood of new books, the physical and social
environments became more enriched. The number of classrooms with reading areas more
than doubled as did the number of literacy related teacher-child interactions. Compared to
comparable centers, teachers in the intervention group read more frequently for more
time in more subjects and were more interactive. The children in these classrooms wanted
to be read to more frequently, pretended to read for longer periods of time, and looked at
books more in their free time than children in the control group. In addition to the influx
of books, the Books Aloud intervention also provided training for teachers. The control
group included by Neuman (1999) did not receive books, nor training, thus it is difficult
to tease apart the effects of the book flood from the effects of the training. However,
without the books being available, teachers likely would have been restricted in the
degree to which they could enact their newly acquired skills and knowledge.
In light of the outcomes of the influx of books in Neuman’s (1999) Books Aloud
intervention coupled with the findings of my informal pilot study and my personal
experience as a teacher, I am led to believe that the size of a child care center’s book
collection will influence what books are placed in the preschool classroom. Larger
51
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
collections of books likely have larger quantities of nonfiction books, thus increasing the
chance for selecting nonfiction books. To my knowledge, research that measures or
assesses the collection of books in any form of child care is nonexistent. Literature that
examines the size of collections in schools or public libraries is not appropriate for this
particular section of the literature review as the child care center and its collection of
books are distinctly unique in their setting, context, function, size, and access to
additional resources.
Summary
Structural factors help shape the child care center environment. From a social
capital perspective, higher measurements of center socio-economic status (lower subsidy
density), teacher education level, literacy environment quality, and size of center book
collection should result in better access to resources for the child care center and
subsequently the classrooms within the center. Therefore, structural features may help
explain the availability of nonfiction books in child care center preschool classrooms.
Frequently, structural factors in child care are accompanied by process factors. The next
section will explore possible process factors that affect the availability of nonfiction
books in early education classrooms.
Process Factors Affecting Nonfiction Availability
Historically, structural factors were believed to combine with process factors to
yield a global view of child care quality (Cassidy et al., 2005). Connections among
structural and process factors have been strongly supported through foundational research
52
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
in child care quality as summarized by Vandell and Wolfe (2000). For example, Howes
and colleagues (1992) found process quality mediated the relationship between structural
quality and child outcomes. Similarly, the NICHD ECCRN (2002) found structural
quality influenced process quality, which then influenced child outcomes. There is a
relationship between structural and process factors, but process is a standalone feature of
child care quality. Process in child care pertains to curricular practice. According to
Cassidy and colleagues (2005), process only includes inter-personal interaction rather
than an individual’s independent action on an object. This definition of process, coupled
with their definition of structure which excluded the thinking process that resulted in how
the structural factors came to be, discounts the importance of teacher cognition in
arranging the classroom environment. For the current study, process was examined in
terms of teacher cognition respective to making decisions as to what books, nonfiction in
particular, will be made available to children in the child care preschool classroom.
Cognitive processes are explained well through social cognitive theory. This
theory is described below. Following the explication of social cognitive theory, I review
literature focusing on how teachers select books for their classrooms and advice on what
teachers should think about when selecting nonfiction books for their classrooms. Social
cognitive theory and process factors informed the quantitative research strand of this
parallel mixed methods study.
53
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory is based upon the central tenet of triadic reciprocality;
reciprocally causal influences among personal, behavioral, and environmental factors
(Bandura, 1986, 1989, 2003; Schunk, 2012; Schunk, Pintrick, & Meece, 2008). Personal
factors include the subjective, intangible parts of the self, such as beliefs, values,
knowledge, experience, expectations, goals, perceptions, intents, etc. Behaviors include
thought processes and physical actions. The environment encompasses physical aspects
(i.e. access to resources) and social aspects (i.e. social interaction). How these three
factors interact and to what degree varies among situations, yet they all contribute to
phenomena that address human agency.
The availability of nonfiction books in the preschool classroom is the direct result
of the interaction of these three factors as demonstrated by a hypothetical situation of a
teacher selecting books for her classroom. As the teacher reflects on the upcoming
curricular theme, her knowledge of the subject, the children’s interests and abilities, and
her goals influence the types of books she seeks for her classroom (person→behavior).
The child care center in which she works has a large collection of books. Knowing this,
she decides to start her search for books there (environment→person→behavior). The
collection has an assortment of narrative, fictional stories that are related to the theme,
but no nonfiction books. At this moment, the teacher has no option but to choose from
among the books available so she selects an assortment of fictional books
(environment→behavior). She comments to her director about there not being any
54
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
nonfiction books on the topic and is told she can go to the public library after work
(behavior→environment). Knowing that she has many personal obligations to which she
must attend after work, she decides not to go to the library (person→behavior). The
teacher figures that the hassle of going to the public library outweighs her desire to
include nonfiction books (behavior→person). By tending to her personal life outside of
paid working hours rather than going to the public library, her classroom is void of
nonfiction books (behavior→environment).
Teacher Book Selection Process
Teachers serve as the “gate-keepers” (Donovan & Smolkin, 2001) for the books
children encounter in the classroom. As such, teachers are also the mediators of
children’s literacy development (Stone & Twardosz, 2001). There is little research on
how teachers exercise these roles of gate-keeper and mediator, but the three studies I was
able to locate revealed that teachers considered many different aspects of books before
selecting them for the classroom. I describe each study individually and then combine
findings from these studies to create a broad depiction of the personal, behavioral, and
environmental factors that contribute to teachers’ selection of books for their classrooms.
Donovan and Smolkin (2001) sought to understand how grade school teachers
thought about books for science instruction. The researchers presented a variety of books
on two broad science topics to 10 teachers (two teachers representing each grade from 1st
to 5th) at a half-day workshop on reading and writing science. The text sets represented a
range of readability levels, complexity, features, and genres. Genre types included
55
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
nonnarrative information, narrative information, fictional story, dual purpose, or
poetry/language play. Teachers were asked to make selections for their top two choices of
books for each topic, and then were allowed to make selections on any combinations of
the books. Researchers recorded which books teachers selected and asked teachers to
provide the rationale for their choices. Across both book sets, teachers chose books with a
range of features and varying amounts of science concepts. In general, teachers
considered book content (not as in topic but rather the teachers’ estimations of quality
and quantity of information), visual appeal, and a book’s ability to expand current
knowledge. Teachers also considered visual features (such as photographs and
illustrations), readability or grade-level appropriateness, and how “fun” a book may be.
Teachers of the youngest children placed special emphasis on the usability of a book for
classroom read alouds, visual features, and the quality of information provided.
Stone and Twardosz (2001) explored descriptive information provided by
teachers of 4- year-old children in “community child care” to determine what books were
accessible for children’s voluntary use, teachers’ reasons for book selections, and the
resources teachers used for obtaining books. Researchers employed three data sources
with the 21 teacher participants and their respective classrooms. Through interviews,
teachers reported the top five book titles they recalled reading most often within the past
year, their reasons for selecting the first three books mentioned, and the resources they
used to obtain these books. Teachers most frequently read aloud books featuring favorite
characters (i.e. Sesame Street, Berenstain Bears) or favorite authors (i.e. Eric Carle, Dr.
56
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Seuss). Teachers reported selecting their read alouds on the basis of children’s interests,
teaching function, literary qualities, classroom management, children’s engagement, and
teacher preference. Teachers also completed questionnaires that included predetermined
book characteristics from which teachers were asked to mark three that they considered
most when selecting books. In descending order, teachers prioritized illustrations, theme,
moral, length, number of words on a page, colors when they made their book selections.
And finally, the researchers observed the classrooms, recording at least a sample of the
book titles accessible for children’s voluntary use. Results revealed that all but one
classroom made books available to children and two additional classrooms stored books
out of reach of the children. The number of books made available to children ranged from
0 to 60, with mean of 18.
Aguilar-Crandall (2009) investigated the book purchasing behaviors of eight
home-based child care owners (these owners enacted the teacher role with the children in
their care and thus will be referred to as teachers). As owners of the child care business,
the books purchased likely became the books made available to children in the teachers’
care. Through interviews Aguilar-Crandall learned that the teachers struggled to reach a
balance between business and humanistic approaches to child care services. The outcome
of the struggle often was a compromise in which the teachers searched for inexpensive
books first, then considered age-appropriateness and children’s interests when making
selections among the inexpensive books.
57
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
The three studies outlined above provide a more complete picture of book
selection considerations when taken in concert rather than individually. The order in
which these considerations are presented here is arbitrary and does not denote the degree
of importance or emphasis. Age-appropriateness of books was contemplated by many
teachers. Grade school teachers in Donovan and Smolkin’s (2001) study determined ageappropriateness by evaluating the number of words on a page, reading level of the text,
and use of language while teachers in Aguilar-Crandall’s (2009) study determined ageappropriateness by the “recommended age” printed on the cover of the books or by
instinct. Many teachers in these studies selected books because of their appeal to
children. Books with favorite characters (i.e. Clifford, Sesame Street, Berenstain Bears)
or by favorite authors (i.e. Eric Carle, Leo Lionni), books that are fun, or are on topics of
interest to children all appeal to children (Stone & Twardosz, 2001). Donovan and
Smolkin (2001) noted several teachers selected science books because the books would
make good “read alouds.” In addition, these teachers also considered the visual, aesthetic
appeal of photographs and illustrations in the books. Implicit with other selection
considerations, the teachers in Stone and Twardosz’s (2001) investigation chose books
that spoke to teacher objectives such as classroom management or curricular objectives.
As evidenced by this summary, teachers employ many considerations when choosing
books for their classrooms. Teachers reportedly take into account characteristics of the
books, characteristics of the children who will be accessing the books, and teachers’ own
curricular objectives.
58
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
What teachers do not seem to consider is genre variety. Stone and Twardosz
(2001) expressed concern about the limited number of genres reported by teachers and
noted that no information or nonfiction books were named by teachers as being titles read
most often in the year prior to the study. Donovan and Smolkin (2001) were also
surprised that the teachers in their study never specifically addressed the issue of genre
when selecting from text sets related to two popular science topics. The inexpensive
books purchased by teachers in Aguilar-Crandall’s (2009) study were lacking in genre
variety as well. The vast majority of books available where Aguilar-Crandall’s
participants shopped were concept books (i.e. alphabet, counting, shapes, colors).
Aguilar-Crandall expressed concern about concept books being limited in that they rarely
contain narrative storylines, well-developed characters, or rich vocabulary. Concern
about concentration of a narrow selection of books was echoed by Donovan and Smolkin
(2001) as they posited that inattention to genre implies teachers do little to guide
children’s learning of different text types. Genre variety may not have been an explicit
concern for teachers in the three studies, but the qualities they looked for in books or the
additional considerations they contemplated when selecting books for their classrooms
did not appear to purposefully exclude genre variety either.
The locations in which teachers make their book selections may make a difference
as to the extent in which variety is represented. Donovan and Smolkin (2001) noted that
teachers’ selections and comments about their selections were a direct result of the books
supplied to them. Had other books been supplied, the selection and comments may have
59
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
been different. Additionally, the percentage of each genre represented in the text sets
from which teachers selected books was similar to the percentage of each genre in
teachers’ book selections. One conclusion that can be drawn from Donovan and
Smolkin’s (2001) interpretation of their findings is that the environment in which
teachers make their book selections may mediate those selections.
Given the potential impact on teachers’ selection of books, where teachers get
books warrants attention. Surfacing from the three studies featured in this section is a
variety of venues used by teachers as they make book selections for their classrooms.
Teachers in each of the studies commented about using their own personal book
collections with the children in their care. For example, more than half of the teachers in
Stone and Twardosz’s (2001) study used their personal book collection in the classroom.
Outside of personal collections, grade school teachers felt they hand an adequate access
to books in both their school and local libraries (Donovan & Smolkin, 2001). Local
libraries were used by child care teachers too, but the libraries were accessed to a lesser
extent than child care centers’ books, personal collections, donations, and book clubs or
book fairs (Stone & Twardosz, 2001). Child care center teachers who did not utilize local
library services reported that the center in which they worked provided a substantial
number of books. Additionally, Stone and Twardosz (2001) found that teachers allowed
children to bring books from home and a couple of teachers even made books for the
children. Making books or borrowing books from the library seem like cost effective
ways of obtaining books for children, but the teachers featured in Aguilar-Crandall’s
60
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
(2009) investigation did not report using such means. Instead, these teachers made book
purchases from flea markets, local garage sales, Walmart, and Walden books. Most often,
however, these teachers purchased books at dollar stores (i.e. Dollar Store, Dollar Tree,
Dollar General) where they could get one or even two books for one dollar. Although
many locations were reported in these studies, it is unlikely that each venue was utilized
to the same extent or that each venue offered the same variety or quality of books.
With many locations or resources from which teachers may find books for their
classrooms, and with the variety of selection considerations teachers employ when
choosing books, it easy to surmise that classrooms for young children may vary
considerably from one another in regards to the amount and types of books children
would encounter. Donovan and Smolkin (2001) commented about the wide variability
they noticed across the classrooms they observed. They suggested this variability may
have been associated to some degree with economic well-being and teacher education
level. Economic well-being was an issue for those teachers who had to balance business
with humanistic needs (Aguilar-Crandall, 2009). The claim about teacher education level
may hold some validity when considering that grade school teachers (who likely have a
Bachelor’s degree) had some different considerations when selecting books (Donovan &
Smolkin, 2001) than did teachers with lower education levels (Aguilar-Crandall, 2009;
Stone & Twardosz, 2001). Then again, the variety among classrooms may simply be a
result of the different purposes for book selection and the different venues from which
teachers may find the books to serve these purposes.
61
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
These three studies featured teachers from different types of educational settings:
grade school, child care centers, and home-based child care. These studies also featured
different techniques for determining book selection factors: (a) interviews revealing
teacher reports of books read aloud, reasons for choosing particular books, considerations
for book purchases, and locations used to obtain books and (b) documentation of book
titles and genre. Study participants were provided with predetermined book titles and
predetermined reasons for book selection, but participants were also afforded the
opportunity to voluntarily select books and to offer their own thoughts about book
selection. The wide variability among these studies collectively contribute to a broad
understanding and identification of some factors that may contribute to the phenomenon
of teacher book selection, but these studies are still lacking in two very important ways.
First, these studies do not reveal a process—a traceable pattern with a beginning and an
end. Second, these studies failed to provide information on teachers’ thoughts about
nonfiction books. The researchers did not pursue the topic of nonfiction with their
participants, thus it is unclear what specific thoughts teachers had about nonfiction and to
what degree those thoughts impacted their choice of books for the classroom.
Factors Teachers Should Consider When Selecting Nonfiction Books
Literature on book selection for early education classrooms may not reveal what
teachers thought of when choosing nonfiction books for their classrooms, but many
scholars and researchers associated with the field of children’s literature are very vocal
about what they think teachers should consider. Below is a description of six factors
62
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
teachers should evaluate as they choose nonfiction books for their early education
classrooms.
Accuracy. Accuracy has been given the most attention in scholarly work on
selection criteria for nonfiction books. Young, Moss, and Cornwell (2007) deemed
accuracy of information the “lynchpin” of good nonfiction (p. 5). Information can quickly
become outdated, so scholars, such as Bamford and Kristo (2003), stressed the
importance of teachers checking the copyright date of a book to determine how up-todate it is. In addition to information needing to be up-to-date, authors need to establish
their own credibility by documenting their research process (Stephens, 2008). Both
currency of information and credibility of an author and his or her research process can
be assessed by reviewing supplemental materials such as the acknowledgement page,
introduction, afterword, book jacket, photo credits, and access features such as the
author’s or illustrator’s notes and the bibliography to provide some indication as to how
current the information is well as other aspects of accuracy such as the author’s
credibility (Bamford & Kristo, 2003; Kiefer, 2007; Kristo et al., 2008; Wilson, 2006).
These supplemental materials may help readers become critical consumers of nonfiction
because they reveal the author’s perspective and interpretation about a topic.
Additionally, these features demonstrate the author’s due diligence to research and
consultations with authorities to obtain the most accurate information (Young et al.,
2007).
63
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
As a specific example, Gill (2009) noted the increasing prevalence of such
features in her analysis of recent nonfiction children’s book winners and honorees of the
Orbis Pictus Award, the Sibert Medal, and the Children’s Choices list. Gill’s observations
suggest authors are increasingly acknowledging readers’ need to assess accuracy of
information provided. Unfortunately, not all books contained these additional features.
The fact that more books did not contain supplemental materials is a concern for Orbis
Pictus committee members as noted by Wilson (2006): “We all emphasized one thing.
Each of us expressed interest in the presence of [supplemental material]…Our interest
turned to concern as we noted that a number of books didn’t have sources, especially in
books published for the youngest readers” (p. 56). The omission of these informational
pieces may also create questions for readers about the gaps in the research or research
process.
A recent trend of combining fictional elements with factual information (Kiefer,
2007; Stephens, 2008) may blur the concept of accuracy. Teachers need to be aware of
this “blurring” when selecting nonfiction texts for their classrooms. Kiefer (2007)
forewarns that “many children believe that anything printed in a book is true” (p. 591).
Consequently, many teachers question using these types of books and may avoid using
them altogether. However, as Kiefer posited, this approach to nonfiction is an innovative
way of delivering information. Teachers should take note when fact and fiction are
combined and be prepared to teach children how to distinguish between the two.
64
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Content. Another aspect that can help teachers determine if a nonfiction text is
worth including in the classroom is to examine the content itself. Many scholars, such as
Stephens (2008) and Kiefer (2007) agree that content should be interesting and perhaps
even entertaining, but some caution that judging a text on these aspects of content alone
may stray from the most important criterion—how well the nonfiction text connects to
the curricular objectives. As McMath et al. (1998) noted, curricular objectives and
students’ interests should be taken into account as well when considering the content of a
book.
According to Kelley and Clausen-Grace (2010), the content authors provide is an
important criterion because readers learn from and take away the content’s meaning. For
Kiefer (2007), the content criterion is a qualitative assessment of the fusion of author’s
purpose, intended audience, and information. Kiefer, as well as Bamford and Kristo
(2003), noted that the content contained in a book should be sensitive to both the age of
the intended audience and the probable background knowledge of the reader. These
considerations influence aspects of the book such as length, writing style, point of view,
and complexity of content and writing. Nonfiction books for younger children necessarily
need to be shorter in length, but they must still include sufficient enough content to
adequately address the author’s purpose. Teachers of young children need to assess the
content to determine if it presents an adequate amount of information in an effective way
to accommodate the emergent or early reader.
65
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Style. When determining which nonfiction books to include in the classroom,
teachers need to evaluate what is conveyed in nonfiction text as well as how that content
is conveyed by the author. McMath and colleagues (1998) contended that a nonfiction
book meeting all other criteria but style may be read, but it will not be heard without the
effective use of style. The writing style employed by an author is, according to Saul and
Dieckman (2005), the artistry of nonfiction. Effective use of voice and literary devices
convey passion and commitment to the topic (Saul & Dieckman, 2005). Rosenblatt
(2004) supported this point, explaining that the language of a book should provoke an
aesthetic response from the reader. An aesthetic response is more than reading text, but
experiencing, thinking, and feeling the text. When authors can communicate their passion
for a subject through their style of writing, the passion becomes contagious and adds to
the reader’s aesthetic response (McClure, 2003). An aesthetic stance in style engages the
reader in the topic. Recent style trends in which unconventional interactive formats, such
conversational tones, asking readers question in the main text, and including activities
like quizzes and matching games, are used to engage young readers (Kiefer, 2007;
Stephens, 2008). Kiefer suggested these new formats give readers a sense of active
involvement with the text. Regardless of the use of new formats, aesthetics, or artistry,
Kiefer (2007) and McClure (2003) emphasize that the language of nonfiction books
should be appropriate for the intended reading level and age of the audience. The writing
style should never be condescending or talk down to readers. If the style is perceived to
be offensive, readers will stop reading.
66
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Organization. Much of the existing literature has noted the need for teachers to
assess accuracy in nonfiction content and for assessing style for engaging young readers;
but additionally, scholars have noted the importance of clarity and coherence in the style
because it directly relates to organization. For example, several scholars have addressed
the ways in which the layout of information helps readers connect ideas and process
information (Bamford & Kristo, 2003; Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2010; Kiefer, 2007).
Discussions of children’s nonfiction book organization typically center around two
features: structure and access features. Structure encompasses the various text patterns
used for conveying information. According to Bamford and Kristo (2003), structures can
be enumerative, sequenced, chronological, compare-contrast, cause-effect, narrative, or a
combination of more than one text structure. These authors contend that the structure of
the text supports reader understanding by framing the information. The text structure
should flow seamlessly from the content and author’s purpose.
This seamless flow should also make use of access features such as table of
contents, indexes, glossaries, sidebars, inserted information, author’s notes, illustrator’s
notes and visual displays such as photography, diagrams, maps, and tables. Information
about the book topic is relayed through these features as well as the text itself. As Kerper
(2003a) contended, these access features accommodate the selective, nonlinear reading
common with nonfiction books. Children flip through books, skipping over some
material and attending to other material. According to Kerper, 2003a, “The visual
experience expands [readers’] knowledge, the memory of anomalous material may cause
67
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
children to flip back and forth through the pages as they construct new meanings” (p. 42).
Use of access features, thus, helps readers access information quickly and easily.
Illustrations. An additional criterion of selection includes an evaluation of a
nonfiction books’ illustrations and photography. For emerging and early readers, the
visual aspects of nonfiction books represent the information they take away during their
independent, voluntary reading. As with other books for young children, Gill (2009),
Kiefer, (2007), and Stephens (2008) asserted that illustrations in nonfiction books should
work in conjunction with text to convey, clarify, enhance, and extend information. A
specific trend in nonfiction book illustrations noted by Stephens (2008) is an important
consideration for younger children and emergent readers by including large, clear
pictures that are not overly busy. According to Stephens (2008), this trend reinforces
content. Similar to what Stephens noted, Gill (2009) pointed out the benefits of other
visual elements in children’s nonfiction texts, but warns about overwhelming young
readers with too much visual stimulation. Use of design elements like frames,
background print, and themed borders that are features of acclaimed nonfiction books
should not be so busy as to detract or confuse the young reader. Unlike Stephens (2008),
however, Gill (2009) addressed a new trend with placement of visual elements.
Illustrations are no longer constrained to the body of the book. Covers, endpapers,
copyright pages, title pages, tables of contents, and end matter may all contain
illustrations that should be evaluated using the same criteria above (Gill, 2009). The
emphasis placed on visual features of nonfiction books demonstrate nonfiction book
68
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
creators’ (illustrators, photographers, editors, publishers) sensitivity to how children
perceive, use, and understand visual information in nonfiction books.
Format. Illustrations, one component of a book’s format, are useful criteria for
teachers to assess when determining which nonfiction texts to include in the classroom;
however, other aspects related to format may be just as important to assess. The format of
a book includes all the items that contribute to the total look of book: design elements
(frames, borders), all the pages not containing the main text, end papers, margins, page
layout, text and picture placement, front and back matter, paper and ink, binding, size,
and shape. Scholars have urged teachers to consider these aspects of nonfiction as well
because they can impact the reading experience. For example, on the one hand,
formatting can have a negative impact, as Kelley and Clausen-Grace (2010) explained in
their discussion about how formatting easily can degrade reader comprehension by being
distracting. On the other hand, formatting can have a positive impact when a book’s
format encourages more thorough learning because it conveys additional information
beyond the text in the body (Kerper, 2003b; Kiefer, 2007; Stephens, 2008). For these
reasons, teachers should give format special consideration when evaluating children’s
nonfiction books. Teachers should give particular concern to the cover or dust jacket, font
size and type, and formatting of access features because, as Kerper (2003b) points out
first impressions are created by a book cover. Stephens (2008) shared this sentiment with
Kerper, recommending that book covers for young children should grab attention and
spark interest. Based on these best practices for format described in the literature,
69
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
teachers should look for nonfiction texts in which cover illustrations have bright primarybased colors and words are understandable and printed in large font. Printed words inside
the book should be large in size with adequate spacing and careful placement for easy
reading. The text style (size and font) used for access features should visually break up
the narrative content of the book and draw reader’s attention (Gill, 2009; Kerper, 2003b),
yet remain simple and informative (Stephens, 2008). Overall, as the literature suggests,
the visual elements of a children’s nonfiction book should enhance the reading
experience.
Summary
Process factors help determine which books end up in the early childhood
classroom. From a social cognitive perspective, personal, behavioral, and environmental
elements combine to yield teachers’ process of choosing books. Teachers’ behaviors of
selecting books for the classroom were shaped by their personal beliefs that books should
be read aloud to children and that books should have certain characteristics to meet the
various needs and interests of children and to meet the curricular objectives teachers have
for the children. Teachers did not indicate that genre was a consideration, but scholars
advocate nonfiction books should be selected and evaluated on the basis of accuracy,
authenticity, content, style, organization, illustrations, and format.
Thus far, I have reviewed the benefits to children from early exposure to
nonfiction, as well as the structural and process factors that may influence the degree to
which nonfiction books are made available to children in early childhood classrooms.
70
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
With this review of the literature, I have established why it is important to investigate the
availability of nonfiction books and identified some factors may contribute to and explain
the level of representation of nonfiction in classrooms. I now turn to the methodological
decisions I made in light of the literature reviewed above.
71
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
CHAPTER III
METHODS
The current study followed a parallel mixed methods research design (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009). Quantitative and qualitative research strands were conducted
concurrently then brought together during the inferential stage of the research process.
The quantitative and qualitative data complemented each other as the two strands
answered related aspects of the phenomenon providing a more complete picture of the
phenomenon under study. In a semi-iterative manner, a parallel mixed method design
allows for some “crosstalk” between the research strands as knowledge gained from one
research strand may help shape the other the strand (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
Appendix A contains a visual diagram of the study design.
Rationale for Using a Mixed Methods Research Design
Mixing quantitative and qualitative research strands in this study is important for
two reasons. One, the combination of methods provides a general picture of the
phenomenon that is not possible by using either method alone (Punch, 1998). For this
study, quantitative procedures addressed the issue of children’s nonfiction book
proportion and structural factors that may influence this proportion while qualitative
procedures addressed why teachers chose, or neglected, to include this resource in their
classroom. Neither strand alone explains the whole phenomenon. Two, quantitative
research addresses “structural” features and qualitative research target “processual”
aspects (Punch, 1998). For example, inferential analysis of quantitative data has the
72
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
potential to identify structural factors that predict the proportion of nonfiction books in
the classroom and qualitative interviews could yield how teachers select nonfiction books
for the classroom or how structural factors influence that process.
Recruitment of Participants
I employed a multi-level sampling technique to select participants for the current
study. First, child care centers were randomly selected for recruitment sites. I obtained a
listing of all licensed child care centers (as opposed to child care offered in a provider’s
home) within the county where the study occurred from the state licensing website (N =
97). Using additional information provided by the website, I narrowed down the list of
centers to those serving preschool age (3 to 5 years of age) children. The resulting list of
84 child care centers was reordered by each facility’s corresponding operation number to
“shuffle the deck” so that the center names and locations were sufficiently mixed. Going
from top to bottom, I assigned each a number 1 through 84. A random number generator
selected 38 centers to be contacted for the second stage of recruitment. Cohen’s (1992)
chart indicated that a sample size of 38 is appropriate for a large effect size, power of .80,
α = .05, and four independent variables in a multiple regression.
After identifying the initial 38 centers, I contacted center directors by telephone
(see Appendix B). Directors who granted permission to continue the recruitment process
first verified whether their center met the eligibility criteria of (a) providing care and
education services to preschool age children, (b) servicing children for at least eight hours
per day Monday through Friday, and (c) operating 12 months per year. Second, directors
73
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
of qualified centers scheduled an appointment at a date and time when the lead teachers
of the preschool classrooms would be free to speak directly with me. And third, directors
answered additional questions regarding characteristics of the center. If the director
declined access to the center or the center did not meet the eligibility criteria, I attempted
to contact the next center listed after the initial targeted one. Important to note is that not
all 38 center directors were contacted at the same time. In an attempt to keep a
manageable pace, I contacted enough center directors to schedule one appointment per
weekday for the following week. Recruitment and data collection occurred in this manner
for five consecutive weeks in the summer of 2012.
Using the strategy mentioned above, I attempted to contact each of the 84 centers.
Of the 84 contacted, 35 directors granted access, 20 declined, 19 centers did not meet all
the eligibility criteria, and 10 were nonresponsive. One teacher allowed for her classroom
to be observed, but changed her mind about being interviewed. Because data collection
could not be completed, this center was excluded from the study and an additional center
needed to be recruited. Due to the fact that I exhausted the sampling frame and was only
able to obtain complete data from 34 child care centers, I had to expand the sampling
frame to reach the minimum of 38 centers. Using the same state licensing website as
before, I obtained a list of 26 licensed child care centers in the eight counties surrounding
the county from which I already sampled. Centers on the new list were arranged
according to their proximity to my location. Starting with the center closest in proximity,
I attempted to contact center directors in the same manner as described above until I was
74
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
granted access to and obtained complete data from four child care centers. Of the 11
centers contacted, two directors declined, three centers were ineligible, and two directors
were nonresponsive. I was granted access to the four remaining centers from four
different counties. This phase of recruitment and data collection occurred over the
duration of another five weeks in the summer of 2012.
For 17 of the 38 centers, directors reported more than one preschool classroom.
For these centers, I requested the forthcoming appointment to be scheduled with the
teacher of the classroom with the oldest preschool age children who had yet to attend
kindergarten. For seven centers, there were more than one classroom of the same aged
children and the director chose which teacher I could approach for recruitment. I met
with a total of 39 teachers representing 38 classrooms; one classroom had two coteachers who insisted on being equally involved as they held equal status, responsibility,
and authority in their classroom. During the scheduled appointment, I verified that each
teacher (a) spoke English conversationally; (b) worked at the center 35 hours or more per
week; (c) was the main, or lead, teacher in charge of the classroom organization and
curriculum; and (d) held the lead teacher position for at least three weeks prior to the
scheduled observation and interview. All teachers met the eligibility criteria. I then
explained the study (see Appendix C) and answered teacher’s follow-up questions.
Thirty-nine teachers, representing 38 classrooms in 38 different licensed child care
centers, agreed to participate in the study and signed the informed consent form (see
Appendix D).
75
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Participants and Setting
All 39 teachers participating in the study were female. As seen in Table 3.1, the
ages of the teachers varied considerably as did their experience working with young
children and time spent in the current position. Twenty two teachers described
themselves as Hispanic or Mexican American, 13 White or Caucasian, 3 Black or
African-American, and 1 Asian and White. Seven teachers had a minimum of a
bachelor’s degree, 16 had completed some college coursework or vocational training, and
16 had a high school diploma or GED. Twenty one teachers had child development
related coursework in high school, vocational school, or college. Nine teachers had
received specialized training from the Texas School Ready! Project, a program
implemented by the Children’s Learning Institute to improve instructional practices of
early childhood educators serving at-risk pre-school aged children (see
texasschoolready.org for more information).
Reported classroom ratios ranged from 1:5 to 1:18; observed classroom ratios
ranged from 1:3.5 to 1:18. The ages of the children in the preschool classrooms varied
greatly due to six classrooms combining either toddlers (12 to 36 months) or school age
children with the preschool children. Of these six classrooms (a) three had preschool age
children and children under the age of three, (b) one had preschool age children and
children aged six or older, and (c) two had preschool age children, plus older and younger
children. The ages of both the youngest and the oldest child assigned to the classroom
were obtained and reported in Table 3.1.
76
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Table 3.1
Descriptive statistics of the sample
Variables
Mean
SD
Range
Teachers
Age (yrs)
Experience (yrs)
35.7
8.5
13.4
8.3
19-67
.06-27
Time in position (yrs)
2.9
4.5
.06-24
Classrooms
Youngest child (yrs)
Oldest child (yrs)
# Books accessible
# Books per child
# Books nonfiction
% Books nonfiction
# Nonfiction per child
3.6
5.3
65.0
4.7
23.3
43.6
1.3-4.9
4.0-11.0
17-348
1.8-23.2
1-79
5.9-87
1.7
0.8
1.13
64.2
4.9
17.0
20.0
1.4
79.6
27.0
1.9
909.2
60
25.6
1.3
1421.5
17-330
0-130
1-6
0-7910
Centers
Total enrollment
# Subsidy recipients
# Preschool classrooms
Book collection size
Note. Yrs = years.
77
.08-7.2
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Books were found in every classroom. I inventoried a total of 2066 books. Table
3.2 presents a frequency table for book characteristics. As demonstrated in Table 3.2,
most books were owned by the center and no books were borrowed from the public
library. The vast majority of books were located in the classroom reading area and only
15 classrooms had books in learning areas outside of the reading area. Also evident in
Table 3.2 is that books were displayed in a variety of ways. Most frequently books were
in front-facing book shelves (see Figure 3.1). Books were also in traditional bookcases
with the spine facing out, stacked on a shelf or in a basket with the cover facing upwards,
or vertically stacked in a basket with the covers facing forward (see Figures 3.2, 3.3, and
3.4). Five classrooms had disorganized book storage with combinations of displays (see
Figure 3.5).
The majority of the child care centers served infants, toddlers, and school age
children in addition to preschool age children. Four centers did not serve infants and two
centers did not serve school age children. Center size and socio-economic status of
clientele varied greatly as demonstrated by Table 3.1. Twenty two centers were
considered private, 16 incorporated faith or religion in the curriculum, and 16 operated as
nonprofit organizations.
78
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Table 3.2
Frequency table for classroom book characteristics
Frequency
Percent
1897
82
66
91.8
4.0
3.2
10
11
0.5
0.5
1670
69
56
55
45
80.8
3.3
2.7
2.7
2.2
37
30
30
74
1.8
1.5
1.5
3.6
601
520
466
403
29.1
25.2
22.6
19.5
76
3.7
Book owner
Child care center
Teacher
Director
Child Care Management Services
Unknown
Book locationa
Reading area
Circle time area
Science area
Writing/ABC area
Play room
Dramatic play area
Construction/block area
Combination math/science area
Otherb
Book display
Front facing bookcase
Traditional bookcase
Stacked
Vertical stack in container
Otherc
a
Identified learning areas not present in every classroom.
Nine additional learning areas not listed, each accounting for 1% or less of the available books.
c
Three additional display/storage formats, each accounting for less than 2% of the available books.
b
79
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Figure 3.1. Front-facing bookshelf.
Figure 3.2. Traditional bookcase with book spine facing out.
80
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Figure 3.3. Books stacked with cover facing upwards.
Figure 3.4. Books vertically stacked with cover facing forward.
81
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Figure 3.5. Disorganized book display.
Data Collection
Three stages of data collection were used to obtain information from seven
different data sources. The first stage of data collection occurred during center
recruitment; screening of centers for recruitment yielded the first data source referred to
as center characteristics. The second stage of data collection occurred during classroom
observations. The classroom observations accounted for three data sources: book
inventory, literacy environment quality rating, and estimation of the size of center book
collection. The third stage of data collection was the teacher interviews. Three sources of
data were obtained through teacher interviews: teacher/classroom characteristics, teacher
book explanation, and teacher book selection process. Data collection stages and data
sources provided a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data, or qualitative data that
82
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
was quantified for analysis. For this reason, I organized this description of data collection
in terms of stages with the corresponding data sources rather than a dichotomous
quantitative or qualitative strategy. Data sources were used to (a) describe participants,
(b) describe the setting in which data collection took place, and (c) answer the proposed
research questions.
Center Characteristics
As noted in the section on participant recruitment and Appendix B, I asked child
care center directors about six characteristics: (1) the number of preschool age
classrooms, (2) whether the center was nonprofit or for-profit, (3) whether the center was
considered public or private, (4) if the center was religiously affiliated or not, (5) the
number of children enrolled in the center, and (6) the number of center enrolled children
receiving government subsidies for child care. Information on these six characteristics are
available to the public. Data from the directors were used to describe the centers targeted
for recruitment. The percentage of child care subsidies was used as a marker of socioeconomic status and served as an independent variable in the inferential analysis of the
data.
Observation
I conducted observations immediately after teachers signed the informed consent.
Observations ranged in duration from 120 minutes to 300 minutes (M = 196) depending
upon the activity of the classroom and number books inventoried. All observations were
conducted in the morning from the time the children finished eating breakfast until the
83
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
beginning of lunch (30 classrooms) or until the post-lunch rest/nap time (8 classrooms).
This time period allowed me to observe various activities conducted as whole-group,
small group, and individual as well as at least three transitions from one activity or
grouping to another. By conversing with the teachers and consulting the posted class
schedule, I confirmed that the morning was the best time to witness the teacher fully
enact her role and implement the planned curriculum, as well as witness the children
following a routine. My stance during the observation was that of an observer; I did not
participate in classroom activities nor initiate interaction with children, but I did respond
to children’s questions. I communicated with the teacher throughout the observation
asking questions for data collection purposes as well as to better understand the
classroom context. The data collected during the observation was primarily quantitative
as it was numerically coded the same day, immediately following data collection.
Additionally, qualitative data in the form of field notes were recorded for reference
during the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Three types of data were obtained from
observations.
Book inventory. During the classroom observation, books in the classroom
accessible to the children for a minimum of one total hour were inventoried using Book
Collector Pro 8.1 software purchased from Collectors.com. I entered a book’s ISBN into
the database to retrieve a full citation. In the event of an incomplete citation or a citation
was not retrievable, I manually completed the citation. For 36 of the 38 classrooms, every
book accessible to the classroom children was inventoried. The two remaining
84
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
classrooms had too many books to be inventoried in the time allotted by center directors,
so I recorded the total number of books present and then inventoried a sample. One
classroom had the center’s entire book collection of 348 in the classroom’s reading area.
These books were both standing upright and stacked on the shelves of traditional book
cases with a narrow edge of the book (as opposed to the cover or back of book) facing
out. Each shelf contained approximately the same number of books and the teacher
confirmed that the books were not organized in a particular manner. I randomly selected
one shelf, then randomly pulled 40 books from that shelf to be inventoried and included
in the analysis. At a second child care center, the classroom observed had 249 books
throughout the classroom. For this classroom, I inventoried every book in the reading
area’s front facing display case (22 books), every other book on the traditional book case
in the reading area, and then every other book in other learning areas yielding a total
inventory of 154 books that was included in analysis.
Additional information entered into the Book Collector Pro software for each
book inventoried included the book’s display format (e.g. cover facing out, spine facing
out, stacked in a basket), location in the classroom, and if the book was nonfiction or not.
Book display and location was used to describe the classroom literacy environment.
Genre information served as the basis for determining the availability and type of
nonfiction books in the classroom. All book inventory information entered into Book
Collector Pro 8.1 was exported to Microsoft Excel 2013, numerically coded, and then
exported to SPSS version 22 for analysis.
85
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Literacy environment quality. The Language-Reasoning subscale of the Early
Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Revised Edition (ECERS-R: Harms et al., 2005)
assessed the global quality of the language and literacy environment of the preschool
classroom. The ECERS-R is a revision of the well-established original version first
published in 1980. This scale has been widely used in studies in the U.S. and abroad to
assess global quality of center-based child care settings. The Language-Reasoning
subscale includes 4 items, each with a varying number of indicators arranged into four
levels of quality. All indicators at the lower level must be satisfied prior to assessing
indicators at the next higher level. The number of indicators satisfied yields a single item
score ranging from inadequate (1) to excellent (7). The subscale score is calculated by
adding the scores for each item, then dividing by the number of items scored. As with the
item scores, the subscale score may range from inadequate (1) to excellent (7).
Psychometric properties of the ECERS-R are included in the scale’s introduction (Harms
et al., 2005). Internal consistency for the entire scale was .92 with an interclass
correlation of .92. Internal consistency of the subscales ranged from .71 to .92 with
Language-Reasoning subscale having a reported alpha of .83. Minimal quality standards
established by scale creators is 3.0 (Harms et al., 2005); 13 of the 38 classrooms observed
exceeded minimal standards.
Size of center book collection. As part of the observation, I asked to see where
the center kept books from which teachers can select for their classrooms. I estimated the
size of the collection by counting the number of books on a shelf or in a box and
86
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
multiplying by the number of shelves or boxes. The content of the collection was not
assessed. As seen in Table 3.1, there is great variability among centers in regards to the
size of the collection of books from which teachers may select for their classrooms.
Interview
After concluding the observation, I conducted one-on-one, face-to-face interviews
with teachers. The specific data collection technique used was standardized open-ended
interviews (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Each interview was conducted at a time chosen
by the teacher in which her attention was not required for supervising the children. All
interviews followed a similar format, yet additional follow-up questions for clarification
of ideas and meaning were not precluded. Thirty-six interviews were conducted the same
day as the observation. Two interviews were conducted within one week after the
observation as staffing issues prevented the interviews from occurring the same day as
the observation. The duration of the interviews varied from 6 minutes to 57 minutes with
a mean time of 27 minutes depending upon the teacher’s involvement with the
curriculum and book selection, and the specifics of the context. The context within which
the interview was conducted varied by center. Children were in the immediate vicinity for
28 interviews and only 13 of the 38 interviews occurred without any interruptions from
children or adults. The timing of the interviews coincided with children’s playground
time (16), naptime (8), lunchtime (4), or while the children played in the classroom (10).
The actual location of the interviews varied as well: on the playground (15), in the
classroom (15), in another location such as a breakroom (7), and in the lunchroom (1).
87
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Immediately following each interview, I recorded memos on thoughts, reactions, and
ideas. Each interview was audio recorded and the first 20 were transcribed verbatim for
qualitative analysis. The minimum number of interviews for qualitative analysis
strategies as recommended by Creswell (1998) is 20. Field notes indicated that no new
information emerged from the interviews as of the 14th interview, thus I decided that the
first 20 interviews would suffice for reaching the minimum standard recommended and
ensuring that I had reached saturation (Baker, Wuest, & Noerager Stern, 1992; LaRossa,
2005). Three types of data were obtained through interviews: teacher questionnaire,
teacher’s book explanation, and teacher’s book selection process.
Teacher/classroom characteristics. Participant demographics, age range of
classroom, and teacher-child ratio were obtained through a 9-item questionnaire
(Appendix E) developed specifically for this study. I used open-ended questions so that
participants would not be constrained to preconceived answer selections that may or may
not fit their true answers. I administered the questionnaire orally to help me develop
rapport with participants at the beginning of the interview. All answers provided were
audio recorded and noted during the visit. Numerical coding of the answers occurred
immediately following the observation. Data from the questionnaire was primarily used
to describe the participants and their classrooms above, yet teacher education level was
used in the qualitative strand of the study. For use in the multiple regression, I converted
teacher education level into a dichotomous variable splitting the teachers into two groups:
88
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
those with less than a Bachelor’s degree (coded as 0) and those with a Bachelor’s degree
or higher (coded as 1).
Teacher’s book explanation. Participants were asked to explain their reason for
selecting a specific book or groups of books (i.e. theme), who owns the books (i.e. the
center or the teacher), and other follow-up questions. These questions targeted the book
selection process with specific, concrete examples found in the classroom; what the
teacher actually selected versus an idealized generalization as demonstrated in the next
subsection. Appendix F contains the prompts used. Whether teachers were asked to
explain specific books or groups of books, as well as the number of books or number of
book groupings, depended upon who selected the books for the classroom, time
constraints, interruptions, children’s needs, teacher’s focus, and level of teacher’s
patience. Eighteen participants were asked about a varying number of specific books in
their classrooms, seven participants were asked about groups of books, 13 participants
did not select any of the books accessible to the children, and one participant was not
asked any questions about books at all as she stated the books in the classroom never
changed. For those asked the questions, enough books were featured to get a sense of
how the book selection process typically occurs. Notes were taken during the audio
recorded conversation. Data were used to describe the book selection process as well as
to describe and assess the literacy environment.
Teacher’s book selection process. Participants were asked several questions to
uncover the various aspects involved in their decision making processes when selecting
89
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
books for the classroom. Appendix G contains the target questions asked. Responses to
these questions were checked against the explanations offered for selecting specific
books in the classroom to verify if the teachers’ perceived process matched the results of
that process.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using parallel mixed data analysis (Teddlie & Tashakkori,
2009). Table 3.3 presents the data analysis plan for this study. Quantitative and
qualitative data were analyzed separately and are presented separately.
Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative strand of this study examined proportion of nonfiction books
available in child care preschool classrooms and the extent to which this proportion was
predicted by (a) socio-economic status of centers as determined by subsidy density, (b)
whether or not the classroom teachers obtained a Bachelor’s degree (c) classroom ratings
for quality of the literacy environment, and (d) the size of centers’ total collection of
books. Quantitative data were entered into SPSS version 22, cleaned of data entry errors,
and were examined via preliminary analysis (descriptive analysis) of the independent
variables, correlational analysis, and regression analysis using forced entry.
Preliminary analysis employed the descriptives and frequencies functions in SPSS
to describe the independent and outcome variables. Following the description of the
variables is a deeper exploration of the dependent variable, again using descriptives and
frequencies. The description of the dependent variable is the answer to the first research
90
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Table 3.3
Data Analysis Plan
91
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
question, “What is the availability of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms?” I then
used SPSS functions of descriptives, explore, correlations, and graphs (e.g. boxplots,
scatterplots) to screen the data for bias and violations of the assumptions for linear
modeling. I ran an initial regression with all independent variables and the dependent
variable to obtain regression diagnostics to further test assumptions. Finally, I conducted
a forced-entry multiple regression to answer the second quantitative research question,
“Do center socio-economic status, teacher education, quality of classroom literacy
environment, and size of center book collection predict the availability of nonfiction
books in preschool classrooms?”
Qualitative Analysis
The qualitative strand of this study investigated teachers’ process for selecting
books for the preschool classroom in licensed child care centers. No computer program
was used to analyze the qualitative data. I prepared the data by transcribing the first 20
interviews conducted. All transcripts, field notes, and memos were read in their entirety
to develop a general understanding of the database before conducting constant
comparative data analysis (Glaser, 1965).
I answered the third research question, “How do teachers explain the factors that
influence the availability of nonfiction in the preschool classroom?” by applying a
combination of constant comparative analysis (Glaser, 1965) and open coding techniques
(Baker et al., 1992; LaRossa, 2005; Morse & Richards, 2002) to the qualitative data.
Memos were written throughout the analysis as they are integral to the stages of coding
92
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
and analyses and record the step-by-step process of theory development (Baker et al.,
1992).
Open coding started with dividing raw data into units of information called
indicators. I then assigned each unit a label. Indicators were then individually compared
by labels and grouped into concepts higher in abstraction than the raw data. When the
addition of new indicators failed to offer new insight into the concept, I deemed the
concept to be saturated. Concepts were then arrayed to identify categories. This arraying
was conducted by grouping similar but not identical concepts, or grouping dissimilar but
allied concepts. The resulting categories were a higher level of abstraction than the
concepts. Categories were constantly compared to ensure that they were mutually
exclusive. Through the processes of constantly comparing indicators, concepts, and then
different categories and their properties, a theoretical reasoning linking and delimiting the
categories emerged (Glaser, 1965). The underlying uniformity of the developed theory
was revealed through the reduction of the ideas from many indicators to a small number
of categories. The number of modifications to categories decreased to only those needed
for logical clarity and non-relevant data was discarded.
Inference Process
Parallel mixed data analysis (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) was used to address
the mixed methods research question, “To what extent and in what ways do quantitative
and qualitative findings work together to contribute to a more comprehensive and
nuanced understanding of the availability of nonfiction books in the preschool classroom
93
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
and the factors that influence the availability?” It is at this stage of the research process
that I fully interwove quantitative and qualitative strands. Findings from one strand
informed the interpretation of the other strand’s findings, and vice versa, yielding a metainference that provided a holistic view of the prevalence of children’s nonfiction
literature in preschool classrooms.
As with any study using quantitative or qualitative methods, threats to accurate
and reliable inferences need to be minimized. By implementing a mixed methods
research design, I was able to combine the strengths of quantitative and qualitative
methods while compensating for the weaknesses of each approach (Johnson & Turner,
2003). Thus, issues of breadth and depth were addressed within the same study. Mixing
methods, especially in a design where quantitative and qualitative strands are brought
together in the inference stage, opened this study to potential threats that may not be
present in single strand studies. These threats listed by Creswell and Plano-Clark (2011)
include specific issues that must be addressed during data collection, data analysis, and
interpretation. The steps taken to address these threats to accurate and reliable inferences,
also listed by Creswell and Plano-Clark (2011), are outlined below.
Data collection in a parallel mixed methods research design may threaten validity
when (a) the participants selected are inappropriate for the quantitative and qualitative
data to be gathered and (b) the sample sizes for quantitative and qualitative data are
unequal (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). In light of these threats, I gathered data from
those whom I expected to have direct influence over the phenomenon of study: the lead
94
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
preschool teacher herself. The same preschool teachers participated in both the
quantitative and qualitative strands of the study, thus the practices and decisions in
question are explained by those who implemented them. Additionally, I used a small
quantitative sample (the smallest possible for a regression with four independent
variables as recommended by Cohen (1992) and a large qualitative sample (double the
minimum of 20 participants as recommended by Creswell (1998) so that the same
number of cases could be selected and compared.
Threats to validity may also occur during the interpretation phase of the study
(Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). Particular interpretation issues that may affect this study
include omission of the mixed methods research questions and unequal attention to one
form of data. I attempted to minimize these interpretation threats by addressing each
research question individually. Thus, each research question has its own section. I also
supplemented the results of one research strand with results from the other strand when
possible. This procedure brings balance and provides additional understanding of the
phenomenon.
Significance of Study
A study of the availability of nonfiction books in the preschool classroom, and the
reasons behind it, is important for several reasons. First, this study can help legitimize
child care centers as viable educational institutions for children’s literacy development.
Additionally, this study can supplement the research base on literacy development and
early childhood classrooms by establishing the need to consider preschool classrooms in
95
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
the movement for increased and improved nonfiction literature use. Second, this study
can offer some explanations of why the paucity of nonfiction books in classrooms exists.
Only after the components influencing the availability of nonfiction books in the
preschool classroom are understood can proper guidance to address it be offered. And
third, this study can prepare kindergarten teachers for what to expect from their incoming
students who attended child care centers. Children begin kindergarten with a variety of
literacy experiences. If teachers have some sense as to the extent of children’s exposure
to nonfiction prior to kindergarten, they can adjust teaching practices and classroom
curriculum to support or supplement children’s existing knowledge.
96
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Results of both quantitative and qualitative research strands are presented
separately in this chapter. The results presented here will answer the first three research
questions guiding this study:

What is the availability of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms?

Do center socio-economic status, teacher education, quality of classroom
literacy environment, and size of center book collection predict the
availability of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms?

How do teachers explain the factors that influence the availability of
nonfiction books in the preschool classroom?
Quantitative findings are presented first and answer the first two research questions
posed. Immediately following the quantitative results are the qualitative results. The
qualitative research strand will answer the third question posed. The fourth research
question focused on the benefits of coupling quantitative and qualitative research strands
in this study. As this fourth question is a methodological assessment, it will be addressed
in the next chapter where the quantitative and qualitative results are interpreted.
Quantitative Analyses
The quantitative research analyses begins with a preliminary analysis of variables.
All continuous variables were examined through the SPSS explore function and box
plots. Descriptive statistics for center socio-economic status, literacy environment quality
97
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
score, size of center book collection, and proportion of nonfiction books in the classroom
are presented in Table 4.1. A visual inspection of box plots indicated two influential cases
for size of center book collection. These outliers were confirmed through an examination
of standardized scores (z = 4.92; z = 1.98). As teacher education level is a dichotomous
categorical variable, it was not included in the descriptive statics. Instead, the frequencies
and percentages for the two levels of teacher education is presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables
SESa
Literacy
environmentb
Center book
collectionc
Proportion of
nonfictiond
Mean
SD
Range
40.86
32.18
0-100
2.98
1.22
1.0-6.25
909.24
1421.53
0-7910
43.57
20.03
5.9-87.0
Skewness
Kurtosis
0.23
-1.12
0.65
-0.01
3.63
16.11
0.31
-0.72
Note. SES = socio-economic status as determined by child care subsidy density. SD = Standard deviation.
a
Percentage of children enrolled in child care centers who are subsidized.
b
Rating from the Language and Reasoning sub-scale score of the ECERS-R (Harms et al., 2005).
c
Estimate of the number of books in a child care center’s collection of books.
d
Percentage of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms.
Table 4.2
Frequency Table for Categorical Variable
Teacher education level
Less than a Bachelor’s degree
Bachelor’s degree or higher
Frequency
32
6
98
Percent
84.2
15.8
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Nonfiction Availability
To answer the first research question “What is the availability of nonfiction books
in preschool classrooms?” a quantitative descriptive analysis was conducted. The
availability of nonfiction books in a child care center preschool classroom was
represented by a percentage. For each classroom, the total number of nonfiction books
available to children (children could physically access the books and had the freedom to
do so for at least a cumulative 60 minutes per day) were divided by the total number of
accessible books that were inventoried. The mean percentage of nonfiction books
available in classrooms was 43.6%. This figure served as the dependent variable in the
multiple regression used to answer the second research question. Table 4.3 contains
additional information about the classroom book counts to provide a holistic view of the
book context of the preschool classrooms observed in child care centers. A total of 2066
books were inventoried. Every preschool classroom made some books available to the
children. Classrooms contained a mean of 4.7 books per child enrolled in the class. Every
classroom made at least one nonfiction book available. The average number of nonfiction
books per child enrolled was 1.7. For 15 of the 38 classrooms, nonfiction accounted for
50 percent or more of the books available to children.
99
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Table 4.3
Descriptive Statistics for Classroom Book Counts
Book Measures
Mean
SD
Range
Total
Number of books
In classrooms
Inventoried
Per child enrolled in classa
65.0
54.4
3.9
64.2
34.0
2.8
17-348
17-154
1.18-14
2469
2066
Nonfiction booksa
In classroom
Percentage of available books
Per child enrolled in class
23.3
43.6
1.7
17.0
20.0
1.4
1-79
5.9-87.0
0.1-7.2
886
Note. SD = Standard deviation
a
Calculated from the number of books inventoried, not number of books in classroom.
Predicting Nonfiction Availability
The analysis technique used to answer the second research question “Do center
socio-economic status, teacher education, quality of classroom literacy environment, and
size of center book collection predict the availability of nonfiction books in preschool
classrooms?” was multiple regression using forced entry method with proportion of
nonfiction books as the outcome variable and center socio-economic status, teacher
education, quality of classroom literacy environment, and size of center book collection
as the predictor variables. The preliminary analysis above provided a description of the
continuous variables (see Table 4.1) and the dichotomous categorical variable (see Table
4.2) used in the multiple regression.
100
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Test of assumptions. In order to establish the trustworthiness of the results,
multiple linear regression relies on the assumptions of linear relationships,
homoscedasticity, normal distribution, no multicollinearity, and no auto-correlation. A
visual inspection of the scatterplot matrix revealed a linear relationship among all
variables. An outlier for size of center collection was detected in the scatterplot. This
outlier was confirmed through an examination of standardized scores (z = 4.92). The
scatterplot matrix did not reveal any violations of homoscedasticity.
The Shaprio-Wilk test indicated that two variables, center socio-economic status
and size of center book collection, were not normally distributed. To confirm nonnormality, I examined skewness and kurtosis values. The standardized skewness and
kurtosis values for socio-economic were found to be 0.59 and -1.49, respectively. These
values are within the boundaries of the standard normal distribution (Field, 2013). The
standardized skewness and kurtosis values for size of center book collection were found
to be 9.48 and 21.48, respectively. In an attempt to correct the non-normal distribution of
the variable size of center collection, I conducted a Log10 transformation. After the
correction, size of center book collection approximated normal distribution with
standardized skewness and kurtosis values of -3.88 and 2.54, respectively. Non-normal
distributions of a variable will cause a regression model to lose power and produce biased
estimates (Field, 2013). Rather than omit size of center book collection from the multiple
regression, two analyses were ran (one with the uncorrected variable and one with the
corrected variable) to explore the potential contribution of this variable. Due the violation
101
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
of the assumption of normality, results of analyses where the variable size of center
collection is included should be interpreted with caution as the findings are not
generalizable.
In order to examine collinearity and auto-correlation, two separate forced entry
multiple regression models including collinearity diagnosis were conducted. The first
model included raw, uncorrected, data for all variables. The variance inflation factor
(VIF) was found to be less than 10 and the condition index was found to be less than 30,
thereby meeting the assumption of no multicollinearity (Field, 2013). The assumption of
independent errors is tenable; Field (2013) recommends the Durbin-Watson statistic to be
between 1 and 3 with a value closer to 2 being better. This statistic was 1.97. Linearity
and homoscedasticity was verified again through the plots of standardized residuals
against standardized predicted values.
The second forced entry multiple regression model tested the assumptions for
multivariate statistics using the Log10 transformed variable for size of center book
collection and the raw data for all other variables. In this model, the VIF and condition
index met the assumption of no multicollinearity. The Durbin-Watson statistic was 1.92,
thus the assumption of independent errors was met. Linearity and homoscedasticity was
verified through visual inspection of the plots of standardized residuals against
standardized predicted values.
Correlational analysis. Correlations among multiple regression variables were
conducted to assess the degree of inter-relationship among the variables. A bivariate
102
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
correlation was run in SPSS for all continuous variables. Size of center book collection
was included in its raw data form and as its Log10 transformation. Table 4.4 presents the
Pearson correlation coefficients for the continuous variables. The dichotomous
categorical variable teacher education level was calculated using the formula rb = (rpb
√𝑝𝑞)/𝑦 as recommended by Field (2009). The biserial correlation coefficient for teacher
education level is also included in the correlation matrix in Table 4.4. To test the
significance of these correlations, I calculated the z-score of the coefficient and consulted
a normal distribution table as recommended by Field (2009). Size of center book
collection was included in the correlation matrix both as its uncorrected and corrected
forms.
Table 4.4
Correlation matrix of continuous variables
Variable
Proportion of nonfiction
SES
Teacher education levela
Literacy environment
Center book collection
Log10 center book collection
1
2
3a
4
-.12
.29
.39*
.40*
.34*
-.55*
-.09
-.11
-.04
.51*
.25
.15
.40*
.31
Note. SES = socio-economic status as determined by child care subsidy density. p < .05.
a
Biserial correlation coefficient
The variable proportion of nonfiction books was moderately correlated with two
of the four independent variables. Classrooms with higher quality literacy environments
103
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
had higher proportions of nonfiction books. Centers with larger book collections (as an
actual count or as a transformed variable) had classrooms with larger proportions of
nonfiction books. The correlation between socio-economic status and teacher education
was moderate and negative. Centers with higher subsidy density (lower SES) had
teachers with lower education levels. Quality of the literacy environment had a moderate
positive relationship with teacher education level and the size of the center book
collection. Teachers with higher levels of education have classrooms with higher quality
literacy environments; centers with larger collections of books have higher quality
literacy environments.
Regression analysis. Two separate forced entry multiple regressions were
conducted: one with raw, uncorrected data for size of center book collection and one with
the corrected, transformed variable. Both models included center socio-economic status,
teacher education level, and literacy environment score as predictor variables and
proportion of nonfiction as the outcome variable. The parameters for both models are
presented in Table 4.5.
The analysis revealed that neither model was statistically significant. Model 1 (R2
= .23, F(4, 33) = 2.451, p = .065) explained slightly more of the variance in the
proportion of nonfiction books than Model 2 (R2 = .21, F(4, 33) = 2.24, p = .086), but
neither model was significant. None of the independent variables were found to be
significant predictors of the dependent variable proportion of nonfiction books. These
findings suggest that center socio-economic status, teacher education level, literacy
104
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
environment, and size of center book collection have no effect on the proportion of
nonfiction in child care preschool classrooms.
Table 4.5
Regression Models of Predictors of Nonfiction Book Proportion in Classrooms
β
b
SE B
p
Constant
28.25
5.33
SES
Teacher education
Literacy environment
Center book collection
-0.03
2.03
4.21
.004
0.10
9.44
2.88
.002
Model 2b
Constant
18.34
10.95
SES
-0.04
0.10
-.06
.708
Teacher education
Literacy environment
Log10 center book collection
2.42
4.79
5.01
9.53
2.82
3.32
.05
.29
.25
.801
.099
.141
Model 1a
.005
-.05
.04
.26
.29
.768
.831
.153
.094
.103
Note. SES = socio-economic status as determined by child care subsidy density.
a
Model ran with uncorrected data for size of center book collection.
b
Model ran with corrected data for size of center book collection.
Outliers and influential cases were examined to determine if there is bias in either
of the regression models. Standardized residuals revealed the same, singular case as an
outlier in both models. The acceptable level of error within a model allows for 5 percent
of cases to have standardized residual with an absolute value greater than 1.96 and less
than 2.58 (Field, 2013). This case had a standardized residual value of 2.49 when using
105
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
all raw data and a value of 2.32 when using the Log10 transformed variables with the raw
data of other variable, thus it was deemed acceptable for exploratory purposes.
Additionally, Cook’s distance for all cases in either model was less than 1 indicating the
outlier is not a cause for concern as its effect on the models was not large (Cook &
Weisberg, 1982; Stevens, 2009).
Qualitative Analysis
Interviews conducted to satisfy the qualitative strand of this study were intended
to yield an explanation of factors that influenced the availability of nonfiction books in
child care center preschool classrooms. Factors that emerged from the 20 interviews
analyzed were actually separate components that connected to reveal a linear process for
selecting books for the reading area in the classrooms. Figure 4.1 displays a conceptual
model for this process. Each component in the conceptual model will be described
separately. As each component was viewed in light of social cognitive theory, the
description will include identification of whether that component represents the causal
influence of personal, behavioral, or environmental factors. Concluding the presentation
of teacher book selection process components is a more focused discussion of teachers’
thoughts on nonfiction.
106
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Figure 4.1. Conceptual model demonstrating the flow of teachers’ process for selecting
books for the classroom.
Children’s Literature Beliefs
In an effort to examine some of the personal factors that may guide teachers in
their behaviors and in their interactions with their classroom environments, teachers were
asked what they knew or previously learned about selecting books for preschool age
children. Twenty different responses were captured within the 20 interviews analyzed.
Responses were placed into one of four subcategories, yet the variety of responses within
the subcategories are presented in this section to paint a more complete picture of the
beliefs teachers may have about selecting children’s literature for use with preschool-age
children.
The first subcategory addressing teacher beliefs acknowledges the special
relationship children have with books. Many teacher responses alluded to children’s love
of books, but two teachers specifically commented on the relationship itself:
They love books. I mean they’re always wanting to read books…there’s certain
ones that they want us to just read and read and read and it’s really nice that, you
know, the kids want that. (Yancy)
107
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
If they’re sad or something, they go straight to the library. Yeah. So the book is, is
comfort for them. It’s comfort. (Loretta)
The remaining comments came across more as recommendations or advice for promoting
this child-book relationship through selecting the right books. Three types of
recommendations were noted: (a) catch the children’s attention, (b) include a variety of
books, and (c) be selective.
Catching, and keeping, children’s attention was the recommendation stressed the
most. Having all the children’s attention is almost a necessity for many preschool age
teachers as they are commonly the only adult present with a large number of children
under the age of five. Tanya’s comment below demonstrates this challenge:
If it doesn’t catch their attention, then they’re not going to pay attention at all. And
if you can catch their attention you then—you can I guess get their feedback on it.
Which is, to me, which is an important thing…with having 18 kids all it takes is
one child to disrupt a class. So as long as you can catch their attention and you
give them—it gives you an opportunity to finish a book. But it also gives you a
chance to get feedback. And to me that’s important. You know with, with 18 kids
in a class, you can’t afford to have one child that’s just out there. Because then it
just, it takes the other 17 also. (Tanya)
For Tanya, children’s attention was important from a managerial stance, but also from the
stance of a reflective teacher. She desired feedback; the children’s attention
communicated that they were making a connection to the book in some manner.
According to Elena, all the feedback a teacher needs to know she picked a good book is
laughter from at least one child.
Teacher responses identified some characteristics of books that will catch children’s
attention. Wendy believed the illustrations were key to children’s attention since their
108
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
focus is on the pictures. For children, the illustrations tell the story. Kayla and Rosie
suggested that there are other characteristics beyond the illustrations that will catch
children’s attention:
They like the ones with a lot of BOOM! POW! All the loud noises. They love to
hear that because they think it’s so funny. The ones with the pop outs—the ones
that come out…the ones that just have more pizzazz to them. That’s going to
catch their attention. (Kayla)
Have a puppet. Have an animal go with it and the kids will love it. They will love
the book forever. They will always remember. I have a Harry the Dirty Dog. I
don’t know if you’ve ever read that book. I have the animal with it and we had a
birthday party for him. Any time they hear the word Harry or we’re talking about
Harry they always refer back to that book because they love it. And that, I think
always having a book with, or an animal with it, it always keeps them engaged
and they always remember. (Rosie)
These comments imply that the teachers’ believe children need to be entertained by
books. In fact, some teachers said not to even bother with books that are perceived to be
boring. Although the entertainment factor helps capture children’s attention, an exclusive
focus on entertainment may oversimplify the child-book relationship, underestimate
children’s ability to comprehend more complex books or books with more depth, and
constrain the multitude of topics to which children could be exposed.
Beyond capturing attention, books need to appeal to children’s interests. Abby
tried to select books that appealed to her students’ interests, but seemed surprised by the
fact that the books she selected specifically for the boys were enjoyed by the girls as well.
She concluded that children just like a variety of books. In a similar vein, Katie learned
not to make assumptions about the books children might like:
109
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
The books that you choose I guess it—you never really know which ones the kids
are going to love the most. A lot of times they’ll surprise you, for instance, with
which ones they enjoy. So I’ve learned not to assume necessarily which ones my
kids will like and not like. (Katie)
By offering a variety of books, teachers were allowing children to explore their current
interests and to develop new interests that may have been inspired by their interaction
with a particular book.
Including variety does not mean that any book will suffice. Teachers still needed
to evaluate books on different aspects. For example, Ophelia recommended rotating the
books she made available to the children, selecting titles that connected with the
curricular theme or topic. Ophelia thought that having a book about winter when it is
summer may be confusing to some children. Another aspect on which teachers
commented related to the text included within the books. Elena thought if there were too
many words children would become “antsy.” Carmen was concerned about word length
or complexity as some of her students noticed or recognized some common three- and
four- letter words. She wanted to make sure the books she included were not too difficult
for the children to read on their own. A final consideration offered by Isabel was that of
durability.
They have to be tough books because the kids tear them up so easily. Paperback
books aren’t good because they get torn so easily. (Isabel)
Source of Beliefs
After teachers shared one or two comments about what they believed or learned
about children’s literature, they were asked from where they gained these thoughts. The
110
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
sources of beliefs are also personal factors as they are part of each teachers’ history and
experience. Teacher responses fell into two subcategories: experiences reading to children
and child-related training. First, teachers attributed their beliefs to their experiences of
reading to children. These experiences included interactions with their own children,
young relatives, and the children they previously taught.
I guess because when I was raising my own kids that was just something we did.
We would sit down and they would always want me to read to them. (Yancy)
Just working here. I mean, you really get a sense of what they want whenever they
tell you “we want to read this book today.” (Wendy)
Beliefs mentioned in the previous section were reiterated. Yancy addressed her belief that
children love books and Wendy’s comment touched on the interests of children. Even the
concept of feedback was implied by teachers’ interaction with children. Surprisingly,
absent from teachers’ responses about reading to children are their own memories of
being read to or the types of books they responded to as a child.
Second, teachers credited their child-related training for instilling their beliefs.
Training on children’s literature took on many forms, both informal and formal. Informal
training included meetings or dialogue with the center director as well as casual
observation of other teachers. Formal forms of training included college course work,
annual training (mandated by the state to obtain a minimum of 24 clock hours of child
development related training annually; see Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services, 2015), and the Texas School Ready! (TSR) program (see texasschoolready.org).
111
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
TSR was the only training mentioned by the teachers in which any detail about that
training was shared.
When I took that read aloud training with the Texas School Ready! program,
they’re the one to really make it more meaningful. To make sure it ties into the
theme. Make sure you can extend on the book. Like, they can do an activity. Like,
The Very Hungry Caterpillar; make a cocoon or something. Just extend it. Kind
of make it relevant to the children as possible to where they actually understand it
and appreciate it more. (Connie)
Connie’s experience in the TSR training reflected not only the previously mentioned
belief of relating the book to a theme, it exposed her to additional ideas that may have
factored into her personal beliefs about children’s literature such as the need to extend a
book through additional activities to increase comprehension and/or appreciation.
Selection Considerations
From a social cognitive perspective, personal factors, such as beliefs, can
influence behavioral factors, such as thought processes. As applied to this study, teachers’
beliefs about children’s literature may have influenced their thought process when
selecting books for their classroom. However, teachers may have felt the need to also
accommodate expectations implied by others such as the children in the classroom, the
children’s parents, the child care center directors, the child care or child development
professional field, and other standards or regulations. For example, Katie, Rosie, and
Connie commented about needing to include books in each classroom area (i.e. dramatic
play area, block area, science center) to be in compliance with either National Association
for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) or TSR standards. Thus, teachers’
112
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
explanations of their generalized considerations when selecting books mirrored some of
the beliefs espoused above, but also included additional factors. Responses were grouped
into four subcategories of book selection consideration: book topic/content, suitability,
aesthetic qualities, and trial and error.
Book topic/content. Teachers overwhelmingly selected books based upon the
topic of the book (e.g. food, trains, dinosaurs) or the content (e.g. an alphabet or counting
book featuring different animals). Most frequently, teachers looked for books that related
to the curricular theme selected for the week.
We come up with a curriculum like—let’s see—like today it’s animal week. We’ll
incorporate animal books, animal toys, art. Teach them different stuff. So we have
a theme every week. Everybody does a theme…What we are going to teach on,
that is our theme. We bring the book and we incorporate it with the lesson plan.
(Loretta)
[The directors] print up our lesson plan for us and we’re supposed to follow that
theme. So I try to choose books that go with the theme. Whether it’s weather,
farm animals, the beach—whatever the theme is—we work on those books that
week. (Erin)
Like I said it has to do with the theme. Whatever the theme is, then that’s how we
choose our books. We first look at the theme and then if it has to with—let’s
see—because we’ll do investigators. Then we’ll go upstairs and we’ll look
through the books that has to do with anything that will pertain to investigating.
And then that’s how we bring in new books. (Dawn)
Thirteen different themes were identified by the teachers’ whose interviews were included
in the qualitative analysis. Some of the themes identified included ocean/sea, circus,
monsters, 4th of July, camping, and freshwater animals. Teachers did not comment on the
113
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
genre of the book being a factor in their decision making process—only that the theme was
represented within the book.
Similar to the theme was the consideration of seasonality. According to Ophelia,
“of course you’re not going to have winter books—or I do have a spring books still on
there—but don't have winter books when it's summer.” Whereas a curricular theme may
last one to four weeks, depending upon the classroom and the theme, each season may be
a theme itself or be a secondary theme that is continued throughout the season.
Seasonally-relevant themed books were believed to help children make sense of what
was going on with the world outside (i.e. changes in weather) and were relatable to the
experiences children were having (i.e. holiday traditions).
If it is, like, the fall, there are a lot of books on pumpkins and Thanksgiving. That
kind of thing. So I will pull those out. I try to keep them within what’ going on
that season. I have tons of Christmas books that are wonderful. (Gayle)
And I look for things that have to so with spring, summer, warm months. Plants
growing. So I’d have some science books in there. Animals, little ducks, water,
sunshine, weather books maybe. Foods we might eat during the summer that are
cool. So I’d have some books like that. Clothes. Activities like going on trips,
going to a water park or something. And I’m sure I don’t have a lot of those
books because I don’t recall any right now, but that’s what I would look for.
(Mary)
Though most of the teachers centered their lesson plans on themes and selected
books to support aspects of the theme, some teachers did recognize additional curricular
objectives needed to be supported through the literature they chose for their classrooms.
Concept books that included the alphabet, numbers, colors, and shapes were chosen for
children to continue to develop what Tanya called “the fundamentals of learning.” In
114
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
addition to abstract concepts, teachers considered literacy elements such as rhyme and
alliteration. Erin stated, “Rhyming words—they still don’t seem to get the concept of
those books and we’re really working a lot with rhyming.” Mary, a TSR participant,
reported the program’s evaluation and assessment of children’s literacy development told
her which literacy elements children needed help with and selected books she believed
would help develop those skills.
Beyond curricular objectives, teachers considered book topic/content in regards to
children’s interests. Incorporating books that supported children’s interests provided some
variety beyond the theme. For example, the girls in Ophelia’s classroom were interested
in Care Bears, so Ophelia made a concerted effort to find books featuring the Care Bears.
Yancy included Spiderman, Transformers, and Star Wars because boys in her classroom
were interested in these types of books. Topics beyond popular culture were offered by
Elena and Gloria such as dinosaurs, sharks, spiders, and firecrackers. Additionally,
Carmen and Mary proposed that books about topics to which children could relate would
be of interest. For example, Carmen recalled two children whose fathers worked in
construction and loved books that featured construction equipment. Mary succinctly
explicated the importance of considering children’s interests when selecting books on the
basis of topic/content:
Because if they’re interested in something, they’re going to take more time with it.
And they’ll ask more questions. And they’ll be using their imaginations more. So
I think you just don’t put books out there. You pick things that they would be
interested in. (Mary)
115
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Suitability. Secondary to book topic/content was teachers’ consideration of the
suitability of the book for children. Teachers evaluated books on different factors to
determine if they are right for the children in their classrooms. The most frequently cited
factor for suitability was how “age-appropriate” it was. Gayle determined ageappropriateness by the recommended ages or reading levels printed on the cover of some
of the books. Teachers did not want books that were too young for the children. For
example, Zoila avoided books she perceived to be “more babyish” and Elena did not want
“those baby plastic books.” If books were too easy, teachers perceived children would
lose interest quickly. Similarly, teachers did not want books that were too advanced for
the children’s reading level. As Carmen put it, “we don’t want a book that nine-year-olds
should be reading out there where you’re in a preschool room.”
Age-appropriateness was considered in regards to book content as well. As
opposed to considering book topic/content as a reason for selection as discussed above,
suitability or appropriateness of content was a consideration for exclusion of a book if
“any books that are about a subject that we don’t talk about or we don’t want to have
them looking at” (Wendy). Isabel asserted that most children’s books are appropriate, but
then clarified that books should not contain foul language nor feature guns as the children
are not allowed to “play guns” at her center. Dawn provided another solid example of
inappropriate content for preschool reading material:
Summertimes we use magazines and stuff. And inappropriate would be people and
their undies. ‘Cause kids look at that and point it and say “ooo, she in—” you
116
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
know. We try to stay away from things that has to do with kissing, touching, and
stuff. (Dawn)
In a similar vein as age-appropriateness, teachers indicated they considered
language and vocabulary. Language needed to be understandable, yet challenging.
According to Katie, books needed to have “rich vocabulary” and not be “too far above
[the children’s] heads.” Some teachers reported taking extra time to help children learn
new vocabulary presented in the books:
Even if it is one that has big words, I try to take the time and explain, “What is
this? Does anybody know what this means?” And if they don’t answer I try to
elaborate or explain what it does mean to where they can understand it. (Ophelia)
Suitability of books were noted to also pertain to quantifiable measurements of the
books. Teachers avoided books that took too much time to read aloud. As Abby
explained, “if it’s a real long book, it’s gonna kind of get bored to them.” Erin concurred
that shorter books held children’s interests better than longer books. Number of pages was
one way of gauging the length of a book. Other quantifiable measurements included
number of words. A balance needed to be struck between having enough words to hold
young children’s interest, and not having too many words that would cause the children to
“burn-out.” For early readers, Loretta suggested one or two easy words with one or two
syllables and two or three letters per word. Ophelia recommended “not more than three
lines per page or four sentences.”
An additional consideration for suitability was how well teachers could expand
upon a book to create learning experiences for children. As Elena put it, there are some
117
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
books that have “meaning…something behind there” that is more than just the story.
According to Tanya, books are fun, but she wanted the children to learn more from them.
For example, Mary and Carmen had children create plays or productions from books read
in the classroom. Additional examples of other book extensions included the use of finger
plays, songs, and art projects.
A final consideration for suitability was book durability. Many teachers
commented on books being easily destroyed by children, even if they taught proper book
handling. Observations of classrooms revealed that many centers keep books that are torn
and damaged. Other centers reportedly removed damaged books, but only replaced them
if there was enough funding. Thus, teachers like Tanya, Wendy, and Connie
recommended including sturdy, hard-back books.
Make sure it’s going to be able to withstand the wear and tear of four- and fiveyear-olds. I won’t put out just a little flimsy book. I want to make sure it’s going to
be able to withstand 18 hands getting on it in a day. (Wendy)
Aesthetic qualities. A third consideration for teachers when selecting books for
the classroom were the aesthetic qualities. Teachers wanted books that had “lots of
pictures” or “tons of pictures.” Abby, Elena, Yancy, Dawn, and Connie all stressed that
books should have “colorful pictures.” Wendy wanted illustrations that “would catch
[children’s] attention and get them to keep wanting to flip the page and see.”
Book illustrations were important to teachers to help the children read the story.
The teachers recognized that many of the children could not read the words of a story, but
the pictures helped them decipher some words, triggered recall of text they had
118
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
memorized from hearing repeated readings, and allowed them to recreate the story with
their own words.
With these kids it helps them to have a picture to associate with the words. It
makes the words more meaningful if you have a picture. Where some of them
they can’t recognize the words yet, they do recognize the pictures. (Tanya)
I want them to be able to maybe read the story. Because they can’t read by the
words, but they can read the stories by the pictures. And so I try to do a lot of
picture books that maybe the words are going to go with what the picture is. So
I’ll look at the picture, I’ll look at the books, and if I can make up the story. And
I’ll have them do the same thing. And they do very well. (Yancy)
In addition to factoring in the illustrations, teachers considered books on the basis
of if they would keep the children’s attention. Rosie would pick some books that would
“make it fun for the kids” and Connie let children help pick books for the classroom based
upon what “catches the child’s eye.” Some teachers overlapped aesthetic experiences
children had with certain books with the book content/topic:
I like anything that's going to of course catch their attention. Like we've, we have
some princess, Disney princess books in there. I believe we have a cars book in
there. We have books about horses and cats. Anything that's going to grab their
attention and make them want to look at the pictures or look at the words or try to
even associate words and letters with the picture…Just something that would keep
them, I guess that would catch their attention. I wanted something that they would
be interested in looking at like the Bug’s Life book and the I Love You book. I
wanted something that would keep their interest. That wouldn’t want to make
them want to leave. (Tanya)
Trial and error. The final consideration for the process of selecting books for the
preschool classroom was trial and error. Few teachers actually admitted to this
consideration; however, more probably selected books in this manner than what they
realized. Trial and error included books selected to see how the children would react or
119
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
respond, random books arbitrarily selected to make sure there were enough books
available for the number of children in the classroom, and books that were selected for no
specific reason other than “I just pick one” or “just whatever I think.”
A lot of it’s trial and error. I’ll just take out some books and if they don’t really
seem to be interested then I’ll put it back. Maybe the next time I take out the
books they will be interested in them. So it just kind of depends. (Erin)
Book Resources
Using a social cognitive lens for the qualitative analysis thus far has revealed
teachers generalized beliefs about children’s literature (personal), the sources of these
beliefs (personal), and the thought processes employed when selecting books (behavioral).
The discussion now turns towards resources employed to locate books for the classroom
(environment). Teachers had many resources at their disposal within the working
environment, home environment, and the community from which they could locate
books. The use of these resources was largely prioritized by ease and convenience of
access.
I use usually what I have right here on hand that’s close by…it’s just what I have
available and that’s easy to get to because I don’t want to use a lot of time hunting
something and then miss out on something else. I usually use what I have. (Mary)
The environment affected teachers’ ability to follow through with the behaviors
precipitated by beliefs and thought processes. If the type of book sought by teachers was
found within the environment, the teacher was enabled.
My access to books I think is very easy. If I don’t have it in my room I can
always—there’s so many different classrooms I could go to and ask for it. So I
think my access is pretty much really easy. I get from anywhere. And my
120
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
selection in my room is pretty big because I have tons of books. I never have any
problems like not finding what I need. (Rosie)
It’s real easy to find what we’re looking for because, like I said, the books we’re
using we gathered these books in so many years that pretty much we have every
book that we need. (Dawn)
In contrast, if the type of book is not available within the environment, the teacher must
make accommodations or compromises. According to Gloria, the collection of books her
center provides “are not really useful for when we’re teaching.” Gloria was allowed to
bring in books from other places, but she was limited by what she had access to and may
have been constrained by time, energy, or money if not by what other book resources can
provide. Primarily, teachers made their book selections from the center’s own collection
of books. When the center did not have what the teachers wanted, teachers reportedly
turned to private collections, visited libraries, or made compensations for the missing
books.
Center collection. Despite the fact that some centers had relatively small
collections, the center collection was the first and most frequently mentioned resource
from which teachers looked for books. This collection was easy to access and many
teachers may not have the time, energy, or desire to frequently call upon other venues to
find books. Teacher responses indicated that they at least started their search for books
within the center.
121
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Thirteen teachers reported that their center had a separate library, resource room,
or even a detached storage building in which most of the center’s book collection was
stored.
We have theme boxes in our back storage room that have books that ties into
certain themes as well that anybody can go and get when needed. (Connie)
I don’t know if you saw [the director’s] office when you came in, but there’s a
resource room right next to her office that has a lots of little containers with
different things in that you can bring in and change things up. And on the very
back wall there’s a few, a couple of shelves full of books that you can bring in
here too. Some of them can be geared towards my age group and some of them I
couldn’t bring in here. (Kandee)
Centers’ book collections were often housed with other materials as these areas typically
served as storage rather than libraries. Most teachers had access to these storage areas, yet
other centers that used detached storage buildings rarely provided teachers open access to
the building. For example, the directors at Isabel’s and Gloria’s child care centers
periodically gathered a sample of books from storage and then allowed teachers to select
books from this sample.
Ten teachers reported having a group of center-owned books that were considered
a “classroom collection.” Using whatever space was available to them for storage,
teachers were able to draw books, at will, from the classroom collection to switch out with
the books in the classroom reading/library center.
We have our book shelf there. We have what’s on the shelf. I have books above
my desk. I also—underneath my desk. That I use; I have the books that we get for
our TSR program. (Tanya)
122
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
In each classroom we all have our own group of books. I probably have over 100
books just in the classroom that I keep and pull out when I need them. (Katie)
They’re mostly just in that closet. So if we wanted to switch out some of the books
or we thought some of those books would be better in there, we can put them in at
any time and take some out or whatever. (Wendy)
For three of teachers with a classroom collection, these books were in addition to the
center collection. For the remaining seven teachers, the classroom collection was the
center collection. Classroom collections, as opposed to center collections, suggested a
limited or scarce amount of books. However, teachers attempted to maximize their
choices by sharing among other classroom collections.
Private collections. When teachers could not find books they wanted from the
center, they typically turned to private collections or books personally owned by
themselves or others. Many teachers spent their own money on books to supplement what
the center could offer.
At the beginning of each week I just, I go out and pull whatever theme that we’re
talking about that week. I go through those books and see if I have enough for the
week. If I didn't have enough then I have purchased several books on my own.
And you know that’s just going to Barnes & Noble or wherever I can find them, or
online, and purchase those…This is my first year in a lead teacher position. I
found that buying books can be expensive. (Katie)
Because of the expense, it has taken some teachers years to build a collection as
evidenced by Loretta’s comment: “What happens is a lot of these books are my own, too.
That years of teaching and I’ve been purchasing my own stuff. So some are mine.” If
reimbursement was offered, the book was then added to the center collection. Few
teachers reported being paid for the books or their time in which they used to shop for the
123
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
books. This fact did not seem to deter the teachers. Most teachers acted as if using their
own books or buying additional books was an inherent aspect of the job or the personal
sacrifice needed to do their job well.
An unexpected means to which teachers added to their personal collection was
dining at fast food restaurants that offered free books with children’s meals. Ophelia was
the only teacher to comment on getting books in this way, but she was not alone in having
these books in her classroom. “That is one of the ones that I got from Chick-fil-A, as you
can see, those free books they give… anything Chick-fil-A—they’re the best with books.
And they’re free.”
As suggested by Katie earlier, teachers typically turned to their own private
collection of books when they were trying to supplement the curricular themes. Some
teachers, like Gayle, keep part of a privately owned collection in the classroom separate
from center-owned books. For most of the teachers, though, these books were often stored
at home and were brought in as needed.
Some of the books on this shelf are mine. I bring my books kind of sporadically
throughout the year depending on what my theme is. And if I have some books
that relate towards that particular theme then I’ll bring those on my own. (Kandee)
Usually that’s stuff I bring into the classroom. And of course I have to ask [the
director], “is it okay if we’re studying about this?” if I bring this book or
whatever. I have to kind of run it by them first. And they’re pretty good about that
kind of stuff. But as long as I’m bringing it. Not to say, “Hey, can you go
purchase this?” (Gloria)
If teachers did not own the types of books they wanted to include in their classrooms, they
then attempted to borrow books from the private collections of others. Sometimes it was
124
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
the center director who also had a private collection. More often, though, the families of
the children in the classroom were providing books from their private collections.
Sometimes we also ask the parents if they let us borrow certain books. And if they
have them they’ll say yes. We’ll put a note out or a flyer out to the parents and say
that we’re working on this theme. If you have these books can we borrow them?
And sometimes they do let us borrow them and we return them. (Dawn)
I have this one little boy that he loves to bring his books from home because that’s
all they do. They constantly read. So that’s how I pick most of the time. And I
will always let his mom know our theme and she’ll bring books or movies and
stuff for us to learn through that. (Rosie)
Teachers reported that many families were happy and eager to oblige. Familyowned books were read throughout the day and not just in relation to the lesson.
Additionally, family- owned books were not restricted to the theme. Children were
encouraged to bring books that they enjoyed. For example, Rosie and Elena spoke of
specific children who brought books almost daily while Ophelia and Mary scheduled days
when all children could bring a book to share with the class. For Erin, bringing books
was an exception to a classroom rule:
A lot of my kids, they’re not allowed to bring toys to school. But I do encourage
them to bring books. And they do love bringing books. (Erin)
Library. Half of the teachers listed the public library as a resource they used to
find books for the classroom. Gayle, Elena, Mary, and Yancy were in the unique position
of having access to a church or private school library. These teachers found themselves
still having to use the public library, as the church or school libraries often had books that
were geared toward older ages. Aside from Kandee, who had previously reported that her
125
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
center was so lacking in books that she used the public library on a weekly basis during
the school year, teachers reported using the library only when the center’s book collection
could not meet their need for books on a particular curricular theme.
Not all the times they [the center] have all the books that will go to our lesson
plans. But sometimes I do try and go to the main library and get one myself which
won't go in the book center. But that’s something that will go with our lesson plan
and read for that day. (Abby)
It makes it a little more difficult when you have to go look for certain things
because they [the center] don’t always have them. But the libraries are pretty
good about helping us keep all that kind of stuff in stock. (Yancy)
With this last theme it’s been pretty hard…we have gotten more books and better
selection of them, but I still don’t think it’s quite big enough. It’s lacking in a few
theme areas…That’s when we go to the library or pull from home. (Connie)
Despite the fact that the library was used to compensate for the resources lacking
in the center, and the implied expectation that the classroom contain books related to the
curricular theme, visits to the library were conducted on teachers’ personal time. For
example, Kandee went to the library on the weekends. Elena passed the library on her
way home and occasionally stopped along the way to borrow or return books. One
exception was noted at Rosie’s center; teachers were permitted release time to go the
library during the work day. Rosie admitted, she had yet to take advantage of this
opportunity.
As teachers were the ones who checked the books out, they were the ones who
were financially responsible for replacing the books should the books become damaged or
lost. For this reason, children may not actually have access to the books.
126
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Never. No. Those [library books], those never come. They will come in here if I
bring them and read to the children. And then I’ll go return the book. (Gayle)
…others were from the library. And now I don’t leave those out because they have
been—they’ve—I’ve missed—they’ve been borrowed, just never brought back.
And I had to pay for a couple of books and so I just take those back home with
me…And like I said, whenever we read a new book it goes into the [classroom]
library. Unless it’s one of the actual public library or teacher books. (Ophelia)
Ophelia found herself financially responsible for library books, thus she felt compelled to
restrict children’s access to them. However, few other teachers made this connection so
explicit. It was unclear from the interviews whether access was restricted for financial
liabilities or for the moral obligation of caring for things not personally owned. At any
rate, teachers recalled teaching about proper care and handling of books in general, but
reportedly emphasized these lessons more so when library books were in the classroom.
I did check out a lot books for my class. Those were the ones that we really talked
about and we really took care of. Those were usually, yeah, those were the ones
we really took care of. We really talked about them. We read them every day. And
my kids knew that those were library books and those were the ones we need to
take care of. But if it gets to that point where I don’t have anything here, that’s
where I would turn to is the library. (Kayla)
Teachers communicated to the children, in words, actions, and expectations that library
books were to be revered, respected, and handled with the utmost respect.
Compensation. Rather than using one of the above mentioned resources to find
books, sometimes teachers would forgo looking for a book all together and found a way
to compensate. For example, Erin said she would sometimes “wing it” when she did not
have the books she wanted. Mary’s, Yancy’s, and Abby’s directors have pulled readings
from online websites, and then the teachers would read to the children from the printouts.
127
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
These readings did not have pictures, but were on the topic of interest and allowed
children the opportunity to use their imaginations. Although these methods of
compensating for books that were not available to teachers still promoted literacy, they
did not add to the tangible resources available to children in the classroom. Thus, these
methods of compensation were not included in the book inventory or any counts of books
accessible to children. However, the practice of “winging it” or using online resources
uncovered a possible factor for why certain books were or were not present in the
classroom. If teachers were unable to find a book, they used other resources that
essentially served the same purpose as the book in question, thus the need for
incorporating a book was diminished.
And still, other teachers found a way to compensate for the lack of a book that still
gave children the experience of interacting with a tangible, bound book. For example,
Mary attempted to cobble together parts of other books to make a collage of experiences
with the topic that included reading and extension activities.
Well, I do without or I, I have some resources books that have little stories and I
can read stories. Like this morning I didn’t have a book on alligators. I just had
that one science book that mentioned crocodiles. But then I had another book—
rhymes and finger play? And it had a story in there about the alligator. Then I have
another book called—oh I can’t remember—but it has the story and the art
activity go with it. And so I can read from there. And then we can do an art
activity that reinforces that. (Mary)
If these books that Mary spoke of were found in the classroom and were accessible to
children for a minimum of an hour a day, they were included in the study. Perhaps an
even better example was provided by Dawn:
128
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Sometimes we even make our books. We get online and we pick out the pictures
we want and we make up the story as we go. And the children also help with that.
(Dawn)
What children learned from making their own books for the classroom was beyond the
scope of the current study. However, by making a book for the classroom, the class
added a book on the particular topic (which was missing from the collection in first
place), increased the number of books in at least the classroom collection of books, and
likely served as a new favorite that all the children wanted to read repeatedly.
Classroom Books
This section of the analysis turns back to behavioral factors. Whereas teacher’s
thought processes were explored through their consideration of specific book features,
action (or inaction) on those thoughts were verified by teachers’ explanation of why they
chose specific individual books found in the classroom. Teachers were asked their reasons
for choosing specific titles of books located throughout the classroom. As these books
were ones that children could freely access for a minimum of one hour a day, cumulative,
their titles and associated information were inventoried during the observation. In light of
the other findings presented above, what resulted from teachers’ physical action of
selecting books (behavior) was an accommodation or compromise between teachers’ book
selection considerations (behavioral thought processes) and what their resources had to
offer (environment). Teachers’ justification for selection of books were categorized in
three ways: learning-centered, child-centered, and serendipitous selection. Justifications
129
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
under these categories overlapped, to some degree, with teachers’ book selection
considerations discussed above.
Learning-centered. Most often teachers reported selecting a book because of its
ability to support a learning objective the teachers had for the children. Primary among
these learning objectives were presenting themed reading material. Consistent with
teachers’ book selection considerations, curricular themes were the main justification
provided for the books that were inventoried.
Those two were just mainly picked out for this week because our lesson plan for
this week is monsters. We did do like monster cookies and we’re just doing
monster faces, paintings, and stuff like that. And the monster crunch we did today.
So that’s just mainly going with our lesson plan. (Abby)
Surprising, and seemingly inconsistent with book selection considerations, was that the
current theme was not the one necessarily supported by the current books. Only Abby
and Dawn, whose themes were respectively monsters and camping, stated that any one of
their books were selected to support the current curricular theme. Instead, many teachers
reported that specific books supported a different theme, typically one they previously had
addressed. These revisited themes were noted as seasonally-relevant, a consideration
mentioned above. Teachers also reported bringing in books from other themes to refresh
children’s memories or for sustained learning opportunities.
And so we kept that one out for them to relate back to what we’ve learned
previously in the school year…We brought them back. Usually I would try to
change it out—whatever our theme is I would bring theme related books out for
our reading center. And so those were put back in the cabinet and brought back
out for summer…It helps them remember some things that we did in the
classroom. (Katie)
130
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Why did I choose that book? Because a couple weeks ago we talked about animals
and their habitats. So that was part of that theme. And then again we—I left them
in there because we talked about how some animals, like birds, they migrate and
they come back. (Ophelia)
As noted above in selection considerations, teachers’ justified some of the books
in their classrooms by the learning objectives they had for the children that extended
beyond the theme. For example, Rosie used a book for teaching days of the week, Wendy
and Tanya used books to teach about personal responsibilities, Ophelia picked one to
demonstrate the concept of opposites, and Abby wanted an alphabet book. Katie selected
three books because they had words her early readers were able to recognize and read on
their own.
Relative to theme and curricular objectives was selecting books on the basis of
their ability to support content area learning. This reason was not formerly mentioned as
book selection consideration, yet it was not a surprising response to questions about the
books in the classroom. Most of the classrooms observed had their rooms arranged in
“learning areas” that supported specific subjects or developmental domains. There were
distinct areas for: blocks (ideal for construction/engineering), science/math, dramatic play,
writing/alphabet, sensory, music, manipulatives/fine motor. Many teachers chose books
that supported the play activities engaged in at the respective areas. Frequent examples of
books selected for learning areas included alphabet books for the writing/alphabet areas,
books about magnets, patterns, or numbers for science/math areas, and books about
buildings, tools, or cars were found in the block areas. Elena provided a holistic depiction
131
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
of how books about continents supported learning activities in the geography area in her
classroom.
[The books] stay in there because they go with the continent maps that we have.
And the children get to look through the books to see what pictures are in there
from each continent…I will take the books and we will look through it and
discuss what’s in the book. Then I’ll get the puzzle and I’ll tell them this is the
continent where this goes and stuff. And then we will do some poking where I
draw the continent and they poke it with a push pin. And then I have some other
material that pertain to that continent. (Elena)
Another learning-centered objective not addressed through teachers’ generalized
thought processes, but surfaced when discussing the book titles in the classroom, was the
representation of diversity. Many teachers had books out for children that featured a
variety of skin tones, hair type, eye color, and clothing styles. Erin was explicit in her
practice of selecting books that represented different ethnic backgrounds “because I do
have so many different ethnicities going on with the kids.” Ophelia selected three books
for the sole purpose of representing diversity after experiencing a child who called
attention to the difference between her skin and Ophelia’s.
It's funny because then everybody starts looking at—like they’ve never noticed
themselves. They’re like “yeah, you know you're my color, you're my color.” And
that book just explains it more…Just to show some differences in people. I never
thought of it until one little girl was like, “you know your skin’s not like mine.” So
I was like, “I need to add more books that have more diversity” besides just me.
(Ophelia)
Diversity was largely represented in this manner, yet several teachers had books in
Spanish, versus English, and Erin and Katie selected books specifically because they
featured children with disabilities.
132
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
The final learning-centered justification provided for the presence of books in
classrooms centered on religious teachings. Some centers represented in this study were
faith-based or associated with Christian churches. Some of the classrooms in these centers
had children’s Bibles or books that featured stories from the Bible. Rosie, Katie, Gayle,
and Mary specifically commented on having religious-based books in their classrooms on
a daily basis.
We are Christian-based and so we are allowed to teach [the] Bible. And so we
have Bible stories. And so I use The Book of Joseph and Jonah and the whale.
And we do art and we do stories and we do a little alphabet with it and we sing
songs. And so that's how we use the biblical story, storybooks. (Mary)
Child-centered. Teachers showed reverence for children’s relationship with books
by making selections on the basis of appeal to the children in the classroom. Childcentered book selections included children’s preferences for topic, character, favorite
books, aesthetic appeal, and relatability.
As was discussed in the previous sections, the topic or content of the books was a
factor for selection. The difference here was that the books selected catered to the interests
of the children rather than the current or previous theme determined by the teacher. Katie
reported selecting a book for one particular child and Erin thought of the children as a
collective: “a lot of our kids do like airplanes.”
One of the children in our class has a particular interest in insects. He loves
butterflies. And so we kept that book out for him so he can—when he finds
butterflies he can go back and look at them and see what kind of butterflies he’s
found. (Katie)
133
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
We chose that one because they enjoy stuff like that. They like learning about
insects and they see flies and bugs and ladybugs outside. (Wendy)
Books also were selected for teachers’ perceived gender preferences. For example, Abby
selected one book “mainly for the boys’ interest because I know a lot of them do like
dinosaurs” and another book was selected because “I thought the girls would enjoy
because it is about a little cat.”
Children’s preferences for particular characters or favorite books were new
selection reasons that emerged from the analysis. Thomas the Train, Olivia the Pig, Care
Bears, Star Wars, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and a number of Disney characters were
just a few of the characters starring in the books found in the classrooms. The actual
content of these books was irrelevant—making friends, going to school, alphabet or
counting—teachers thought children would see the familiar characters and would want to
look at the book on that basis. As Abby said, “everybody knows Thomas the train, that’s
why I got that one.” Books featuring these characters were sometimes considered
favorites because of the characters, yet other books that had been used during previous
thematic lesson plans were brought back because children enjoyed them so much. For
example, Tanya brought back a book previously used with an ocean theme because “that
was a book that my kids took a really liking to.” Additionally, Rosie chose a book she
used when teaching about farm animals because “the kids love it.”
Teachers also selected books for the classroom they thought would elicit aesthetic
responses from the children. Loretta’s reasoning for selecting several books in her
134
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
classroom was “they’re just there for fun” or to “put [the children] in a happy mood.”
Often the “fun” part of the books was the illustrations. Hidden objects, new visual
perspectives, and depicted action were some of the qualities that teachers thought children
enjoyed. As seen with preferred characters, the topic or subject matter presented in the
selected books was irrelevant. On occasion, the story-line itself or readability was just as
irrelevant.
That book we picked out recently and it’s a lot of fun for them because they like
being able to find things in the book. It’s kind of like an I Spy book almost. And
they love stuff like that because it makes them feel involved with it. (Wendy)
The teachers also recognized that illustrations in some books held more appeal for the
children than just fun. The presence of colorful pictures was the reason for many aesthetic
book selections. For some books, teachers could not explicate what in particular the
children liked about the illustrations, but knew from observing the children that the
illustrations alone were the appeal.
They do really like this book too and I don’t know why…I tried reading this book
to them. They don’t seem to be too interested in me reading it to them. But they
do love looking at the pictures, so that’s why I stuck that one in there. (Erin)
The final way in which teachers’ selected child-centered books was on the basis of
children’s ability to relate to the story or topic addressed in the books. Three types of
relatability were brought up by the teachers. First, teachers selected books that addressed
socio-cultural aspects of the children’s worlds. For instance, Rosie selected a book about
surprise parties because a child’s birthday was coming up, and Dawn selected a book that
featured the relationship between a father and son because Father’s Day was the following
135
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
weekend. Tanya selected a book about love to show the children different ways they could
express love to others. Second, teachers selected books that addressed questions that arose
from activities performed with the class. Katie selected a particular book about fish to
help answer questions children had about the fish they kept in the classroom. Mary chose
a book about buoyancy to help children understand things they witnessed when at the
swimming pool. And finally, teachers selected books that linked to or supported events
that the children were personally experiencing.
He’s not my oldest, but he’s already lost a tooth. So that was put in there as soon
as he told me. He came excited one Monday morning. Over the weekend he had
lost a tooth. And then I had another one whose puppy lost a tooth. I knew they had
[this book] in the office. It’s like, you know what? They’re missing teeth so they
need to read about it. So I picked it and I put it there. That’s why I picked it,
because It’s something that they’re going through. (Ophelia)
Serendipitous selection. Teachers had a plan or objective for most of the books
they selected for inclusion in their classrooms, but a handful of books ended up in many
classrooms by chance. A variety of explanations were offered for the serendipitous
selection of these books. Sometimes, the chance encounter was out of the hands of the
teachers. For example, most teachers had no explanation for how one or two books had
found their way into the classroom. At times, teachers did not even know the books were
there until asked about it in the interview. Occasionally, center directors or teaching
assistants selected some books and the interviewed teachers were unaware of the reasons
for selection.
136
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Even when teachers were the ones selecting the books, they offered seemingly
superficial reasons for doing so. For example, teachers selected some because they were
“short” or “simple,” or they had a stuffed animal to go with it. Other books were selected
because they “looked good” or as Isabel stated, “I just thought they looked cute.” More
purposeful reasons offered by teachers were that the books were new to the center. Newly
purchased books were displayed immediately as teachers and children were excited to
have something new to read. Newly donated books were displayed for the same reason, as
well as out of obligation to the donator.
I think that one was donated to one of our—from one of our parents. I don’t want
to hurt their feelings and not put them [in] because we’ll never get books from her
again. (Elena)
Nonfiction
As demonstrated in the conceptual model, the concept or idea of nonfiction
remained separate from the actual process teachers employed and experienced when they
selected books for their classrooms. In an effort not to lead or bias participants during the
interview (Glesne, 1999), I was purposefully broad in my questions targeting the factors
that influenced the presence of nonfiction books in the classroom. This technique allowed
teachers to bring up the subjects of nonfiction or genre on their own. With the exception
of Wendy who categorized books as fiction or nonfiction, teachers did not voluntarily
address nonfiction in any of their responses. In anticipation of such an outcome, I planned
to ask questions at the end of the interview that explicitly targeting nonfiction books.
137
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
To set the stage for the discussion, teachers were asked to define nonfiction.
Approximately half of the teachers whose interviews were analyzed defined nonfiction as
“true,” “real,” or “factual.” The remaining teachers knew that nonfiction was the opposite
of fiction, but were unsure or confused as to which term meant “make-believe” and which
term did not.
A nonfiction book is (pauses for 3 seconds) it's not a real, a real, things going on in
there. You know you have to explain to them this is a—oh, nonfiction you said? ...
Okay. Nonfiction is a book that is, that is, that is okay fiction is a real, nonfiction...
Isn't it? I'm trying, I'm trying to figure out because I bring so many books and
stuff. I never asked that question. (Elena)
Once it was established that “true” books were the topic of discussion, teachers
were asked how they felt about these types of books for preschool-aged children. A
mixture of responses was received. For the most part, teachers felt that there were positive
aspects to nonfiction books. Nonfiction books were deemed “informative” and
“educational.” Perhaps more importantly, teachers thought children could relate to the
content of nonfiction books. For example, Tanya said these types of books depicted “real
life,” and Wendy thought children would be able to see “more of what’s out there.” Some
teachers expressed reservations about nonfiction being appropriate for young children.
Zoila did not believe that children would be able to relate to nonfiction books because she
did not think “they’d really understand it.” Gayle and Kayla agreed in part with Zoila.
They asserted that nonfiction was too advanced for the children in their classrooms. And
still, other teachers like Isabel and Katie had mixed reactions to nonfiction, recognizing its
usefulness while simultaneously being cautious of possible downfalls such as presenting
138
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
too much information or being too dry to keep children’s attention. Despite teachers’
feelings about nonfiction books they, as a whole, still seemed to favor fiction.
Some of the books are fine if they're real because they are things that the kids need
to learn and know about. I think for in here a lot of the fiction books are more fun
for them. They like all the fairytale and the make-believe. But of course the
nonfiction's going to teach them reality and more like what happens in life.
(Carmen)
Because teachers did not make reference to nonfiction books specifically when
they reported on the personal, environmental or behavioral factors involved in their
process of selecting books for the classroom, they were explicitly asked how nonfiction
did fit into their curriculum. Overwhelmingly, teachers reported that they did not even
think about whether or not a book was nonfiction.
I’ve never really thought of it that way. If I find a book that I think appropriate for
their age and what we’re studying I will pull it out. (Gayle)
I don’t really think about it. Like I said, I try to put a little bit of everything in
there. Right now I don’t know that I have any in there. (Erin)
Whether being fiction or nonfiction it does not—I don’t even think about it.
(Ophelia)
I just get it because the kids will enjoy it and stuff…it doesn’t matter if it’s fiction
or nonfiction. (Elena)
Instead, what teachers thought about was curricular themes. All but two teachers
indicated that the theme determined whether or not they selected a nonfiction book. Some
themes identified by teachers, such as fall, ocean, kites, earth and sky, and community
helpers, lent themselves more to the inclusion of nonfiction books than others. Nonfiction
might have been a theme in and of itself as purported by Abby, Tanya, and Dawn who
139
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
recalled intentionally incorporating nonfiction books the weeks they addressed the
concepts of real and make-believe.
The two teachers who did not select nonfiction books solely on the basis of relating
to the curricular theme chose this genre in very different ways for very different reasons.
Isabel’s book selections were completely independent of any considerations for lesson
plans or curriculum. She claimed, “I just pick one. Or I have the kids pick one.” Such an
approach left the inclusion of nonfiction entirely to chance, more so than those who might
have accidentally picked a nonfiction book because it related to the theme. Connie, in
contrast, made it a point to balance fiction with nonfiction in her classroom reading area.
On our library shelf we have two boxes and one’s labeled fiction and one's labeled
nonfiction. That way they can see the difference in those…We choose nonfiction.
Even if it, if I don't have one for the particular theme I’m working on I still leave
nonfiction books out. (Connie)
Despite this very deliberate act of bringing nonfiction books into the classroom, Connie
did not speak of nonfiction throughout her interview until asked about it directly. She was
not alone as none of the teachers spoke of nonfiction, or any qualities specific to
nonfiction, when they recalled the factors that contributed to the process of selecting
books for their classrooms.
To conclude the discussion of children’s nonfiction books, teachers were asked to
evaluate their access to such resources. Though teachers had already identified center
collections, personal collections, and libraries as main sources for obtaining books for
140
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
their classrooms, only one teacher commented on the library’s ability to meet her needs
for nonfiction.
I don't really have any challenges finding the books. They're always there at the
library. I just have it in my head what books I might need. And then I'll just be
looking through the shelves and be like “oh, okay, that would be a good book too
to go along with it.” (Kandee)
The other teachers evaluated their access to nonfiction books in terms of what their
respective child care centers could provide. Katie was in the minority, reporting that her
center’s theme related tubs included “quite a few” nonfiction books. Most of the other
teachers, like Connie, felt their centers did not provide enough. The lack of nonfiction in
the centers was suggestively attributed to how the centers contributed to their own
collections. For example, Gloria reported that her center director would go to Goodwill,
“and whatever she sees she’ll buy and just kind of stick them back there and that’s what’s
there.” Other centers, like Carmen’s, did not even get to make selections because “we get
what’s donated to us.”
Nonfiction was a separate, ambient idea from teachers’ book selection process. As
such, teachers’ thoughts on nonfiction are depicted as a separate line under the visual
representation of the book selection process in Figure 4.1. The inconsistency among
teachers in regards to definitions, value, and place within the curriculum necessitates that
the line representing nonfiction be dashed line rather than solid.
141
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The primary aim of this research was to identify factors that explain the
proportion of nonfiction books available to preschool children in child care classrooms.
This research contributes to a body of work developed in response to accumulating
evidence showing that nonfiction books in early childhood classrooms are virtually
nonexistent. This study’s purpose was two-fold: to establish a baseline of proportion of
nonfiction books in child care center preschool classrooms and to establish factors that
explain why the genre is, or is not, available to children. In an effort to fulfill this
purpose, the study was designed to answer four research questions:

What is the availability of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms?

Do center socio-economic status, teacher education, quality of classroom
literacy environment, and size of center book collection predict the
availability of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms?

How do teachers explain the factors that influence the availability of
nonfiction books in the preschool classroom?

To what extent and in what ways do quantitative and qualitative findings work
together to contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of
the availability of nonfiction books in the preschool classroom and the factors
that influence the availability?
142
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Two research strands, each informed by a different theoretical position, were used
to answer these questions. For the quantitative strand, social capital theory served as the
lens through which literature on quality early care and education, literacy environments,
and connections between children and nonfiction were examined. Emerging from this
review of the literature were four potential “structural factors” of child care that could
possibly predict the proportion of nonfiction books in preschool classrooms: socioeconomic status of the center, teacher education level, quality of the literacy
environment, and size of the child care center’s book collection. The primary purpose of
social capital theory in the quantitative research strand was to aid in the identification of
structural variables to investigate. The qualitative research strand of the current study
occurred in conjunction with the quantitative research strand. Literature featuring
teachers of young children and their decisions when choosing books for their classrooms
illuminated aspects of this process such as characteristics of books, the children in the
classroom, the teacher’s objectives and physical resources available. Social cognitive
theory accompanied the qualitative research strand. Instead of aiding in the identification
of literature, however, social cognitive theory served as the lens through which I viewed
and made sense of qualitative data and findings. Due to the different ways in which social
cognitive theory and social capital theory informed this study, I incorporate them in
different ways throughout the discussion.
Data analysis and presentation of results for the two research strands occurred
separately. In this discussion, I consider the two research strands together. First, I present
143
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
my interpretation of the findings for each individual research question and make
connections to the literature base. When possible, I use findings from one research strand
to bring additional understanding to the other. I then outline the most salient limitations
to the current study and explore the implications the current study may have for practice
and future research. I end this discussion with concluding thoughts about this study.
Availability of Nonfiction Books
To determine the proportion of nonfiction books available to children in preschool
classrooms, I inventoried all books that met the criteria for being available (children can
reach the books and have the freedom to explore books for a cumulative minimum of 60
minutes a day) and categorized them by genre. Classrooms in the current study came
closer to offering the equal representation of fiction and nonfiction advocated by Duke
(2013) and IRA/NAEYC (1998) as 43.6% of the books inventoried were nonfiction. This
percentage far exceeds those reported in other studies which determined the nonfiction
proportion to range from 5 to 17 percent (Duke, 2000; Pentimonti et al., 2010; Pressley et
al., 1996; Yopp & Yopp, 2000; 2006). Admittedly, there was variability in the current
study in the proportion of nonfiction across classrooms, yet 36 of 38 classrooms exceed
the highest proportion reported in other studies. The remaining two classrooms still
exceed the lowest proportion of nonfiction reported in other studies (5% reported by
Yopp & Yopp, 2006). So great is the presence of nonfiction books that, even when
considering the lowest end of the range, there is least an average of 1.7 nonfiction books
for every child enrolled in the classroom.
144
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
The discrepancy between the findings from the current study and the findings of
others in previous studies may be due, in part, to the broader definition of nonfiction
employed in this study. Had this study been exclusively examining informal text, the
results likely could have been more reflective of that reported in other studies.
Additionally, books that contained both elements of fiction and nonfiction were
categorized as nonfiction if the purpose of the book was to impart factual information.
Several children’s literature scholars (e.g. Kiefer, 2007; Kristo et al., 2008; Williams,
2009) have favored a broad definition because narrow definitions underestimate the
impact, use, exposure, availability, and expectations for nonfiction. However, some
nonfiction authors like Colman (2011) have been adamant that nonfiction exclude any
fictional elements; books with a mixture of fiction and fact should be its own genre. If
hybrid books had been excluded from the operational definition of nonfiction, then the
proportion of nonfiction certainly would have been lower.
Another possibility for the discrepancy in findings between the current study and
others is the method for determining the presence of nonfiction. For the current study, the
researcher personally observed and recorded every title of every book that children could
freely explore for at least 60 minutes a day. Benefits to this approach are that it ensures
accuracy as the researcher can categorize books within the operational definition and
completeness, using the population of books in the classroom rather than a sample. Duke
(2000) employed a similar method, yet others relied on teacher reports of books read
aloud (Bortnem, 2008; Pentimonti et al., 2010; Yopp & Yopp, 2000, 2006). Read alouds
145
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
may not adequately capture the variety of book genres represented in a classroom, and
self-reporting is subject to faulty memory or erroneous categorization.
Predicting Nonfiction Availability
Literature relative to the current study topic was suggestive of certain factors that
could potentially be predictive of the availability of nonfiction books to be found in child
care center preschool classrooms: child care socio-economic status, teacher education
level, quality of classroom literacy environment, and center book collection size. I chose
these particular factors because the literature on child care quality and classroom literacy
environment quality suggested that these structural factors often impact the teachers’
processes and children’s outcomes. These factors also aligned well with the concept of
social capital which served as the guiding theory.
To answer the second research question, I conducted a forced-entry multiple
regression. Results of the multiple regression were not significant. The structural factors
of child care socio-economic status, teacher education level, quality of classroom literacy
environment, and center book collection size do not predict the proportion of nonfiction
in child care center preschool classrooms. This finding should be interpreted with caution
due to this study’s small sample size and the non-normal distribution of the variable size
of center book collection.
The variables used in the inferential analysis were intended to be indicators of
social capital rather than a measurement of social capital itself. The use of indicators of
social capital is common practice as the actual measurement of social capital is difficult
146
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
to accomplish (Grootaert, 2001; Rothstein, 2005). The social capital indicators in the
current study were intended to represent both the center’s and teacher’s ability to obtain
resources through their social networks. Centers and teachers with better scores on the
indicators were anticipated to have better access to resources, such as nonfiction books,
as is consistent with social capital theory (Field, 2003; Grootaert, 2001; Halpern, 2005;
Lin, 2001). This assumption was not supported by the quantitative research findings.
The null findings in the current study do not necessarily mean that social capital
has no part in whether or not nonfiction books will be present in child care centers and
then be available to the preschool children. Findings from the qualitative research strand
of the current study suggest that individual and collective social networks are at play
within this phenomenon of nonfiction availability. For instance, teachers alluded to social
capital with their comments about book donations, sense of obligations, borrowing books,
learning from others, training and education, bringing experiences from other centers,
children or parents bringing books to donate or to use. Rather than conclude that the
social capital indicators assessed in the current study are poor indicators or do not
influence nonfiction availability, I posit that social capital indicators, represented by child
care structural factors of socio-economic status, teacher education, literacy environment
quality, and size of center book collection, are more complex than what a single score for
each would convey. In an effort to bring additional understanding to the social capital
indicators included in this study, I will briefly discuss each structural factor investigated.
147
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Center Socio-Economic Status
Center socio-economic status (SES) was not associated with nonfiction
proportion. This finding is surprising considering Duke (2000) found clear differences
between high- and low-SES in regard to the amount of materials and time devoted to
informational text in 1st grade classrooms. Other studies linking SES to the availability of
literature in general (Neuman, 1999; Neuman & Celano, 2001) or other measures of child
care quality (Antle et al., 2008; Jones-Branch et al., 2004; Pianta et al., 2005, 2009;
Phillips et al., 1994) also found strong differences between levels of SES. Interviews with
teachers in the qualitative research strand of the current study also suggest that economic
situations limit a center’s ability to obtain books. However, the reports of centers not
having the funding to buy books is an issue for centers with both high and low subsidy
density. The lack of association between center socio-economic status and nonfiction
availability is likely attributed to the small sample size employed in the current study.
Potentially complicating the findings is the great variability among centers in regards to
both subsidy density and the proportion of nonfiction books in the classrooms.
Teacher Education
Teacher education as a quantitative measurement is not predictive of nonfiction
availability in the preschool child care classroom. Large-scale, nationally representative
empirical studies (Howes, 1997; Howes et al., 1992; NICHD ECCRN, 2005; Phillips et
al., 2001) have suggested that teacher education should be predictive of quality classroom
indicators, such as nonfiction availability. Even within the qualitative data, there are no
148
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
clear patterns that suggest selection behavior differences among teachers with varying
education levels. The null finding in this study may speak more to the use of nonfiction
availability as an indicator of child care quality rather than the use of teacher education as
a predictor of quality.
Another possible explanation for the null finding is the confounding of education
and training within the same person previously noted by some research teams (Cassidy et
al., 1995; Howes et al., 1992). The additional training for teachers without postsecondary degrees may level the playing field between them and teachers with Bachelor’s
degrees. The qualitative research strand of the current study again brings this idea to the
forefront. Recall that Wendy and Connie set themselves apart from the other teachers by
offering some sense of intentionality in regard to nonfiction books. Wendy reported
categorizing books in her classroom as fiction or nonfiction; this was the only unsolicited
utterance about nonfiction by any teacher. Similarly, when prompted, Connie commented
about the reading area in her classroom always having a bin of fiction books and a bin of
nonfiction books. The existence of these bins were recorded in observation field notes
and pictures of the reading area prior to the interview. Wendy’s and Connie’s comments
denote some degree of exposure to nonfiction that was strong enough to make a lasting
impression. A review of their reported qualifications for being a preschool teacher
revealed that Wendy was starting her senior year in college with a major in education and
Connie was a high school graduate with no college experience, but had completed the
three-year Texas School Ready! Program. These teachers’ experiences advance the idea
149
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
that exposure to nonfiction, rather than educational obtainment, impacts teachers’
behaviors with nonfiction to some degree. In light of the two different types of
experiences, it should not be assumed that higher education is teachers’ only venue for
exposure to nonfiction. Instead of looking just at teacher education level, future studies
should examine various types of formal and informal education, as well other experiences
to determine what specifically inspires thoughtful consideration of nonfiction
incorporation in child care center classrooms.
Quality of Literacy Environment
The classroom literacy environment quality failed to explain enough of the
variance in nonfiction availability to emerge as a significant predictor. The why behind
this null finding may stem from a coupling of an assertion made by Guo and colleagues
(2012) and a finding from the qualitative research strand of the current study. Guo and
colleagues posited that teachers facilitate children’s learning through use of books and
that classroom reading areas are a reflection of this use. The current study did not
investigate use of nonfiction books, but teachers’ lack of thought about nonfiction when
selecting books for the classroom suggests that teachers do not intentionally support
children’s learning through the use of nonfiction. Teachers may support literacy in
general and teachers use books to support general learning, but instructional practices that
require explicit use of nonfiction books do not occur in these child care preschool
classrooms.
150
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Literacy environment quality may not predict nonfiction availability, but it does
have a significant, positive association with it. The significant correlation between the
literacy environment rating and proportion of nonfiction supports the assumption
generated from the review of literature: higher quality child care center classroom literacy
environments have greater availability of nonfiction books. This relationship could be
attributed to the particular criteria of book variety (Neuman, 2001; Routman, 2003;
Young & Moss, 2006) and quantity (Reutzel & Jones, 2010; Wolfersberger et al., 2004).
Striving for variety and quantity of books in a classroom increases the chances of
selecting nonfiction books, even if genre is not a consideration in process of selecting the
books. Additionally, the classroom curriculum may play a role as well. Many of the
themes around which teachers based their book selections are nonfiction in nature. As
teachers made it evident that many decisions for the classrooms revolve around this
theme, it is possible that these theme-related decisions impact the quality of the literacy
environment as well as the proportion of nonfiction books that end up in that
environment.
Size of Center Book Collection
Center book collection size did not emerge as a significant predictor of nonfiction
availability. This finding is difficult to interpret as the variable was not normally
distributed even after being transformed. In its raw form, size of center book collection
was the only variable to approach significance in the multiple regression, and it had the
strongest association with nonfiction availability. Despite this null finding, teacher
151
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
interview responses indicate that teachers’ book selection largely centers on the resources
child care centers provide. This finding is consistent with other research that documents
teachers’ selection of books from readily available sources (Donovan & Smolkin, 2001;
Stone & Twardosz, 2001). Though teachers in the current study reportedly reached out to
public libraries and used books from personal collections, the book inventory reveals that
91% of the books available to the children are from the center book collection. Teachers
generally start their search for books at the center. If the center fails to provide the books
teachers want, teachers most likely change what they want to fit with what is easily
available to them. Occasionally, teacher will use resources outside of the center, but all
data indicates this is rare occurrence.
Higher quantities of books available to teachers result in greater representation of
books in the classroom (Neuman, 1999; Reutzel & Jones, 2010; Wolfersberger et al.,
2004). At the same time, greater quantities of books increase the odds that nonfiction is
picked. These two points, coupled with the additional points made above, strongly
suggest that the center book collection plays a much larger role in nonfiction availability
than what the current study demonstrates statistically. Both the immense variability
among centers as to the size of their book collections and the limited number of child care
centers represented in the current study likely mask the true contribution center
collections make to nonfiction availability.
152
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Teacher Reported Factors Influencing Nonfiction Availability
The factors identified by teachers in their interviews were really steps to, or
components of, their process for selecting books for their classrooms. These components
include source of children’s literature beliefs, children’s literature beliefs, book selection
considerations, book resources, and the books in the classroom. Teachers’ book selection
process remained separate from teachers’ thoughts on nonfiction. Not until teachers were
asked specifically about nonfiction books did this genre, or aspects of it, register into
their consciousness. This lack of intentionality in regards to genre has been noted in other
studies investigating book selection processes (Aguilar-Crandall, 2009; Donovan &
Smolkin, 2001; Stone & Twardosz, 2001).
Lack of intentionality, or thought, for selection of nonfiction did not appear to
stem from teachers’ estimation of the genre. Teachers generally held positive opinions
about nonfiction books for young children and saw the value of incorporating them into
their classrooms. A handful of teachers, however, reflect some of the adult
misconceptions highlighted by children’s literature scholars (Colman, 1999; Duke et al.,
2003; Kristo et al., 2008). These teachers think that children do not relate to or
understand nonfiction and that children find this genre too challenging or too boring.
Research on young children’s use of nonfiction contradicts these notions by
demonstrating that nonfiction books address what children see in the world around them;
children can read, comprehend, evaluate, imitate, and authentically use vocabulary,
linguistic features, and topical content of nonfiction (Duke, 2003a; Moss, 1997; Pappas,
153
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
1991, 1993; Shine & Roser, 1999). Some children even prefer nonfiction over fiction
(Caswell & Duke, 1998; Duke & Kays, 1998) and find it motivating (Brassell, 2006;
Correia, 2011). Regardless if teachers are optimistic or cautious as to the appropriateness
of nonfiction for young children, their feelings are not so strong as to directly influence
the selection or avoidance of nonfiction books for their classrooms. Teachers in the
current are not concerned with nonfiction as a genre.
How Nonfiction Fits into the Teacher Book Selection Process
As previously depicted in Figure 4.1, nonfiction is a flat, incomplete, nondynamic concept unrelated to teachers’ book selection process. There is no explicit
interaction between the concept of nonfiction and the book selection process. And yet,
there is high representation of nonfiction in the classrooms. At first these two findings
appear counterintuitive. Important to bear in mind is that although components of the
teachers’ book selection process do not demonstrate intentional focus on or inclusion of
nonfiction, the components are not completely exclusionary either. The concept of
nonfiction, or the physical representation of nonfiction in the form of books,
inadvertently finds its way into teachers’ book selection process by reflecting the
qualities teachers report as factoring into this process. The following discussion points
revisit the components of teachers’ book selection process to demonstrate how nonfiction
books inadvertently find their way into the child care preschool classrooms despite the
fact that teachers do not actively or cognitively intend to include them. As demonstrated
below in the description of model components, thoughts on nonfiction (correct or
154
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
incorrect, positive or negative) may directly or indirectly influence any one of the
components of the book selection process. The previous figure depicting teachers’ book
selection process is updated (see Figure 5.1) with dashed arrows leading to each
component from the line representing thoughts on nonfiction to visually indicate this
potential influence.
Within the following discussion of how nonfiction fits into teachers’ book
selection process, I make ties to the existing literature base and incorporate findings from
the quantitative research strand of this study when possible. Following this discussion, I
further explore the social cognitive theory concept of triadic reciprocality to suggest that
the book selection process is not linear with a clear beginning and end. Instead, I argue
that (a) the process is dynamic, cumulative, and reiterative and (b) the components are
reciprocally influential.
Figure 5.1. Conceptual model demonstrating the influence of nonfiction books on
teachers’ book selection process.
155
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Source of beliefs. Teachers derive their beliefs about children’s literature from a
wide array of influences in distinctly varied environments. For example, interactions with
teachers’ own children and young family members represent the home environment and
interaction with children in the classroom represent the work environment. The work
environment also serves as a location for informal training with directors and fellow
teachers. Formal training occurs in an educational environment. Teachers likely assume
different roles in these environments and experience different levels of authority and
submissiveness which further diversifies these environments.
Teachers’ experiences in home, work, and educational environments, and the
lessons they learn from them, contribute to their beliefs about children’s literature. For
instance, many teachers in the current study who were involved in the TSR program or
had taken college-level child- development-related coursework report intentionally
selecting books to put in the block area, dramatic play area, science and math areas, and
so on. The TSR program encourages a “books-across-the-curriculum” approach and the
college-level coursework likely does as well. The practice of putting books throughout
the classroom echoes the practice reported by other teachers selecting books for their
classrooms and aligns with recommendations by scholars (Aguilar-Crandall, 2009;
Neuman, 1999; Vukelick & Christie, 2009). Like teachers in other studies, teachers in the
current study started the practice of putting books throughout the classroom as a result of
their experiences with their training or education.
156
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Drawing from this example, it is reasonable to conclude that if teachers are
previously exposed to the importance of selecting nonfiction books for the classroom, or
even the important effects early exposure can have on young children’s literacy
development (for example, Duke & Kays,1998; Moss, 1997; Pappas, 1993), teachers will
be more inclined to purposefully select nonfiction. If the value of exposing young
children to nonfiction literature remains unaddressed or is poorly addressed within the
environments shaping teachers beliefs, then it is not likely that teachers will develop a
high regard for nonfiction. Without this regard, nonfiction will not purposefully be
selected for the classroom.
The relationship between previous experiences and current beliefs (resulting in
observable teacher practices) finds some support from the quantitative research strand in
the current study. In the context of the qualitative findings, the positive correlation
between teacher education level and the literacy environment quality suggests that
teachers providing better literacy environments likely have educational experiences in
which the qualities of a literacy-rich classroom were stressed. Similarly, the lack of a
significant correlation between teacher education level and the proportion of nonfiction
books may indicate that teachers’ educational experiences in college did not include an
emphasis on children’s early exposure to nonfiction.
Children’s literature beliefs. The beliefs teachers hold about children’s literature
serve as a lens through which they view books and evaluate them for inclusion in the
classroom. If a teachers believes that children only respond to “pizzazz,” then they are
157
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
likely only to select books featuring that particular quality. Likewise, if teachers do not
feel it is important to include nonfiction or books with factual information, then they are
not likely to display behaviors that lead them to seek out nonfiction books from their
environment or make attempts to increase the nonfiction books within the children’s
environment. No teacher made any comments that implied belief in, or importance of,
nonfiction books inclusion. This inattention to the nonfiction genre was noted by other
researchers investigating teacher book selection for the early childhood classroom
(Aguilar-Crandall, 2009; Donovan & Smolkin, 2001; Stone & Twardosz, 2001).
Consistent with scholarly articles describing effective literacy environments
(Neuman, 2001; Routman, 2003; Young & Moss, 2006), teachers in the current study did
feel that children should be exposed to a variety of books. A belief in literature variety
makes it more likely for teachers to include books with different topics, writing styles,
illustration mediums, difficulty levels, and even genre. Teachers do not indicate that
genre itself is a consideration when striving for variety. And still, the classrooms in the
current study had large proportions of nonfiction books in comparison to that reported in
other studies (Duke, 2000; Pentimonti et al., 2010; Pressley et al., 1996; Yopp & Yopp,
2000, 2006). Teachers likely select nonfiction books inadvertently because characteristics
of the nonfiction books address other beliefs held by teachers in regards to children’s
literacy.
Not every teacher holds the same beliefs, nor were all of one teacher’s beliefs
reflected in this study. It is possible that teachers do believe children’s literature should
158
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
convey factual information and teachers only chose to convey their top considerations.
Even taking into consideration this possibility, it is still indicative of low value placed
upon making nonfiction books available to the preschool children in their classrooms.
Selection considerations. As opposed to the above section on teachers’ beliefs
about children’s literature, at least one of the teachers’ considerations when selecting
books for the classroom guaranteed the presence of nonfiction books in the classroom:
teachers’ use of concept books to support the “fundamentals” of learning such as
alphabet, shapes, colors, and numbers. Many concept books were noted during the
classroom observation, but the extent to which they accounted for the proportion of
nonfiction observed in the classrooms extends beyond the scope of the current study.
Research on the prevalence of nonfiction in early childhood classrooms (Duke, 2000;
Pentimonti et al., 2010; Pressley et al., 1996; Yopp & Yopp, 2000, 2006) is unclear on
whether or not concept books were included as nonfiction. However, Hepler (2003) and
Kiefer (2007) identifed concept books as nonfiction and corroborate the notion of using
them with young children to explore classes of objects or abstract ideas. Teachers in
Aguilar-Crandall’s (2009) study selected many concept books as well, though their
selections were first mediated by the limited books offered within the locations they
purchased books. Aguilar-Crandall cautioned against over use of concept books as they
are limited in their literary value. At any rate, teachers’ purposeful selection of concept
books ensures that at least one form of nonfiction will be represented in the child care
preschool classroom.
159
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
All other teacher considerations for book selection were conspicuously absent of
any thought on nonfiction books specifically or books containing factual information in
general. Teachers select books on the basis of topic/content, suitability, aesthetics, or trial
and error. These criteria mirror many of those espoused by teachers participating in
studies conducted by Donovan and Smolkin (2001) and Stone and Twardosz (2001).
These selection considerations allow the chance or possibility of nonfiction books to be
selected provided they meet the consideration criteria. For instance, teachers select books
that relate to curricular themes addressed in the classroom. Themes were the driving force
behind many curricular decisions—book selection, art activities, toy selection, wall
decorations, and more. So prevalent is the concept of “theme” that many centers have
“theme tubs” or “theme boxes.” If the weekly theme is insects or creepy-crawlies,
teachers will select books on insects, bugs, butterflies, spiders, etc. If a nonfiction book
features content related to this theme, teachers will choose it and bring it into their
classroom. Revolving book considerations around themes is not only important to the
teachers interviewed, but this practice is considered the highest mark of literacy
environment quality in the revised edition of the Early Childhood Environment Rating
Scale (Harms et al., 2005). However, without nonfiction or even factual information
being an explicit consideration in teachers’ thought process when selecting books, there
is no guarantee that teachers will choose even one nonfiction book.
Book resources. Center collections, personal collections, and libraries are the
contexts to which teachers have access and utilize when selecting books for their
160
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
classrooms. If these contexts do not physically contain nonfiction books, then teachers
will not include nonfiction in their respective classrooms. Consistent with teachers in
other studies (Donovan & Smolkin, 2001; Stone & Twardosz, 2001), teachers in the
current study use the resources most readily available. For these teachers, the most
readily available book resource is their centers’ collections. Donovan and Smolkin (2001)
suggested that teachers’ book selections are a direct result of the books supplied to them.
If the child care centers supply nonfiction books, then teachers should select nonfiction.
The logic here implies a relationship between center book collections and nonfiction
availability. The correlational analysis in the quantitative research strand for the current
study lends credence to this idea. Centers with larger book collections had classrooms
with larger proportions of nonfiction books. Conversely, if the center book collection
does not have nonfiction books, teachers do not have the option of selecting them.
The role a child care center book collection may play in the whether or not
teachers can select nonfiction books for their classrooms warrants future investigation
into how these collections come to be and where nonfiction fits within that.
Hypothetically, if center budgets are tight, then the opportunity to add books of any kind
to the collection may be limited. The collection curator (the person or people selecting
books for the center collection) may have budgetary concerns and thus try to get the most
for their money as was seen in the book purchasing behaviors of child care owners in
Aguilar-Crandall’s (2009) study. What is affordable is not always of quality or variety
and may not include nonfiction. Budgets may outweigh other beliefs or considerations for
161
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
selection that would lead to the purchase of nonfiction books. Furthermore, the curators
may not hold beliefs or certain considerations for selection that would lead them to
choose nonfiction books for the center collection.
Libraries were another book resource teachers in the current study reported using.
Public libraries likely have many nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. In this
study, Kandee was able to locate nonfiction books she thought were appropriate for her
purposes and for the children in her classroom. However, library layout and organization
may or may not make finding children’s nonfiction literature an easy endeavor for others.
Strategies teachers use when looking for books at the library are beyond the scope of the
current study, yet these strategies directly impact whether or not teachers come across
nonfiction books to even consider them to be checked out for their classrooms. Given
teachers’ reported restriction on books they have checked out from the library, it is
doubtful that children would really have access to nonfiction books if teachers were able
to locate them from the library.
In sum, the resources from where teachers obtain books to then place in their
classroom affect teachers’ ability to enact selection behaviors grounded in their beliefs on
children’s literature and within the confines of their selection criteria. Teachers are either
enabled or constrained within these locations. Thus, nonfiction books for a preschool
classroom are mediated by these resources.
Classroom books. Teachers’ behavior of actual book selection, resulting in the
books that are found in the classroom for children’s voluntary reading, mainly center on a
162
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
book’s ability to address teacher-initiated learning objectives and to make connections
with specific children. Teachers in this study cited reasons for book selection similar to
those espoused by teachers in other studies examining teacher book selection (Donovan
& Smolkin, 2001; Stone & Twardosz, 2001) such as relation to theme or topic of study,
demonstration concepts, topic of interest to children, and visual appeal. Unlike teachers
in these other studies, teachers in the current study serendipitously picked books with
little thought, if any, thought. As with other components of the process, nonfiction books
are conspicuously absent from reasons for selection. Teachers do not select books purely
on the basis of the books being nonfiction nor their ability to convey factual information,
but they do not exclude books on this basis either. As with teacher’s generalized
considerations for book selection, teachers’ actual reasons for selecting the books in their
classrooms at the time of this study allow for the possible, inadvertent selection of
nonfiction. For example, selecting books for content areas increases the odds of selecting
concept books. Additionally, teachers may select nonfiction books because they address a
current or previous theme, are on a topic of interest to children, or have engaging
illustrations or photographs.
Teachers’ Book Selection Process in Light of Social Cognitive Theory
The components of teachers’ book selection process are the personal, behavioral,
and environmental factors that contribute to the availability of nonfiction books in the
classroom. Consistent within social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1989, 2003;
Schunk, 2012; Schunk et al., 2008), each factor influences and is influenced by the other
163
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
factors. As applied to teachers’ book selection process, personal factors such as teachers’
experiences help shape additional personal factors such as a teacher’s beliefs about
children’s literature. Those beliefs then influence teachers’ thought processes which are
behavioral factors that then guide teachers toward environments that may contain the
books teachers want. These environments then either (a) enable teachers’ physical
behaviors of enacting their thoughts by yielding the books wanted, or (b) if the desired
book is not available in the environment, constrain teachers’ ability to enact the intended
behaviors. The books teachers are able to obtain from these environments then become
the books available to children in the classroom.
The teacher book selection process was presented as a linear arrangement of
components. The colored arrows previously used in Figure 4.1 and Figure 5.1 represented
how each component may feed into the next one. In addition to the influence one
component may have on the next, components may actually combine to have a
cumulative effect. When source of beliefs, children’s literature beliefs, selection
considerations, and book resources combine, their yield equals the books found in the
classroom. After all, if one component is taken away, then the end result would be
different. For example, if teachers did not have any beliefs about children’s literature,
they may not pick any books for the classrooms or the books they do pick may not be
effective or appropriate for preschool-aged children. Both results are drastically different
from the books they otherwise would have in their classrooms. A visual representation of
this cumulative effect was added to the conceptual model of teachers’ book selection
164
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
process and is depicted by the plus (+) and equal (=) signs within the arrows as seen in
Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2. Conceptual model of teachers’ book selection process indicating the
cumulative effects of model components.
Based upon the qualitative analysis, the linear process ends with the classroom
books. Books in the classroom appear to be the end of the process; however, when
viewed through a social cognitive lens, the process is actually much more dynamic and
self-reinforcing. Figure 5.3 contains a conceptual model of the teachers’ book selection
process as viewed through a social cognitive lens. Every time teachers go through the
process, from source of beliefs to books in the classroom, that experience feeds back into
source of beliefs. Recall from chapter IV, teachers identified their personal experiences
with books and children as one source contributing to their beliefs about children’s
literature. Additionally, teachers reportedly observed children to determine how receptive
they were to the books selected. How children respond to the books in the classrooms
becomes part of teachers’ personal experience and, in turn, affects the next and future
165
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
iterations of the book selection process. Figure 5.3 depicts the idea of books in the
classroom feeding back into teachers’ book selection process by use of an arrow leading
to source of beliefs, and a plus sign to indicate that this component also contributes to the
cumulative effect of one cycle’s iteration on the next.
Figure 5.3. Conceptual model of teachers’ book selection as a self-reinforcing process.
The final connection among teacher book selection process components is the
cross-influencing nature of the components indicted by the arrows within the circle in
Figure 5.4. These arrows depict each component’s ability to both influence and be
influenced by non-adjacent components. The dashed line, as opposed to a solid line,
indicates the influence may fluctuate or occur only on occasion. For example, teachers
may not find nonfiction books in their center collection and conclude that nonfiction is
166
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
not appropriate for or important to young children. Or teachers may learn from school
that they can outsource book selection to librarians, thus allowing them to go straight to
book resources without tapping other beliefs or selection considerations. These examples
are hypothetical. Teacher responses did not indicate that such connections exist.
However, the triadic reciprocality of social cognitive theory implies that these
connections are possible. To represent that the connections are theoretically implied, gray
is used as opposed to the black dashed line depicting nonfiction.
Figure 5.4. Conceptual model of teachers’ book selection process with cross-component
influences
Mixing Research Methods to Address Nonfiction Availability
The current study is the first to investigate structure and process as a way to
explain nonfiction availability in child care center preschool classrooms. To my
167
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
knowledge, the current study is the first to systematically explore any factors that explain
the extent to which nonfiction books are made available to children in any type of early
childhood classrooms. I chose to examine structure and process because these factors are
common among research on child care quality. In terms of this study, availability of
nonfiction books in preschool classrooms was considered an indicator of child care
quality. Structure and process are two interrelated, mutually influential concepts that
work together to produce child care quality. Similarly, quantitative and qualitative
research strands can be inter-related, mutually influential methods employed together to
foster a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon such as nonfiction
availability. For this parallel mixed methods research study, structure was examined
through a quantitative research strand while process was examined through a qualitative
research strand.
The multiple regression analysis in the quantitative research strand did not explain
the variance seen in nonfiction book availability. Findings from the qualitative research
strand of the study indicate that there still may be an association between nonfiction
availability and the structural factors assessed even though the quantitative strand
revealed null findings. Instead of predicting the proportion of nonfiction, structural
factors may indirectly shape the center and classroom environment. For example, center
socio-economic status may impact the amount of the center budget allocated toward book
purchases, reimbursement of teachers for book purchases, where books are purchased
(where the budget can be stretched the furthest), as well as who book donations may
168
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
come from (parents or a general charitable donations). Teacher education level in terms
of a Bachelor’s degree did not predict larger proportions of nonfiction books in
classrooms; however, interview responses indicated that educational experiences that
introduce nonfiction as a genre for children may have more of an impact than degree
obtainment. In addition to providing deeper insight to the possible connection between
child care center structural factors and nonfiction availability, the qualitative research
strand was able to highlight teachers’ book selection process as a viable direction to
pursue for additional test variables.
The constant comparative analysis of teacher interviews in the qualitative research
strand revealed aspects of teachers’ book selection process that were strongly suggestive
of how nonfiction books make their way into the classroom. But for teachers’ conscious
and subconscious process of selecting books for classrooms, nonfiction books would not
have a chance to enter the classrooms. At the same time, though, this process is not
possible without certain structural characteristics being in place. For example, over 91%
of the 2066 books I inventoried were owned by the child care center. Teachers’ book
selection process places books in the classrooms, but teachers are using centers’
resources to enact this process. Teachers reported using the child care centers’ book
collections as a resource in their reporting of the process, but without a quantitative
inventory the extent to which teachers relied on the center for books would not have been
revealed.
169
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
By using both quantitative and qualitative research methods in the same study, I
am able to conclude that nonfiction books are almost equally represented as fiction books
in the child care center preschool classroom because of teachers’ cognitive processes of
book selection. Teachers select books for their classrooms on the basis of qualities not
related to genre. Due to the fact many nonfiction books have the qualities teachers seek,
teachers inadvertently select nonfiction. The environments in which this process is
rooted, and in which additional iterations of the process occur, are shaped by structural
factors. These structural factors facilitate or impede the access to resources required by
teachers to enact their book selection process. One the one hand, had I focused
exclusively on the quantitative research strand, I would know the structural factors as a
collective does not impact nonfiction availability, yet I would be left to wonder what
could account for the rest of the variance. On the other hand, had I examined only the
qualitative research strand, I would not know what the availability of nonfiction books
was, nor would I have an understanding of the degree to which structural factors
influenced that availability and the book selection process.
Limitations
Every study has limitations and shortcomings, and this study is not an exception.
For example, the sample size used in the quantitative research strand of this study may be
too small to allow stronger associations to emerge among the outcome and predictor
variables. The small sample size and extreme variability noted within center socioeconomic status and size of center book collections pose a threat to the assumptions of
170
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
multiple linear regression. Had more child care centers been represented in the study, the
distribution of scores likely would come closer to a normal curve. The sample size of 38
was recommended as a minimum for a four-predictor multiple regression (see Cohen,
1992) with a large effect size. Including more centers could lead to more robust findings.
The quantitative and qualitative research strands of this study respectively have
their own limitations, yet the limitations that had the biggest impact on this study were
those that affected both research strands concurrently, as well as those that affected the
study in its entirety. The first limitation to concurrently affect the research strands of the
study was the sampling technique used. Although I planned to use random sampling, I
had to settle for convenience sampling because the list of child care centers in the county
where the study was conducted did not yield enough willing and qualified child care
centers to meet the minimum sample size required for the study. After exhausting the
possibilities from the original sampling frame, I had to compensate by adding additional
child care centers outside of the original county. I was then faced with the limitations of
resources (travel time and expenses), leading me to the decision to start sampling by
geographic proximity rather than random selection.
The issue with convenience sampling resulted in four specific problems. First, the
quantitative findings are not generalizable, even within the region of the state where the
study occurred. Second, there was a confounding of urban child care centers (all of the
child care centers in the original sampling frame were in cities dense enough to be
considered urban) with rural child care centers (the additional four child care centers
171
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
were from rural communities). There were not enough rural child care centers to draw a
comparison with urban centers to even determine if there was variance between the two.
Thus, the urban and rural child care centers were considered together which may have
contributed to variability among the centers, classrooms, and books. Third, convenience
sampling, rather than purposive sampling, may have limited the type of responses and
quality of responses obtained through the semi-structured interviews. The lack of
discernable patterns within the components of teachers’ book selection process may be
attributed to the lack of purposive sampling among teachers (e.g. teachers who do and do
not advocate for classroom inclusion of nonfiction or teachers with different
qualifications) or among teachers from different types of child care center (e.g. profit or
non-profit, public or private).
Fourth, and related to the third issue, is that only the first 20 interviews conducted
were transcribed and used within the qualitative analysis. Because there were a total of 38
interviews from which I could choose, it does seem plausible to select interviews that
would highlight different aspects of the teachers, their classrooms, the respective child
care centers, or the classroom books. The challenge then would be determining which
characteristic should guide the selection of interviews. As the interviews were intended to
yield possible factors that affect nonfiction availability rather than determining the degree
to which certain characteristics yield different results for nonfiction availability, I
concluded that saturation of ideas was an acceptable way to determine which interviews
to include. I felt I had reached saturation before the 20th interview, but included all
172
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
interviews up to the 20th one to meet recommendations purported by Creswell (1998).
Despite the possible shortcomings stemming from the use of convenience sampling, this
exploratory study did generate findings that addressed the research questions and
identified areas that warrant further exploration.
The second limitation noted to impact the current study was the change in book
inventory protocol when I encountered two classrooms that had an unusual number of
books available to children. Many child care centers have problems with making enough
books available to children in the classrooms, so I was not anticipating any classroom to
have too many available. Thus, I was unprepared for how to handle such a situation. The
classroom with 249 books was the first one I encountered and the teacher had books
distributed throughout the classroom in front-facing display bookcases, traditional book
cases, and vertically stacked in baskets. I inventoried all of the books in the display book
case as the book covers may entice children more so than the edges of books in the
traditional book cases or the single cover of the front book vertically stacked in the
baskets. The rest of the books throughout the room were sampled (every other book).
This was the protocol I decided to use should I run into a similar situation. However, the
book arrangement of the classroom with 348 books was completely different from the
one with 249 books. All of the 348 books appeared to be shoved into traditional book
cases in the reading area with no discernable attempt for organization. No book covers
were visible, so children would have to pull a book out to see if it was one they would be
interested in. I had considered inventorying every other book as I had done for most of
173
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
the books in the other classroom, but I sensed that my presence was starting to become an
inconvenience. I arbitrarily decided 40 was an adequate number of titles to inventory and
selected those 40 at random. For these two centers, the actual proportion of nonfiction
books may be accurate. When considered in combination with the other classrooms in
which every book was inventoried, the results should be interpreted with caution. And
finally, the interviews with teachers of these two classrooms were not included in the
qualitative analysis, so understanding of why so many more books were in these
classrooms compared to others was not explored in depth in this study.
The third limitation of this study, but first of the limitations to the study in its
entirety, is the lack of prior literature on my research topic which left me with little
guidance as to what theories had previously been employed to investigate similar topics
and which specific variables to include in my design. In order to compensate for this
void, I sought guidance for my study by drawing from research and literature linking
children and nonfiction, child care quality, and quality literacy environments. In addition,
I drew upon my personal, professional, and educational experiences with child care
systems and the women they employ. Thus, it could be argued that this study contains a
degree of subjectivity in both the collection and analysis of data. As is true with
qualitative and mixed methods research, the findings of my study may highlight aspects
others may not choose to focus on, yet ultimately this study was effective in contributing
to the understanding of nonfiction availability in child care center preschool classrooms.
174
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
The fourth limitation of this study, and effecting it in its entirety, is the timing in
which recruitment and data collection occurred: the summer months of June, July, and
August. Prior to the start of my study, I had anticipated that child care centers would
function the same during the summer as they do in during the school year. This
assumption was erroneous as some center operation schedules mirrored that of the local
school districts. The summer closings affected the overall population parameters from
which I could sample. Additionally, child care centers that operate in conjunction with
the school year may mirror other practices employed in schools. If so, then the centers
that were closed during recruitment and data collection could be distinctly different from
those that remained open. A second issue to arise from summer-time recruitment and data
collection is consistency in curriculum. Though unsolicited, most teachers noted
curriculum differences between the summer and school year. These teachers saw summer
as a time for fun, field trips, and flexibility rather than a time for “learning.” With an
emphasis on fun, teachers may alter their book selection process and their classroom
environments, thus affecting the data recorded. Even with the issues arising from the
timing of recruitment and data collection, classrooms were found to offer a large
proportion of nonfiction books and teachers’ book selection process still yielded factors
that could simultaneously facilitate or hinder their inadvertent inclusion of nonfiction
books. It would be reasonable to conclude that nonfiction inclusion would be just as
strong, if not stronger, during the school year when there is a more “academic” focus.
175
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Implications
Even with the limitations noted above, the findings of this study bear fruit to
compelling implications for practice and future research.
Practice
Teachers’ heavy reliance on books provided by the child care center warrants
special attention from those who serve as curators of a center’s book collection
(presumably the center directors). The people making the decisions about what books are
added to the collection should consider the amount of nonfiction currently present, and
then supplement as necessary with more nonfiction books. As teachers consider theme
over any other book selection consideration, book curators should select nonfiction books
that relate to the themes that guide teachers’ classroom curriculum. Each thematic book
set should have at least equal representation for nonfiction as it does for fiction.
Furthermore, the nonfiction books should vary in perspective and format to ensure that
children receive exposure to the variety of communication forms used in nonfiction.
To encourage child care centers to make concerted efforts to offer nonfiction
books, state-level standards should include provisions that address educational needs of
children such as having balanced reading areas. As suggested by the IRA and NAEYC
(1998), at least half of the books in these reading areas should provide factual
information. Currently, most state-standards focus primarily on physical safety. By not
addressing educational practices, the state departments setting these standards give child
care centers permission to do nothing to promote children’s literacy or academic
176
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
development. Mandating the inclusion of nonfiction books in child care center
classrooms would communicate the importance of early exposure to nonfiction books to
all involved with child care. Most importantly, the children would benefit from having a
set amount of nonfiction books present in their classrooms, regardless of the other
characteristics of the center in which they are enrolled.
Similar to the call for center collection curators and state licensing to consider
nonfiction, program developers who offer children’s books as an enticement for teacher
participation should consider providing nonfiction books. Teachers recognize the
importance of fostering a relationship between children and books and teachers are highly
motivated to do things that help them acquire books for their classrooms. If programs
provide nonfiction books, then these books likely will end up in the classroom. This
implication was derived from the repeated inventorying of certain book titles provided by
Chick-fil-A and the TSR program. Teachers were inspired to order from the children’s
menu at Chick-fil-A to receive the free books that accompanied the meals. Similarly,
some teachers may have been inspired to participate in the TSR program to obtain the
books and additional classroom resources that accompany successful continuation in the
program. Both Chick-fil-A and TSR should be happy to know that teachers’ made these
books available to children in the classroom. This point, and the one before, underscore
the necessity for teachers to have access to nonfiction books—if age-appropriate books of
any kind are in the teachers’ environment, teachers will select them for their classroom. If
177
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
these age-appropriate books are nonfiction, then teachers will make nonfiction a part of
the children’s environment.
Programs or initiatives to promote representation and incorporation of nonfiction
books in preschool classrooms should be made available to all child care centers and their
employees, not just those serving economically disadvantaged populations. Although
child care centers serving high-SES populations presumably have more financial capital
and greater networks of social capital that provides greater access to resources such as
books, SES did not appear to affect the availability of nonfiction books in the classroom.
Most classrooms, regardless of SES, provided a larger proportion of nonfiction books
than that seen in other research. This finding sounds positive, but teachers did not
intentionally select the nonfiction books on the basis of the books’ abilities to relate
factual information. The lack of purposeful selection of nonfiction books was apparent
among teachers in all child care centers. Therefore, all teachers could benefit from
explicit exposure to the positive outcomes made possible by including nonfiction books
in their classrooms.
Stemming from the previous point, programs and initiatives should be available to
teachers with any level of formal education. Teachers with a Bachelor’s degree were not
more likely than those with lower formal educational attainment to include nonfiction
books or even think about nonfiction as a genre. Likewise, teachers of all education levels
reported centering their book selections on curricular themes. At some point in time
during these teachers’ experiences, separate from their formal education, teachers learned
178
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
to do thematic lesson planning. The programs, initiatives, trainings, or classes that
instilled in teachers the value of a thematic focus should complement that focus with the
value of nonfiction books. Books that revolve around a theme or relate to a theme should
also provide factual information about that theme. Such an idea may be implied, but
intentional focus on communicating the selection of nonfiction to support the theme
should be as explicit as the use of a theme is.
The high rate of nonfiction availability in child care preschool classrooms would
imply that children have adequate exposure to nonfiction prior to entering kindergarten.
Teachers of older grades should not assume that children with experiences in child care
centers are any more prepared to handle nonfiction than those who experienced other
child care arrangements. The presence of nonfiction books increases the likelihood that
children will interact with nonfiction, but the quality of the nonfiction books and the
quality of instruction (if any) was not assessed in this study. The lack of intentional
selection of nonfiction books suggests that preschool teachers in child care centers are not
making explicit to children the differences between fiction and nonfiction. To better
prepare children for the reading experiences and genre variety they will experience once
they enter the compulsory education system, preschool teachers in child care centers need
to be more deliberate in their selection of nonfiction books. These teachers need to select
a variety of nonfiction to demonstrate various points of view, conflicting ideas, different
purposes for nonfiction writing, as well as different text structures and information
displays. Teachers can take advantage of the large amount of time they have with young
179
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
children to prepare them for future learning by providing learning opportunities in the
present.
Future Research
The current study is only the first step to understanding nonfiction availability in
child care center preschool classrooms. Future studies on this topic should address the
limitations noted above. Thus, future research should include larger samples obtained
through more randomized sampling techniques to better determine the relationship
between the proposed structural factors and nonfiction availability and to better
generalize the results. Purposively sampling, however, should be considered for future
qualitative research on this topic to help reveal patterns of practice not discernable in the
current study. Additionally, collecting data during the school year may yield different
results for nonfiction availability, the literacy environment quality, and teachers’
considerations for book selection as many teachers reportedly have a more academic
focus during the school year. This change in focus could translate into more intentional
behavior in regards to nonfiction inclusion.
Beyond limitations, findings from the current study may serve as a catalyst to a
number of new directions for future research. Three directions, one stemming from each
of the first three research questions guiding this study, will be highlighted here. First, this
study established a large proportion of the books available to preschool children are
nonfiction. This finding may be due to the broader definition of nonfiction used in this
study. Future studies should investigate subgenres of nonfiction to determine if child care
180
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
centers are comparable to other classrooms studied in terms of informational books, and
to determine if a variety of nonfiction is represented. Each subgenre of nonfiction is
likely to stimulate different outcomes for young children and emergent readers.
Additionally, future research should examine the quality of nonfiction books in child care
center preschool classrooms as the benefits of including high quantities of nonfiction
books could be undermined if the quality of those books are low.
Second, center socio-economic status, teacher education level, literacy
environment quality, and size of center book collection were included as social capital
indicators because they theoretically affect the degree to which inter-community links are
developed, maintained, and utilized to access to material resources, financial resources,
and information. Collectively these indicators did not predict the amount of the variance
in the proportion of nonfiction books in classrooms. Future studies should investigate
whether or not other center-level factors serve as social capital indicators such as center
size, location, operation auspice (for-profit or not-for profit, public or private), and TSR
program participation. Additionally, the teachers’ book selection process is suggestive of
the value of investigating cognitive processes as predictor variables.
Third, the current study yielded a description of classroom characteristics and the
book selection process of teachers who do not intentionally or purposely include
nonfiction books in their classrooms. Despite the fact that nonfiction does not even
register as a thought, teachers created classroom literacy environments that contained a
large proportion of nonfiction books. Future research should include purposive sampling
181
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
of teachers who intentionally consider genre in their book selection process and
purposefully include nonfiction in their classrooms. Comparisons could then be made to
teachers included in the current study. The comparison of personal, behavioral, and
environmental factors of the two book selection processes may yield important
similarities and differences that could then inform intervention efforts. Also, a
comparison of the teachers’ classrooms could provide evidence for whether or not
intentional and purposeful selection of nonfiction yields different results than inadvertent
selection.
Conclusion
To be successful in school and later life, children need to be able to navigate
nonfiction literature and texts. Children are more successful with this task when they
have early exposure to nonfiction. Contrary to the paucity of nonfiction books in early
childhood classrooms often reported in research, child care center preschool classrooms
provide an ample number of nonfiction books. The nature of themed-based curricula
which characterizes pedagogy in the child care system lends itself well to the inclusion of
nonfiction books as does teacher focus on instilling basic, foundational concepts such as
the alphabet, counting, and shapes. The child care center itself can support or hinder
teachers in their ability to provide children with learning resources such as nonfiction
books. By examining characteristics of child care centers, preschool classrooms, and
teachers, as well as teachers’ process for selecting books for the classroom, this study
extends the existing literature base. This study is but the first step to creating a new
182
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
understanding of factors that contribute to the availability of nonfiction books in early
childhood classrooms.
183
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
REFERENCES
ACT, Inc. (2009). The condition of college readiness 2009. Iowa City, IA: Author.
Aguilar-Crandall, M. M. (May 2009). Understanding child care leaders' decisions in
making books accessible to the children at their child care centers. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Albee, S. (2001). Elmo goes to the doctor. New York, NY: Random House.
Antle, B. F., Frey, A., Barbee, A., Frey, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Cox, M. (2008). Child
care subsidy and program quality revisited. Early Education and Development,
19(4), 560-573. doi: 10.1080/104092802230999
Avery, C. (2003). Nonfiction books: Naturals for the primary level. In R. A. Bamford &
J. V. Kristo (Eds.), Making facts come alive: Choosing & using nonfiction
literature K-8 (2nd ed.) (pp. 235-246). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Baker, C. B., Wuest, J., & Noerager Stern, P. (1992). Method slurring: The grounded
theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1355-1360.
Bamford, R. A. & Kristo, J. V. (2003). Choosing quality nonfiction literature: Examining
aspects of accuracy and organization. Making facts come alive: Choosing & using
nonfiction literature K-8 (2nd ed.) (pp. 21-40). Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child
development: Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Bandura, A. (Writer). (2003). Bandura’s social cognitive theory: An introduction [DVD].
San Luis Obispo, CA: Davidson Films.
Barbour, C. H., Barbour, N. H., & Scully, P. (2015). Families, schools, and communities:
Building partnerships for educating children (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Bogard, K., Traylor, F., & Takanishi, R. (2008). Teacher education and PK outcomes:
Are we asking the right questions? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 1-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.08.002
184
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Bortnem, G. M. (2008). Teacher use of interactive read alouds: Using nonfiction in early
childhood classrooms. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(12), 29-43.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.
Brassell, D. (2006). Inspiring young scientists with great books. The Reading Teacher,
60(4), 336-342.
Cassidy, D. J., Buell, M. J., Pugh-Hoese, S., & Russell, S. (1995). The effect of education
on child care teachers’ beliefs and classroom quality: Year one evaluation of the
TEACH early childhood associate degree scholarship program. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 10(2), 171-183.
Cassidy, D. J., Hestenes, L. L., Hansen, J. K., Hedge, A., Shim, J., & Hestenes, S. (2005).
Revisiting the two faces of child care quality: Structure and process. Early
Education and Development, 16(4), 505-520. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1604_10
Caswell, L. J. & Duke, N. K. (1998). Non-narrative as a catalyst for literacy
development. Language Arts, 75(2), 108-117.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crises: Why poor
children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chambliss, M. J. & McKillop, A. M. (2000). Creating a print- and technology-rich
classroom library to entice children to read. In L. Baker, M. J. Dreher, & J. T.
Guthrie (Eds.), Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation
(pp. 94-118). New York, NY: Guilford.
Child Care Aware of America. (2013). We can do better: Child Care Aware of America’s
ranking of state child care enter regulations and oversight [Policy report].
Retrieved from Child Care Aware® of America website:
http://usa.childcareaware.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/wecandobetter_2013_final_april_11_0.pdf
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Cohen, D. & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Colman, P. (1999). Nonfiction is literature, too. The New Advocate, 12(3), 215-223.
185
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Colman, P. (2007). A new way to look at literature: A visual model for analyzing fiction
and nonfiction texts. Language Arts, 84(3), 257-268.
Colman, P. (2011). Point of departure. In S. A. Wolf, K. Coats, P. Enciso, & C. A.
Jenkins (Eds.), Handbook of research on children’s and young adult literature
(pp. 299-301). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cook, R. D. & Weisberg S. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression. New York,
NY: Chapman & Hall.
Correia, M. P. (2011). Fiction vs. informational texts: Which will kindergartners choose?
Young Children, 66(6), 100-104.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Donovan, C. A. & Smolkin, L. B. (2001). Genre and other factors influencing teachers’
book selection for science instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 412440.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first
grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 295-318.
Duke, N. K. (2003a). Informational text? The research says “yes!” In L. Hoyt, M.
Mooney, & B. Parks (Eds.), Exploring informational text: From theory to
practice (pp. 2-7). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Duke, N. K. (2003b). Reading to learn from the very beginning: Information books in
early childhood. Young Children, 58(2), 14-20.
Duke, N. K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 4044.
Duke, N. K. (2007). Let’s look in a book: Using nonfiction reference materials with
young children. Young Children, 62(3), 12-16.
Duke, N. K. (2013). Starting out: Practices to use in K-3. Educational Leadership, 71(3),
40-44
186
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Duke, N. K. & Bennett-Armistead, V. S. (2003). Reading & writing informational text in
the primary grades. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Duke, N. K., Bennett-Armistead, V. S., & Roberts, E. M. (2003). Filling the great void:
Why we should bring nonfiction into the early-grade classroom. American
Educator, 27(1), 30-35.
Duke, N. K. & Kays, J. (1998). “Can I say ‘once upon a time’?”: Kindergarten children
developing knowledge of information book language. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 13(2), 295-318.
Early, D. M., Bryant, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Clifford, R. M., Burchinal, M. R., Ritchie, S.,
… Barbarin, O. (2006). Are teachers’ education, major, and credentials related to
classroom quality and children’s academic gains in Pre-Kindergarten? Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 174-195.
Early, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., Burchinal, M., Bender, R. H., Ebanks, C., Henry, G. T., …
Zill, N. (2007). Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s
academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child
Development, 78(2), 558-580.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (3rd ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics: And sex and drugs and
rock ‘n’ roll (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Field, J. (2003). Social capital. London, England: Routledge.
Fractor, J. S., Woodruff, M. C., Martinez, M. G., & Teale, W. H. (1993). Let’s not miss
opportunities to promote voluntary reading: Classroom libraries in the elementary
school. The Reading Teacher, 46(6), 476-484.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social
Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Longman
Gill, S. R. (2009). What teachers need to know about the “new” nonfiction. The Reading
Teacher, 63(4), 260-267.
187
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Grootaert, C. (2001). Social capital: The missing link? In P. Dekker & E. M. Uslaner
(Eds.), Social capital and participation in everyday life (pp.9-29). London,
England: Routledge.
Guo, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N., & McGinty, A. (2012). The literacy environment of
preschool classrooms: Contributions to children's emergent literacy growth.
Journal of Research in Reading, 35(3), 308-327. DOI: 10.111/j.14679817.2010.01467x
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (2005). Early childhood environment rating
scale: Revised edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Malden, MA: Polity.
Hepler, S. (2003). Nonfiction books for children: New directions, new challenges. In R.
A. Bamford & J. V. Kristo (Eds.), Making facts come alive: Choosing & using
nonfiction literature K-8 (2nd ed.) (pp. 3-20). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center-based child care as a function of
teacher background and adult: child ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 404425.
Howes, C., Whitebook, M., & Phillips, D. (1992). Teacher characteristics and effective
teaching in child care: Findings from the National Child Care Staffing Study.
Child & Youth Care Forum, 21(6), 399-414.
Hoyt, L., Mooney, M., & Parkes, B. (2003). Exploring informational texts: From theory
to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Johnson, B. & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods
research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research (pp. 297-320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones-Branch, J. A., Torquati, J. C., Raikes, H., & Edwards, C. P. (2004). Child care
subsidy and quality. Early Education & Development, 15(3), 327-341.
Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J., Fan, X., Sofka, A., & Hunt, A. (2009). Accelerating
preschoolers’ early literacy development through classroom-based teacher-child
storybook reading and explicit print referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 40, 67-85.
Kelley, M. J. & Clausen-Grace, N. (2010). Guiding students through expository text with
text feature walk. The Reading Teacher, 64(3), 191-195.
188
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Kerper, R. M. (2003a). Choosing quality nonfiction literature: Examining access features
and visual displays. In R. A. Bamford & J. V. Kristo (Eds.), Making facts come
alive: Choosing & using nonfiction literature K-8 (2nd ed.) (pp. 41-64). Norwood,
MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Kerper, R. M. (2003b). Choosing quality nonfiction literature: Examining aspects of
design. In R. A. Bamford & J. V. Kristo (Eds.), Making facts come alive:
Choosing & using nonfiction literature K-8 (2nd ed.) (pp. 65-78). Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon.
Kiefer, B. (with Hepler, S. & Hickman, J.). (2007). Charlotte Huck’s children’s literature
(9th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Kiefer, B. & Wilson, M. I. (2011). Nonfiction literature for children: Old assumptions
and new directions. In S. A. Wolf, K. Coats, P. Enciso, & C. A. Jenkins (Eds.),
Handbook of research on children’s and young adult literature (pp. 290-299).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kristo, J. V., Colman, P., & Wilson, S. (2008). Bold new perspectives: Issues in selecting
and using nonfiction. In S. S. Lehr (Ed.), Shattering the looking glass: Challenge,
risk, and controversy in children’s literature (pp. 339-360). Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon.
LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 67, 837-857.
Laughlin, L. (2013). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011
(Current Population Reports, P70-135). Retrieved from U.S. Department of
Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S Census Bureau
website: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-135.pdf
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
London, J. (2002). Froggy goes to the doctor. New York, NY: Scholastic.
McClure, A. A. (2003). Choosing quality nonfiction literature: Examining aspects of
writing style. In R. A. Bamford & J. V. Kristo (Eds.), Making facts come alive:
Choosing & using nonfiction literature K-8 (2nd ed.) (pp. 79-96). Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon.
189
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
McMath, J. S., King, M. A., & Smith, W. E. (1998). Young children, questions and
nonfiction books. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26(1), 19-27.
Marzano, R. J. (2000). A new era of school reform: Going where the research takes us
(Research Report No. 2000-05). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Morse, J. M. & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first: A user’s guide to qualitative methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moss, B. (1997). A qualitative assessment of first graders’ retelling of expository text.
Reading Research and Instruction, 37(1), 1-13.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts
and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects, appendix A.
Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from
www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research
Network [NICHD ECCRN]. (2002). Child-care structure > process > outcome:
Direct and indirect effects of child care quality on young children’s development.
Psychological Science, 13, 199-206.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research
Network [NICHD ECCRN]. (2005). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors
contributing to positive caregiving. In NICHD ECCRN (Ed.) Child care and child
development: Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth
development (pp. 50-66). New York: Guildford Press.
Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 34(3), 286-311.
Neuman, S. B. (2001). The importance of the classroom library. Early Childhood Today,
15(5), 12-14.
Neuman, S. B. & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income
communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36(1), 8-26.
Pappas, C. C. (1991). Fostering a full access literacy by including information books.
Language Arts, 68(1), 449-462.
190
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative “primary”? Some insights from kindergarteners’
pretend readings of stories and information books. Journal of Reading Behavior,
25(1), 97-129.
Parcel, T. L. (2007). Capital at home and at school as determinants of child social
adjustment. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on
social learning in early childhood education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Palmer, R. G. & Stewart, R. A. (2005). Models for using nonfiction in the primary
grades. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 426-434.
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. & Burchinal, M. (1995). Descriptive analysis of preschool
children’s developmental outcomes. In S. W. Helburn (Ed.), Cost, quality, and
child outcomes in child care centers: Technical report (pp. 195-202). Denver
Department of Economics, Center for Research in Economic and Social Policy,
University of Colorado at Denver. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED386297.pdf
Pentimonti, J. M., Zucker, T. A., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Informational
text used in preschool classroom read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 63(8), 656665.
Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbot-Shim, M. (2001). Within and
beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 475-496.
Phillips, D. A., Voran, M., Kisker, E., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1994). Child care
for children in poverty: Opportunity or inequity? Child Development, 65, 472492.
Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997). The prediction of
process quality from structural features of child care. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 12, 281-303.
Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R. Early, D., & Barbarin, O.
(2005). Features of Pre-Kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they
predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied
Developmental Science, 9(3), 144-159.
191
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2009). The effects of
preschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with
the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 10(2), 49-88. doi: 10.1177/1529100610381908
Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of
primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. The Elementary
School Journal, 96(4), 363-384.
Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reutzel, D. R. & Jones, C. D. (2010). Assessing and creating effective preschool literacy
classroom environments. In M. C. McKenna, S. Walpole, & K. Conradi (Eds.),
Promoting early reading: Research, resources, and best practices (pp. 175-198).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Routman, R. (2003). Reading essentials: The specifics you need to teach reading well.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B.
Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th
ed.) (pp. 1363-1398). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rothstein, B. (2005). Social traps and the problem of trust. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sanacore, J. (1991). Expository and narrative text: Balancing young children’s reading
experiences. Childhood Education, 67, 211-214.
Saul, E. W. & Dieckman, D. (2005). Choosing and using information trade books.
Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 502-513. doi: 10.1598RRQ40.4.6
Saunders-Smith, G. (1998). The doctor’s office. Mankato, MN: Capstone Press.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In American Psychological Association
(Ed.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 101-123). Washington,
D. C.: American Psychological Association.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrick, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill
Prentice Hall.
192
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Shine, S. & Roser, N. L. (1999). The role of genre in preschoolers’ response to picture
books. Research in the Teaching of English, 34(2), 197-254.
Stephens, K. E. (2008). A quick guide to selecting great informational books for young
children. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 488-490.
Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stone, S. & Twardosz, S. (2001). Children’s books in child care classrooms: Quality,
accessibility, and reasons for teachers’ choice. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 16(1), 53-69.
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research:
Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral
sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (2015). Minimum standards for
child-care centers (Stock code P20330-000). Retrieved from
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/documents/Child_Care/Child_Care_Standards_and_Re
gulations/746_Centers.pdf
Vandell, D. L & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter and dies it need to
be improved? Institute for Research on Child Poverty: University of WisconsinMadison.
Vukelick, C. & Christie, J. (2009). Building a foundation for preschool literacy: Effective
instruction for children's reading and writing development (6th ed.). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Williams, T. E. (2009). A framework for nonfiction in the elementary grades. Literacy
Research and Instruction, 48, 247-263.
Wilson, S. (2006). Getting down to facts in children’s nonfiction literature: A case for the
importance of sources. Journal of Children’s Literature, 32(1), 56-63.
Wolfersberger, M. E., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., & Fawson, P. C. (2004). Developing
and validating the classroom literacy environment (CLEP): A tool for examining
the “print richness” of early childhood and elementary classrooms. Journal of
Literacy Research, 36(2), 211-272.
Yopp, R. H. & Yopp, H. K. (2000). Sharing informational text with young children. The
Reading Teacher, 53(5), 410-423.
193
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
Yopp, H. K. & Yopp, R. H. (2006). Primary students and informational texts. Science
and Children, 44(3), 22-25.
Young, T. A. & Moss, B. (2006). Nonfiction in the classroom library: A literacy
necessity. Childhood Education, 82, 207-212.
Young, T. A., Moss, B., & Cornwell, L. (2007). The classroom library: A place for
nonfiction, nonfiction in its place. Reading Horizons, 48(1), 1-18.
194
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
APPENDIX A
VISUAL MODEL FOR PARALLEL MIXED METHODS RESEARCH DESIGN
195
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
APPENDIX B
SCRIPT FOR CONTACTING CENTER DIRECTORS VIA TELEPHONE
Hello! My name is Holly Follmer. I am a graduate student at Texas Tech University. I am
currently working on a study of materials in preschool classrooms. I am calling to see if I
could come to your center to ask your preschool teachers if I could include them and their
classrooms in my study. If you and the teachers agree, I would like to observe the
classroom in the morning, take some photos of the materials in the classroom (children
will not be in the photos), and talk with the teachers for about 60 minutes while children
are napping or while teachers are on their lunch break. Would it be okay for me to come
to your center to see if one of your preschool teachers would be interested in helping me?
If director agrees:
Great! When would be a good time for me to come to your center? I would like to get
consent from the teacher and observe during the same day so mornings would be ideal,
but I could come at any time of the day and then set up an alternative time to come back
to observe. Date____________________ Time__________
Now I have a few quick questions for you:
How many preschool classrooms do you have? __________
Is your center considered private? __________
Does your center hold a nonprofit status? __________
Is your preschool curriculum or program faith based? __________
How many children currently attend your center? __________
How many children attending your center receive child care subsidies? ________
If director declines:
Thank you very much for your time.
196
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
APPENDIX C
SCRIPT FOR RECRUITING PRESCHOOL TEACHERS
Hello! My name is Holly Follmer. I am a student at Texas Tech University. I was
wondering if you might be interested in participating in a study I am doing on materials
in preschool classrooms. I would like to observe your classroom in the morning from
breakfast until lunch time. I will take some photos of the materials in the classroom
(children will not be in the photos), write some notes, and ask you a few questions.
Midday, during children’s naptime or during your lunch break, I would like to talk to you
for no more than an hour to ask you some questions about the materials in your
classroom.
If interested:
Great! I have a letter here explaining my study a little more. I can answer any questions
you have. I need your signature at the bottom showing that you agree to be a part of my
study. I have a copy of this letter for you to keep.
If not interested:
That is fine, thank you very much for your time.
197
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
APPENDIX D
CONSENT FORM
What is this project studying?
The study is called “Availability of materials in preschool classrooms.” This study will
help us learn about factors that affect the amount and type of materials that end up in the
classroom. What we learn may help other people who work in preschool settings. We
hope to publish this study widely to make it as beneficial as possible.
What would I do if I participate?
In this study, you will be asked to have your classroom observed. We will take photos of
classroom items and take notes about those items. You also will be interviewed. Some
questions will be about you. Some questions will be about the items in your classroom.
Some questions will be about your thoughts and things you do.
Can I quit if I become uncomfortable?
Yes, absolutely. Dr. Button and the Protection Board have reviewed the questions and
think you can answer them comfortably. They also have reviewed the observation plan
and think it will not cause problems. You can stop participating at any time without
penalty or loss of benefits. You can ask us to leave any time you wish. Participating is
your choice. If you withdraw from the study, any photos or notes collected will be
destroyed.
How long will participation take?
We are asking for approximately 5 hours of your time. The observation will be about 4
hours. The interview will be about 1 hour.
How are you protecting privacy?
Your real name will not be connected to any information collected. You and your center
will be given fake names. All digital photos and audio recordings will be stored on a
password protected computer. Hard copies of information will be stored in a locked file
cabinet in a locked office.
I have some questions about this study. Who can I ask?
Dr. Kathryn Button will answer any questions you have about the study. You can call
806.772.1997 ext 314 or email [email protected]. If you have questions, you can
also ask the IRB Coordinator of the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board.
You can call 806.742.2064 or contact the Texas Tech University Institutional Review
Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of the Vice President for Research,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409.
198
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
How will I benefit from participating?
Participants will receive a summary of findings at the end of the study. The summary will
include a list of helpful resources.
Signature / Date ______________________________________ ____________________
Printed Name ______________________________________
Phone number:_____________________________________________________
Email:____________________________________________________________
This consent form is not valid after March 31, 2013.
199
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
APPENDIX E
TEACHER/CLASSROOM CHARACTERISTICS
Center_______________________________
Date________________________________
Participant___________________________
1.
How old are you? _______________________________________________
2.
How do you describe your cultural/racial/ethnic heritage? _______________
3.
How long have you been in this position at this center? _________________
4.
Thinking of your entire career how long have you been a preschool teacher?
______________________________
5.
Have you taught any other age/grade? Which ones and for how long?
_________________________________________________________________
5.
How old is the youngest child in this classroom? __________________________
The oldest? ____________________
6.
On a typical day, how many children do you have in your class? _____________
How many teachers are usually in the room? _____________________________
7.
Tell me about your qualifications for this position.
__________________________________________________________________
8.
Tell me about your educational background.
__________________________________________________________________
9.
Tell me about any classes you have taken that are about children or education.
__________________________________________________________________
200
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
APPENDIX F
SAMPLE PROMPTS FOR TEACHER EXPLANATION OF BOOKS IN THE
CLASSROOM
Tell me about the books that are accessible to the children. Let’s go through them one by
one:
 Why did you choose this book?
 Where did the book come from or who owns it?
 How long will you keep the book here in the classroom?
 Why did you put this book in this area/center? (If the book is not in the classroom
reading center)
 How would you classify this book? (Nonfiction, fiction, poetry, etc.)
201
Texas Tech University, Holly E. Follmer, December, 2015
APPENDIX G
TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1.
How do you decide what books to bring into your classroom?
2.
What rules, guidance, or expectations do you follow when selecting books for
your classroom? Who/what imposes these?
3.
Tell me about the last time you were selecting books for your classroom. Walk
me through that process.
a.
Where did you look for books?
b.
What were you looking for?
c.
Did you find what you were looking for? If yes, where? If no, what did
you do?
d.
How did this most recent experience compare to previous experiences?
4.
Talk about your access to books for your classroom.
5.
Does your center have a collection of books you can use? If so, tell me about this
collection.
6.
What have you learned about selecting books for preschoolers? Where did you
learn this?
7.
Tell me about nonfiction books for preschoolers.
a.
How would you define/describe nonfiction?
b.
How do you feel about nonfiction books?
c.
Where/how do they fit into your curriculum?
d.
If teacher tried to include nonfiction books, ask: What support/challenges
do you face when trying to include them?
202