Part of my studies were focused this week on readers’ choice awards. Bang-Jensen (2010) focuses on a specific readers’ choice award, the Dorothy Canfield Fisher Award for children in the state of Vermont.
I read the article as someone who is familiar with my own state’s readers’ choice award, the California Young Reader Medal, which “introduces young readers in California to a variety of book genres and formats, gives them an opportunity to honor their favorite books and authors, and develops and cultivates a love of recreational reading” (CYRM, n.d.), and with the Kids’ Book Choice Awards, which “provide young readers with an opportunity to voice their opinions about the books being written for them (Every Child a Reader, n.d.).
One thought that stood out for me when reading Bang-Jensen’s article was that if students themselves do not select the nominees, then they have to have faith in adults who make the selections. That can be a drawback if students lack an interest in reading from book-award lists, or do not have any relationship or experience with the people who assembled the lists.
Bang-Jensen related that, in the case of the DCFs, “Students were aware of the DCF Committee’s high standards, and their comments often referred to these as a motivating factor when selecting a book. Fourth-grader Damon’s comment was typical in its trust of the committee’s judgment: ‘The committee reads them and picks out really, really good books. So, if the committee thinks that they are good, I would try them to see if I agreed’” (p. 171).
With a “reader’s choice” award for young people, the young reader’s role is critical, that of voting on the winning titles.
“Selecting what to read is a major part of becoming a reader” (Ollman, 1993, in Johnson & Blair, 2003, cited in Bang-Jensen, 2010, p. 171). Johnson & Blair (2023, cited in Bang-Jensen, 2010, p. 171) considered lists such as those for the DCFs “as an ‘alternative approach to total student self-selection’ and suggested that teachers can “offer students a choice from among several ‘suitable’ pre-selected books.”
References:
Bang-Jensen, V. (2010). A children’s choice program: Insights into book selection, social relationships, and reader identity. Language Arts, 87(30) 169-179. http://edml177.pbworks.com/f/Book+choice+&+Identity.pdf
California Young Reader Medal. (n.d.) About us. https://www.californiayoungreadermedal.org/about-us
Every Child a Reader. (n.d.) What are the Kids’ Choice Book Awards? https://everychildareader.net/choice/about/
Johnson, D., & Blair, A. (2003). The importance and use of student self-selected literature to reading engagement in an elementary reading curriculum. Reading Horizons, 43(3), 181-193.
Ollman, H. (1993). Choosing literature wisely: Students speak out. Journal of Reading, 36(8), 648-653.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subject Classifications (Partial list, via Dewey Decimal System)
- 006.754-Social Media
- 020-Library and Information Science
- 020.7025-Library Education
- 020.92-Cynthia M. Parkhill (Biographical)
- 023.3-Library Workers
- 025.02-Technical Services (Libraries)
- 025.04-Internet Access
- 025.2-Libraries--Collection Development
- 025.213-Libraries--Censorship
- 025.3-Libraries--Cataloging
- 025.84-Books--Conservation and restoration
- 027.473-Public Libraries--Sonoma County CA
- 027.663-Libraries and people with disabilities
- 027.7-Academic Libraries--University of Central Missouri
- 027.8-School Libraries--Santa Rosa Charter School for the Arts
- 028.52-Children's Literature
- 028.535-Young Adult Literature
- 028.7-Information Literacy
- 158.2-Social Intelligence
- 302.34-Bullying
- 305.9085-Autism
- 306.76-Sexual orientation and gender identity
- 371-Schools--Santa Rosa Charter School for the Arts
- 371-Schools--Santa Rosa City Schools
- 636.8-Cats
- 646.2-Sewing
- 658.812-Customer Service
- 659.2-Public Relations
- 686.22-Graphic Design
- 700-The Arts
- 746.43-Yarn bombing (Knitting and Crochet)
- 809-Book Reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment
Robust debate and even unusual opinions are encouraged, but please stay on-topic and be respectful. Comments are subject to review for personal attacks or insults, discriminatory statements, hyperlinks not directly related to the discussion and commercial spam.