University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Learning and Teacher Education Education

Fall 2019

Literacy Access through Storytime: An Ethnographic Study of Public Library Storytellers in a Low-Income Neighborhood

Tiffany Y. Young

Loukia K. Sarroub

Wayne A. Babchuk

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research 2019, Vol. 14, 59–77 ISSN: 1935-3308

Literacy Access through Storytime: An Ethnographic Study of Public Library Storytellers in a Low-Income Neighborhood

Tiffany T. Young Loukia K. Sarroub Doane University University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Wayne A. Babchuk University of Nebraska-Lincoln

While early literacy achievement continues to be stratified by social class in the United States, public libraries often offer programs such as “story- time” in order to bolster the literacy development of youth in their commu- nities. The purpose of the present ethnographic study was to explore how storytellers recruited and maintained participation in this free literacy program in a lower-income neighborhood. Via participant observations, semi-structured interviews, and artifact collection, storytellers recruited new patrons to storytime by (1) appealing to community members to enter the physical space of the library and (2) appealing to library patrons to attend storytime. Once patrons attended storytime, storytellers acted in order to maintain storytime attendance by (1) facilitating meaningful learning experiences, (2) fostering enjoyment through participation, (3) developing nurturing relationships, and (4) offering flexibility in story- time expectations. By exploring a contextualized account of the work of storytellers, the findings suggest important avenues through which public programs may contribute to more equitable access to literacy learning.

the process of formal schooling and its unrav- The historical context of inequity in edu- eling continues to bestow opportunities upon cation is as well-documented as the literacy some individuals while denying opportunities achievement data that continues to evince it to others. The legacy is a current educational (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Unfortunately, sys- reality in which children living in poverty have temic inequity has been bound tightly within lower literacy achievement than do their mid- dle-income peers (Ayoub et al., 2009; Evans & Rosenbaum, 2008; Kahlenberg, 2003; Kainz & Tiffany T. Young, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Edu- cation at Doane University in Crete, Nebraska. Vernon-Feagans, 2007; Lee & Al Otaiba, 2015; Loukia K. Sarroub, Ph.D., is Professor of Literacy Stud- Neuman & Celano, 2012). Modifying the pro- ies and Education & Linguistics at University of Nebraska- verbial phrase slightly, the literacy rich get rich- Lincoln in Lincoln, Nebraska. er and the literacy poor get poorer. Wayne A. Babchuk, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Hart and Risley’s (2003) seminal study Practice, Quantitative, Qualitative, and Psychometric Meth- ods at University of Nebraska-Lincoln in Lincoln, Nebraska. documents how inequities of children’s lan- Correspondence regarding this article should be sent guage exposure and experience, based on so- to [email protected]. cial class, begin at birth and only increase over 60 Young et al. time. The resulting disparities in vocabulary current context of budget cuts, resulting in de- serve as an indicator of subsequent reading creased programming and closures of libraries difficulties (Tong, Deacon, Kirby, Cain, & Par- (Becker, 2012) particularly in low-income ar- rila, 2011). Previous research also shows the eas (Neuman & Celano, 2012), we presently ex- benefits of providing children with early lan- amined the ways in which storytellers in one guage and literacy experiences (Barone, 2011; public library in a low-income neighborhood Vera, 2011). Connecting schools, families, and actively attempt to increase participation in sto- the community can allow all three constituen- rytime through the use of ethnographic meth- cies to learn and grow together in order to com- ods. In addition, we provide a comparative lens bat these disparities. Community supports for through which librarians potentially can ana- children’s language and literacy development lyze current strategies for increasing participa- are often available before formal schooling be- tion in library programs. gins and continue throughout a child’s educa- tion. Public libraries are among those commu- Storytime Over Time nity agencies having the potential to partner with families and schools in support of early lit- Storytimes at public libraries have a long eracy development and achievement. and rich history and are now nearly ubiquitous Public libraries offer a host of literacy ex- in libraries across America (Campana et al., periences for families. Such experiences in- 2016). According to Albright et al. (2009), sto- clude a program called storytime, which most rytimes began in the 1940s and early 1950s in often serves children from birth to age five but response to emerging theories of reading readi- can also serve older children as well (Martinez, ness which suggested that children needed expo- 2007; Reta & Brady, 2007). According to Mc- sure to certain aspects of reading before reading Neil (2014): themselves. During this time, librarians sought Storytime should be an effective pre- to provide children with multiple literacy expe- sentation of early literacy skills and ac- riences, often without the presence of a caregiv- tivities, it should be entertaining and er or parent (Colburn, 2013; Graham & Gagnon, heart-warming, and it should promote 2013). Librarians expected children to sit qui- interaction between adult and child. It etly and listen (Celano & Neuman, 2015). This should also be an opportunity for the traditional format of storytime was presumed to audience to be exposed to quality lit- increase children’s independence and decrease erature that builds vocabulary, creativ- parental disruptions (Reid, 2009). Over time, ity, awareness of self and others, and the role of parents and caregivers during story- knowledge. (p.13) time changed dramatically along with society’s Storytime is often referred to by a variety of oth- understanding of early literacy development. er names including, but not limited to, Mainly Many public libraries have adjusted storytime Mother Goose (Graham & Gagnon, 2013), Moth- programming in order to include playing, sing- er Goose on the Loose (Bayliss, 2014), and Story ing, and games, thereby making libraries much Hours (Albright, Delecki, & Hinkle, 2009). noisier, engaging, and parent-friendly places Although Dowd (1997) wrote a call for re- (Celano & Neuman, 2015). search regarding the impact of storytime pro- In 2004, the Public Library Association grams on early literacy development two de- and the Association for Library Service to Chil- cades ago, research pertaining to storytime dren collaborated in order to create the re- remains relatively sparse with the exception of search-based Every Child Ready to Read® initia- a few consequential studies (e.g., Campana et tive (ECRR), which seeks to increase the impact al., 2016; Celano & Neuman, 2001; Graham & of libraries regarding early literacy by educat- Gagnon, 2013; McKenzie & Stooke, 2007). The ing parents. The ECRR website states: “If the bulk of published literature relating to story- primary adults in a child’s life can learn more time remains anecdotal, autobiographic, mono- about the importance of early literacy and how graphic, and journalistic in nature. We found to nurture pre-reading skills at home, the ef- no published empirical studies that explored fect of the library efforts can be multiplied how to expand storytime attendance. Given the many times more” (American Library Associa- tion, 2015, p. 2). The revised version of ECRR Literacy Access Through Storytime 61

(2011) is focused on five broad practices, includ- The Impact of Storytime ing singing, talking, reading, writing, and play- Some researchers have focused primarily ing. During storytime, storytellers model these on the effects of storytime on adult behavior. practices and offer families suggestions regard- For example, Graham and Gagnon (2013) con- ing how to adopt such practices in their homes ducted a quasi-experimental study in Canada in (Celano & Neuman, 2015). Thus, the use of the order to determine the effects of Mainly Moth- ECRR philosophy and toolkit has significantly er Goose storytimes on parents and caregivers. shaped storytime programming in the last de- Results of this longitudinal study indicated that cade (American Library Association, 2015). the Mainly Mother Goose program did not sig- As storytime has changed over time, so has nificantly increase parent/caregiver engage- the population it serves. Hughes-Hassell, Agos- ment with their children in early literacy activ- to, and Sun (2007) suggested that additional ities but it did increase the frequency of their storytimes in the evenings and weekends are visits to the library. In addition, 75% of parents needed in order to meet the demands of work- reported that their confidence grew in using sto- ing families. For example, a majority of the chil- rytime activities and materials, while 88% re- dren attending storytimes offered between 9:00 sponded that they used what they learned from a.m. and 5:00 p.m. did so with a daycare pro- the Mainly Mother Goose program at home. vider, grandparents, or a caregiver other than Overall, results indicated positive effects of the parents, which Neuman and Celano (2012) sug- Mainly Mother Goose program on parents and gest can result in fewer adult/child literacy in- caregivers over time. Additionally, while par- teractions. Hughes-Hassel et al. (2007) pro- ents are often unconfident in their ability to sup- posed innovative ways to increase storytime port their child’s literacy development, adults availability including training volunteers to lead attending storytime using the ECRR philosophy storytimes, creating storytime kits for families showed an increase in knowledge about literacy to checkout, and offering storytime via internet development and motivation to support literacy or phone services. development at home (Stewart, Bailey-White, In addition, some authors have explored Shaw, Compton, & Ghoting, 2014). how lessons can be delivered in locations out- McKenzie and Stooke (2007) conducted a side of libraries in order to make attendance qualitative inquiry pertaining to how storytime more convenient (e.g., McCune, 2010). One ex- is jointly constructed by the librarians, caregiv- ample is a collaborative project with the Twins- ers, and child participants. During their inves- burg Public Library (in Ohio) in which storytime tigation of early literacy programs at two neigh- sessions were offered near a housing project in borhood public libraries in Canada, they found order to increase participation of those individ- that librarians purposefully created space for uals living nearby (Johnson, 2015). In anoth- adult conversations, thereby providing net- er example, librarians in North Carolina invited works of information for adults while simul- teachers and caregivers to training sessions re- taneously providing children access to literacy garding how to use “Storytime to Go” kits that experiences. Parents talked about many con- were created by staff and available for check- structs including child development, childcare, out to those individuals trained (Pflug, 2004). and domestic life. Similarly, McKenzie and While Neuman and Celano (2006) found that Stooke (2012) wrote observations regarding the equalizing resources for libraries in low-in- various and sometimes conflicting purposes of come neighborhoods may not necessarily re- early learning programs. For example, while li- sult in equitable use of such resources, innova- brarians viewed the purpose of storytime to de- tive outreach programs such as those programs velop literacy skills, caregivers often viewed described above may provide qualitatively dif- storytime as a place to socialize or as a reason ferent approaches to storytime that result in to leave the house. When conflicts of purpose increased benefits for children in low-income arose, negative consequences sometimes re- neighborhoods. sulted, whereas positive results were produced when goals were aligned. Turning to research regarding librarians, Martinez (2007) conducted an eight-month 62 Young et al. case study of early literacy programs in Mary- avenues through which recruitment and main- land Public Libraries. Librarians tried to sup- tenance are sought? port children in their literacy development be- Qualitative research designs uniquely allow fore school, but they had no formal training in for the contextualization of collected data (Cre- early literacy instruction. Librarians took part swell & Poth, 2018). Since the present study was in a one-day training session and were given particularly focused on how storytellers attract developmentally appropriate planning sheets and engage families in a low-income neighbor- for various age groups. Results of the training hood, an in-depth understanding of the context and subsequent observations of storytimes in- was necessary in order to analyze how the data dicated that librarians implemented their train- is context-specific. In addition, McKenzie and ing and used the planning sheets that focused Stooke’s (2007) work highlighted the complex- lessons on concepts of print, letter recognition, ity of the communicative space, which is co- phonological awareness, and other literacy constructed during storytime. Specifically, an skills. Librarians also reported they were better ethnographic approach to the present study al- able to select books in order to support growth lowed for the rich description of the culture that in these areas. is created between storytellers and participants Finally, Campana et al. (2016) conducted a within the context of storytime programming. much-needed study pertaining to the effects of storytime on children from birth to five years. Method Preliminary results indicated that a correlation exists between the early literacy concepts ex- Research Site and Participants plored in storytime and children’s literacy be- As a public library in a low-income neigh- haviors. Additionally, as part of an investiga- borhood that offers several weekly storytime tion regarding best practices in early literacy programs on evenings and weekends, we used programs in public libraries in four countries criterion sampling (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Mer- (United States, Ireland, Canada, and Norway), riam & Tisdell, 2016) in order to select Marshall Campbell-Hicks (2016) reported that libraries in Library as the context for this study. (Marshall New York were successful in creating communi- Library and all names hereafter are pseudonyms ty partnerships and intentionally teaching chil- used in order to protect the privacy of the library, dren literacy skills during storytime program- its staff, its patrons, and surrounding school). ming. Areas in which other countries excelled Marshall’s neighborhood is unique in that it is included attracting new library-users, develop- home to many immigrant and refugee families ing relationships with daycares and parents, and is situated within three miles of a large re- and creating comfortable and welcoming cli- search university. Demographic data from the mates in libraries. seven public elementary schools that Marshall The purpose of the present ethnograph- serves through outreach programming will be ic study was to provide a better understanding used as proxies for Marshall’s population. Data of how storytellers in a public library acted in from these seven schools are provided in Table ways to increase attendance at storytime, a free 1. As illustrated in the table, Marshall Library program that has been shown to contribute to serves an ethnically and linguistically diverse early literacy development. The central ques- population of students. In addition, a majority tion of this present study follows: How do story- of the students living in proximity to Marshall tellers in a low-income neighborhood increase Library qualify for free or reduced lunch pric- attendance in storytime programming? Sub- es. Given its location, Marshall Library serves questions included: (1) How do storytellers re- not only as a library, but also as a communi- cruit new patrons to storytime programming?, ty center. Marshall offers many services within (2) How do storytellers encourage families to the library including free tax preparation, writ- maintain attendance in storytime programming ing tutoring services, Girl Scout meetings, exer- over time?, (3) What do storytellers perceive cise classes, and much more. Furthermore, the to be the benefits of storytime for families?, library serves as a refuge for middle school stu- and (4) In what ways do the location of the li- dents in the area looking for a place to go af- brary in a low-income neighborhood affect the ter school, often after such students are asked Literacy Access Through Storytime 63

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Schools Surrounding Marshall Library Characteristics Benedict Wash Bryan Franklin North Clark Fredrick Distance (in miles) .8 1.0 1.9 2.9 3.2 4.6 6.9 Number of Students 705 704 783 509 424 403 760 FRL % 76 59 28 28 80 72 63 Minority % 47 42 26 20 64 46 35 ELL % 21 15 7 2 36 25 9 Note. Data from this table are taken from the state’s department of education website for the 2014-2015 school year. ​ All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percent. FRL refers to students who qualify for free or reduced lunch prices. ELL refers to students who are considered English language learners. to leave other local businesses. These demo- designated as storytime, and at least the 15 min- graphic characteristics, which are often corre- utes before and after each session. We record- lates of lower literacy achievement as described ed jottings in a notebook during the observa- above, make Marshall Library a prime location tion or immediately afterwards, as suggested by for the present research study. Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2011). After leaving The focal participants in this present study the site, we transformed the jottings into field are the “storytellers,” a term used by the li- notes with the intent to create “thick descrip- brary staff members in order to describe their tions” of the storytime culture (Geertz, 1973). role while leading storytime sessions offered at We also attempted to capture the ordinary and the library. All nine storytellers in Marshall Li- the mundane events of storytime with a focus brary were invited and agreed to participate in on what seemed to be significant to the partic- the present study to allow for maximum varia- ipants (Emerson et al., 2011; Garfinkel, 1967). tion sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in order In total, we recorded and analyzed fieldnotes to increase “the likelihood that the findings will of 20 storytime sessions although we attended reflect differences or different perspectives – an several more sessions in order to establish rap- ideal in qualitative research” (Creswell & Poth, port and gain access to the setting (Creswell & 2018, p. 158). Thus, storytellers in the pres- Poth, 2018). ent study ranged in their storytime experiences, All nine storytellers participated in infor- philosophies, and prior training. mal interviews with us before and after obser- vations of their storytime programs. In addi- Data Collection tion, we conducted a minimum of one in-depth, semi-structured interview with each of the sto- In an effort to provide, as Agar (1996) sug- rytellers that participated in the study. The gests, a “Massive Overdetermination of Pat- three main types of ethnographic interview terns” (p. 41), we remained in the field for 11 questions were suggested by Spradley (1979) months from February until the following De- and included descriptive, structural, and con- cember. This time frame also enabled us to ob- trast questions. Questions were further devel- tain “adequate coverage of temporal variation,” oped from the data collected during our time in (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007, p. 36) which the field as well as via the process of domain allowed for the observation of changes in sto- analysis. We used the interviews in order to rytime staffing procedures, the growth in litera- help provide insight into what could not be ob- cy development of participants, and the unique served (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), such as per- variations in storytime activities related to sea- ceptions and beliefs of the storytellers as well sons and holidays. During the data collection as to validate nascent interpretations and tri- period, we attended one to two storytime ses- angulate previously collected data (Creswell & sions per week. Our role was that of a partici- Poth, 2018). We also collected several artifacts pant observer, as we both engaged in activities including library signs, brochures, pamphlets, and observed those activities with introspection webpages, and photographs. In combination, and explicit awareness (Spradley, 1979 & 2016). the participant observations, formal and infor- Each observation included the 30 minutes mal interviews, and the collection of documents 64 Young et al. provided an amalgamation of data leading to (Babchuk, Guetterman, & Garrett, 2017; Cre- the point of saturation at which no new infor- swell & Poth, 2018; Marshall & Rossman, 2016; mation was uncovered in the field (Merriam & Morse, 2018). Internal validity (or credibility) Tisdell, 2016). consists of prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and triangulation—the latter con- Analysis cept originally proposed by Denzin (1978)— and incorporated the use of multiple methods, Throughout the data collection process, sources of data, investigators, and theories (Lin- we used MAXQDA software to code and ana- coln & Guba, 1985). These strategies can be lyze the data. We began the analysis with open augmented by peer debriefing, negative case coding in order to remain open to “all analyt- analysis, referential adequacy, and member ic possibilities” (Emerson et al., 2011, p. 5). In checks. External validity and generalizability addition to coding, per Emerson et al.’s (2011) are to be approximated through transferability suggestions, we wrote in-process, analytic, and that can be achieved through thick description integrative memos enabling us to find emerg- and maximum variation sampling. Reliability ing patterns, develop hypotheses, and refine the can be viewed as consistency (dependability focus of our observations and interviews while and confirmability) and achieved in qualitative still in the field. After writing memos, we of- research through triangulation, peer review, re- ten went back to previous data in order to code searcher positioning, and internal and external and recode events based on developing insight audits (Babchuk et al. 2017; Lincoln & Guba, throughout the study. The subsequent process 1985; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Building off the of focused coding resulted in the identification work of Lincoln and Guba (1985), Creswell and of relationships and variations among the data Miller (2000) proposed nine validity procedures as well as the creation of categories (Emerson et for qualitative research including triangulation, al., 2011). disconfirming evidence, researcher reflexivi- After coding the fieldnotes, we coded all ty, member checking, prolonged engagement semi-structured interviews via the process of in the field, collaboration with participants, the structural coding, which allowed us to code audit trail, thick/rich description, and peer de- data based on the research questions (Saldaña, briefing. These researchers maintained that re- 2016). Following the structural coding, we con- searchers utilize at least two of these strategies ducted a second round of coding using the meth- in order to maximize rigor in qualitative inves- od of process coding (Saldaña, 2016) in order tigations (and see Creswell & Poth, 2018; Mar- to specifically code the actions of the storytell- shall & Rossman, 2016). ers in recruiting and maintaining participation Following these criteria in order to enhance in storytime. Finally, we used code mapping internal validity or credibility in the present (Saldaña, 2016) in order to categorize and orga- study, we spent extensive time in the field (11 nize the data into meaningful themes for further months) and triangulated data sources in order analysis. As suggested by Agar (1996), we ab- to construct meaningful, recognizable, and ho- ductively developed our hypotheses as patterns listic patterns in the context of storytime. We emerged throughout this analysis process. also included low inference descriptors such as participant quotes and contextual descriptions Internal Validity and Reliability to enhance the study’s internal validity. Fur- Recognizing that qualitative research needs thermore, as underscored by Lincoln and Guba to be judged by different standards than tradi- (1985), we took to heart the charge of providing tional quantitative methods of investigation, “sufficient descriptive data” (p. 298) and used Lincoln and Guba (1985) recast standards of it in order to contribute to the potential transfer- internal and external validity, reliability, and ability of the research. We enhanced reliability generalizability under the overarching term or consistency (also known was dependability “trustworthiness” and introduced new com- or confirmability) through procedures of tri- mon language terms—credibility, transferabil- angulation and peer-review mentioned above, ity, dependability, and confirmability—in or- along with an audit trail to evince the rigor- der to represent rigorous qualitative procedures ous methods of data collection and analysis we Literacy Access Through Storytime 65 iteratively employed as the present study pro- that we might unfairly privilege those activities gressed (Babchuk et al., 2017; Creswell & Poth, that align with such norms and potentially miss 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Ross- other important literacy activities that families man, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). engage in at the library. Thus, throughout the study, we reflected on the ways in which our Positioning of the Researchers identities might result in unwarranted bias in an effort to remain open-minded to all analytic According to Agar (1996): “The ethno- possibilities. graphic job is a privilege, and it carries a respon- sibility to get it right and an authority that al- Results lows the professional to make that claim” (Agar, Throughout the duration of the study, the 1996, p. 15, emphasis in original). Although we storytellers at Marshall used two terms in order agree with Agar regarding the privilege of eth- to describe the storytime participants: “drop- nographic work and the immense responsibility ins” and “regulars.” They referred to patrons it demands, we exercise caution with the rest of who were either new to storytime or who come his claim. “To get it right” implies that there ex- infrequently as “drop-ins.” The storytellers did ists a singular “right” to be discovered, where- not know the names of “drop-ins” and often as we do not subscribe to the notion that there placed nametags in the area so that they could is but one objective reality that can be indepen- begin to know them. Conversely, there were dently and objectively assessed. In addition, several families that returned to storytime each we would be apt to change the term “authori- week. Storytellers referred to these participants ty” to that of “entrustment,” implying the mor- as “regulars.” For the purpose of our present al obligation to make inductively derived claims study, we sought to explore not only how sto- while respecting the participants involved. rytellers increased the number of “drop-ins” at So, it is with this privilege and caution in storytime but also how they actively worked to mind that we share the philosophical perspec- transition “drop-ins” into the status of “regu- tives and theoretical lenses through which we lars.” We will, therefore, report on the two pro- collected and analyzed the data presented in cesses separately. this article. Implementing combined teach- ing experiences spanning kindergarten through collegiate levels, we have witnessed the multi- Recruiting Storytime “Drop-ins” ple realities that are constructed for students in In order to increase storytime participa- classrooms based on historical inequities that tion, the storytellers’ first step was to encourage exist as a consequence of race, gender, culture, new children and caregivers to attend a story- and especially class. We are interested in the time session. They worked in many purpose- ways through which social class and its subse- ful ways in order to accomplish this goal. Two quent realities influence school achievement, themes emerged regarding how storytellers re- particularly in the area of literacy. Thus, we cruited “drop-ins” to storytime, including (1) align closely with the epistemological and on- appealing to community members to enter the tological view of critical social science, as it is physical space of the library and (2) appealing our shared belief that research can be a power- to current library patrons to attend storytime. ful tool in order to combat this inequity. By targeting recruitment efforts at individuals For the present research, we actively at- in the community as well as those individuals tempted to minimize the effects of these fun- already present in the library, storytellers maxi- damental assumptions, biases, and interpreta- mized their attendance. tions by writing memos after each field visit Appealing to Community Members to Enter to capture and analyze our reactions through- the Library. According to the storytellers, one of out the research process. We explored our con- the ways in which they recruit storytime partic- cerns with issues of educational inequity based ipants is by first encouraging community mem- on our past work experience and attempted to bers “in the door” of the library. Sometimes the “mak[e] the familiar strange” (Erickson, 1984, way they recruited people into the library was p. 62) while in this space. Since schools are explicitly asking community members to attend products of middle-class norms, we realized a storytime program. The storytellers were 66 Young et al. well-versed in “elevator talks” during which done simply to provide more children with ear- they would deliver a short explanation of story- ly literacy experiences. time to members of the community followed by Conversely, Marshall staff often used oth- an invitation to join, all while going about their er library resources in order to encourage com- daily lives. Tonya, a long-time storyteller, ex- munity members into the physical space of the plained a time she was standing in line behind library and then, indirectly, recruit the children a mom and her preschooler at a grocery store, for storytime. For example, Marshall library saying: “The cashier said something to them offered a variety of free programs and servic- about reading and I jumped in. I said, ‘Hey, you es such as yoga class, tax preparation servic- know, all of the libraries offer preschool story- es, writing tutors, and access to the internet. In time, which you could bring your child to.’” In- addition, due to the high percentage of students terestingly, the storytellers also noted that cur- in the area who qualify for free/reduced lunch rent “regulars” effectively recruited “drop-ins” prices, free lunch was offered daily in the li- via word of mouth. In fact, during observa- brary during the summer months which helped tions we noted the addition of friends, family, recruit additional patrons to the library. Staff and neighbors of the “regulars.” Other ways in members were aware that, once people are in which storytellers at Marshall acted to encour- the library, they are more likely to “drop-in” to age people into the library specifically for story- other library programs such as storytime. Af- time included multiple methods of advertising. ter reflecting on the variety of resources offered, Marshall staff created and handed-out fliers for Darlene stated: “I see how much they need the storytime, filled with bright images and positive library, and especially this library in this side of messages regarding the benefits of storytime. town.” In order to meet this need, library pro- In addition, storytellers advertised for story- grams were often scheduled consecutively so time on local television stations and often set- patrons could easily attend many events. up booths at local community events in order to Appealing to Patrons to Attend Storytime. promote storytime attendance. Online descrip- If patrons arrived at the library for resources tions and times were also posted on the city’s li- or services other than storytime, as mentioned brary website. above, the storytellers were often effective at re- The storytellers at Marshall Library also cruiting them for storytime through a variety lead many “outreach events” during which of purposeful actions. At the most basic lev- they lead storytimes in other parts of the city, el, all those individuals present in the library a need which was addressed in the literature were typically invited (over the intercom) to at- to meet the changing needs of working fami- tend. While reading a book or finishing-up an- lies (McCune, 2010). These outreach events other activity, for example, patrons might hear, were typically scheduled monthly and most of- “Please join us for song, story, and craft,” fol- ten occurred at daycares or community centers. lowed by an invitation to meet in the children’s Darlene, who facilitated storytime outreach at a section of the library. This announcement was local community center, shared her reflections the most impersonal but it was often only the after doing an outreach event: “Was I able to first of many verbal invitations offered to pa- get them to want to come into the library build- trons. Some patrons appeared to listen and re- ing? ‘Cuz that’s what outreach is all about. You spond to this announcement, while others who want to reach them and get them to come… were deeply engaged in an activity seemed through your doors.” Yet, the storytellers were oblivious to the message. also realistic regarding the needs of the commu- At the next level of recruitment, the library nity in which they serve. Shannon, for exam- staff tried to make storytime more visible with- ple, acknowledged that many of the kids who in the library space through advertisements are served in outreach events likely have work- and even the location of storytime itself. Li- ing parents and “probably wouldn’t get story- brary staff frequently created posters and bulle- time,” if it were held only in the library. Thus, tin boards regarding storytime and posted them while outreach events serve as a way to encour- throughout children’s section of the library, as age people “in the door” of the library, it is also well as the large entryway. For example, during October, we found a new poster that welcomed Literacy Access Through Storytime 67

families to “Spooktacular Storytime” and en- the gray carpet area and walked on. couraged children to wear their costumes. In There was no invitation to join. order to further increase visibility, some story- It did not seem to matter whether the children tellers led storytime in the middle of children’s approached storytime by themselves, with other section of the library, rather than behind closed children, or with adults. Unless the storyteller doors as was typically done. Shannon, who offered a personalized invitation, most patrons was considered the main storyteller, reflected quietly observed the area and then left. Indeed, during an interview that moving storytime to personalized invitations to join did have impor- this open area increased attendance of “drop- tant consequences in terms of recruiting partic- ins,” who could now see storytime and, join if ipants and some storytellers talked about their they wished. purposeful attempts to increase attendance us- Finally, at the highest level of recruitment, ing this method. As an illustration regarding storytellers often offered personalized invita- this point, Darlene stated: “So, usually I’m real- tions to all children and families present in the ly lucky because sometimes you’ll get families library, both before and during storytime. When on the computer over there and you’ll just say, storytellers directly approached individuals (or ‘We’re doing storytime. Do you want to come?’ a group of individuals) and offered a verbal in- And they’ll come and they’ll be first timers.” As vitation to join storytime, they were most often a longtime children’s librarian with much expe- met with success. Some storytellers, such as rience as a storyteller, we surmised that Darlene Amber, were especially successful at this meth- was particularly effective in her warm and car- od of recruitment, often using terms of endear- ing approach to personalized recruitment. As ment to draw in more children. As one exam- a result, the number of children in attendance ple from our field notes, when a girl around the in her sessions grew throughout the session as age of eight walked through the aisle of books, she frequently invited children both before sto- Amber addressed her, explaining: “‘Hello, come rytime started and throughout the thirty-minute join us’ and she joined the group. Meanwhile program. a smaller girl with the similar braids and beads approached. Amber said, ‘Come join us, beau- Creating a Circle of Maintenance tiful!’ She, too, joined the group.” Other sto- for “Regulars” rytellers, particularly those with limited expe- rience in leading storytime, were less likely to After families or children “dropped-in” to offer a personalized verbal invitation to join. In storytime, the storytellers acted in multiple these instances, storytime followed a more rigid ways to transition them into “regulars.” The pattern of events in which activities and books four ways in which this transition occurred were were not to be interrupted; this protocol sharply (1) facilitating meaningful learning experiences, contrasted the open dialogue and engagement (2) fostering enjoyment through participation, exhibited by Amber and other storytellers. (3) developing nurturing relationships, and (4) In order to investigate whether such verbal offering flexibility in storytime expectations. personalized invitations to join merely seemed In the space of the library, these four compo- successful because storytellers were inviting nents reinforced one another creating a circle of customers who were already in route to attend maintenance, in which patrons returned to the storytime, we purposefully observed all library library weekly for storytime programming. customers who came close enough to the story- Facilitating Meaningful Learning Experienc- time rug for a verbal invitation to be extended es. Perhaps the most explicit way in which sto- and we further recorded what happened when rytellers built their constituency at storytime is no invitation was given. Several instances, sim- by offering early learning experiences. Tonya il- ilar to the following, were repeatedly document- lustrated this point when she stated: “Reading ed in fieldnotes: aloud is essential for language and, like I said, During the story, a man, woman, and I think a lot of parents know that. That’s why three boys walked by the gray carpet they show up.” In order to prepare for the read area. The youngest boy looked to be aloud experience, storytellers typically picked around six years old. They looked at a theme of their choice and then chose three related books along with finger plays, flannel 68 Young et al. boards, songs, dances, and sometimes a craft families could learn. As Stewart et al. (2014) in order to supplement the program. Storytell- suggested, the inclusion of such practices in ers were explicit about the purpose of these ad- storytime can, in fact, lead to increased paren- ditional activities. Shannon, for example, said: tal support of literacy in the home. “In theory, it’s… getting kids ready to go to Fostering Enjoyment through Participation. preschool. It’s about sitting. It’s about listen- While the primary focus of storytime was on ing… making sure they know their colors, their learning, the storytellers also recognized the shapes, their numbers, their alphabet.” Thus, importance of fostering enjoyment through par- while storytime is explicitly focused on reading ticipation in literacy activities. They acknowl- stories, children were exposed to a wide vari- edged that learning and fun can coincide dur- ety of academic and social learning experiences. ing storytime in order to create an experience In fact, when storytellers were asked ques- that both children and caregivers find worth- tions regarding the ways in which storytime pre- while. However, storytellers differed in their pares children for success in school, most sto- abilities to create engaging experiences for chil- rytellers focused on the development of socially dren. Those individuals with a genuine inter- appropriate school behaviors rather than on ear- est in storytime were able to deliver an energet- ly literacy development. During storytime, the ic storytime in which the “books come alive,” cultural norm was for children to remain seat- as exemplified in the excerpt below: ed (although there was flexibility for those who Shannon read The Big Wide-Mouth were young). Other school-like behaviors, such Frog. She read it in a slow and dramat- as hand raising, were observed on several occa- ic voice. She asked the children what sions. Storytellers used the flannel board and they thought would happen next. One craft materials in order to encourage children child predicted the frog would be eat- to wait their turn. Even the language used by en. Shannon turned her face away and storytellers purposefully echoed what might be said she couldn’t look. Then she read heard in the classroom. For example, the chil- the next page and the frog was not eat- dren were asked to “sit crisscross applesauce” en after all. and were often referred to by the storytellers As can be seen, Shannon used engaging expres- as “friends.” Furthermore, it was common for sions, interacted directly with the children, and children to reference the storyteller as “teach- brought them into the story by asking them to er,” and Darlene noted in an interview that chil- predict what was going to happen next. Many dren view Shannon’s Tuesday night storytime, storytellers explicitly identified these character- in particular, as “school.” Thus, while explic- istics as essential to a good storytime presenta- it signage, brochures, and storytime schedules tion. Conversely, when the storyteller read in a highlighted the literacy aspects of storytime— monotonous tone and a hurried pace, it seemed in practice—storytellers also acknowledged the neither the children or the storyteller enjoyed importance of developing socially appropriate the experience. school behaviors. Another important component in foster- Learning at storytime was also not limited ing engagement was including fun activities. to the children. Some of the work that storytell- When asked how she would describe storytime ers did specifically targeted the parents. Story- to families, for example, Jen stated: “I would tellers felt that, by teaching the parents about try to drive home that it’s not just… some- literacy development, they could extend the body sitting and reading books for thirty min- benefits of storytime into the home environ- utes. You might be up and down doing activi- ment. Stephanie illustrated this phenomenon ties, or motion, and song, singing with actions, when she stated: “We’re only with the kids for too.” Sometimes these activities served litera- 20 minutes. They’re with them all the time.” cy purposes and were associated with the sto- The storytellers, trained in ECRR, addressed the rytime theme while other times they were used importance of showing families how to interact as “centering” activities in order to help the with their children while reading books in or- kids. Flannel board activities, which often al- der to keep them engaged. They purposefully lowed the children to come up and manipulate modeled additional early literacy practices that the pieces, along with songs and dances were Literacy Access Through Storytime 69 among the most common movement activities smiled, engaged in small talk, and frequently included during storytime. While parental en- offered their assistance throughout the library. gagement during storytime was notably limit- Often times, these interactions between story- ed during much of storytime, caregivers seemed tellers and patrons led directly to a personal in- to return their attention to the program when vitation to the patron to join storytime. their children were actively involved. Care- Acknowledging that the patrons of Marshall givers sometimes offered words of encourage- Library are linguistically and culturally diverse, ment, clapped their hands, and recorded photos the storytellers also talked about making people or videos of their children with their phones. feel welcome by including themes that focused These caregivers seemed to take pride in watch- on multiple cultures, counting in multiple lan- ing their children perform a variety of activities. guages, and being sensitive of the multiple cul- In addition to the activities described above, tural beliefs when planning themes for story- craft time was a consistent feature of the Sun- time. In a storytime theme about grandparents, day family storytime and also proved to be an for example, Stephanie asked an open-ended engaging activity for the children. As the final question that provided space for multiple lin- activity each Sunday, children and their caregiv- guistic representations. Stephanie asked: “What ers sat down at the long gray table full of col- are some different names for your grandma and orful materials and supplies. From designing grandpa?” One child replied with ‘grandma’ paper airplanes to using principles of science and Stephanie wrote it on the board. Fadila, in order to make butter, the number of partici- another girl, answered: “I do but it’s in a differ- pants at storytime almost always increased dur- ent language.” Stephanie said: “That’s okay.” ing these activities. For example, during one After the child shared, Stephanie then did her storytime, “I noticed several of the adults and best to represent this word on the board by con- children who earlier passed by storytime on the sulting with the child’s caregiver. It was clear gray carpet now sat at the table doing the craft.” that in the space of storytime, all ways of know- Although not every storyteller felt it was fair to ing were honored and appreciated. let these late arrivals participate, Darlene said: Even so, data analysis revealed that certain “I don’t care. I just need to touch that child no storytimes sessions consistently had more “reg- matter how.” However, all of the storytellers ulars” than others. Sunday storytime, for exam- agreed that keeping the children interested and ple, rarely had “regulars.” It was led each week excited about storytime was important to in- by a different storyteller, since no staff mem- creasing and maintaining storytime attendance. ber wanted to work every Sunday. We quick- Tonya summarized this consensus by saying: “I ly realized that, as the storyteller changed, so mean, truly if the kids want to come back the too did the children that attended. They were parents will bring them, you know? This is a almost always “drop-ins,” recruited from oth- very kid-centered society.” er parts of the library who just happened to Developing Nurturing Relationships. Anoth- be there during storytime. Conversely, during er resounding theme triangulated through inter- Tuesday night storytime, most families in at- views and observations was the importance of tendance were considered “regulars.” Shan- making all families feel welcome in the library. non consistently led this storytime and, as men- The library staff greeted all patrons upon entry tioned above, these children often referred to into the building and sought to maintain this Shannon’s storytime as “school.” This con- welcoming culture throughout all areas of the li- sistency in the storyteller scheduling enabled brary. They were conscientious about pursuing Shannon to build strong and nurturing relation- this goal, even when hiring new staff members. ships with the attendees. On any given Tues- Shannon described that, while it is important day night, Shannon could be seen picking up for librarians to love reading, Marshall Library the children, tickling them, and laughing with is looking for more from their staff members. them when she was “on the floor.” In addition, She stated: “We need people who like to help not only did Shannon know the names of most people, who like people, who aren’t going to of the children and their families, but they also hide behind the desk.” Storytellers frequently referred to her by name which was atypical for greeted patrons, often doing so by name. They the Sunday session. 70 Young et al.

When asked questions regarding how she storytime, the storytellers seemed to be aware maintains regular participation in her storytime that attendance at storytime was linked direct- session, Shannon acknowledged that building ly to the storyteller. Eventually management relationships with the caregivers is essential be- picked up on this trend as well. Jen stated that cause “kids can’t drive themselves to the library they “kind of figured out that when certain peo- yet.” Before and after storytime, families often ple do it they get bigger crowds.” It seemed that waited around for their turn to talk with Shan- a transition back to more permanent storyteller non. They spoke about a variety of matters in- scheduling was in order. cluding whether or not they would be able to at- Offering Flexibility in Storytime Expecta- tend storytime the following week, changes in tions. Posted on the “Upcoming Events” board, their family structure such as new babies, and which was also the backdrop of several story- upcoming events in their lives. Below is a field time sessions, was a poster that outlined the note excerpt of one such conversation: expectations of storytime. Library staff clear- [At the end of storytime] a little girl ap- ly wrote the expectations for the adults rath- proached Shannon and said, “thank er than the children. They were written in an you.” They continued to engage in a acrostic poem using the word “storytime” as conversation about the girls 4th birth- can be seen below: day. Shannon said that she missed STORYTIME EXPECTATIONS the girl’s 4th birthday and how fast Sit Quietly time goes... The woman then said that Turn off your phone Shannon has seen her little girl grow up Open your ears since she was 18 months old. Shan- Remember to participate non looked at the little girl and said Your children will follow your example she would be there for her anytime she Talk with friends AFTER storytime needed any kind of books. It’s about the love of learning Furthermore, families often let Shannon know Model for your children if they planned to miss storytime the following Everyone sing and dance week and explained previous absences to her. Storytime is FUN! Due to the consistency of both the storyteller The storytime brochure created for all pub- and the participants, Shannon’s weekly Tues- lic libraries in the city also included similar ex- day night storytime felt more like a formalized pectations. These formally-written directives program in which participants registered and seemed to suggest that storytime events require paid for services. active participation not only of the children but Other staff members at the library were of the adults as well. Contrast this dynamic aware that some storytimes, including Shan- with the following vignette that exhibits what non’s, consistently drew larger crowds. They these expectations looked like in practice at the spoke about the importance of building rela- library: tionships with the participants, which is more Salima and her mom joined me at end likely to occur with consistent scheduling. Dar- of the table near the gray rug. Salima lene, another longtime storyteller who was mumbled something, then grabbed a skilled at building relationships with families, book, and sat down to read. Her moth- said the following: er sat across from her and looked at her And I’m not saying that somebody’s phone. Amber arrived and sat on the better than the other, I’m just saying gray rug. She looked at the girl and they’re comfortable with that same smiled saying, “Want to come sit?” [Sa- person. That’s why Shannon gets the lima] verbalized nothing but immedi- same kids every week because she’s ately stood up and returned the book to their teacher. Sundays is a little bit the shelf. She joined Amber on the rug. harder because you have different peo- Amber began having a conversation ple doing storytime. with [Salima] as they both sat cross- While the library management was in the pro- legged on the floor by saying, “Hel- cess of training all library staff members to lead lo, how are you? You look very pretty Literacy Access Through Storytime 71

Table 2 Library Learning Times (Storytimes) at Marshall Title Age Range Week Day Time Storyteller Pseudonym Baby Storytime Birth-18 mo. Mondays 10:35 - 10:55 a.m. Cindy

Toddler Time 18 mo.-36 mo. Wednesdays 10:35 - 10:55 a.m. Shannon Thursdays 10:35 - 10:55 a.m. Stephanie

Preschool Storytime 3 yrs. – 5 yrs. Tuesdays 7:00 - 7:30 p.m. Shannon Wednesdays 10:30 - 11:00 a.m. Tonya Thursdays 10:30 - 11:00 a.m. Tonya

Family Storytime Entire Family Sundays 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. Rotates

today.” The conversation continued no lunch and no supper… and, yeah, we see about the girl’s jewelry, her Valentine’s that quite often with other children, too.” De- box, and her weekend. As Amber and spite the absence of a caregiver, these girls were Salima engaged in conversation, Sa- still invited to attend storytime. lima’s mother remained sitting in the Based on both the interviews and observa- blue chair at the table one chair away tions, we concluded that the purpose of the sto- from me. She continued looking at her rytime expectations sign was to keep caregiv- phone. ers from engaging in behaviors that disrupted As this vignette evidences, Salima’s mom was storytime, rather than to increase their partici- not actively “model(ing) for her children” or pation in the activities. Consequences were in- “remember(ing) to participate,” as outlined in voked only when that boundary between lack the expectations. Furthermore, she was look- of participation and disruption of storytime was ing at her phone for the majority of the time, al- crossed. Therefore, the storytellers did not in- though they are explicitly told to turn them off. tervene when Salima’s mom spent all of story- However, Salima’s mom was arguably the most time using her phone or when caregivers were engaged of all adult participants that day. Al- not in attendance. Instead, storytellers re- though there were six children in attendance for ferred to the sign only in situations such as the storytime, she was the only adult that was even following: present for storytime. Two other adults stopped We have some daycare providers who by during craft time in order to check-in with come in and they just feel like, “Okay their children but left shortly after. (clap), somebody else is watching the In this storytime session (and others), it be- kids right now so I don’t have to pay came clear that the expectations regarding the attention to them so I am going to car- poster and in the brochure for adult participa- ry on a conversation in the back of the tion were, in fact, not “expected” at all. Care- room. Loudly. Not even in a quiet givers most often spent their time either using voice, with my friend, because the kids their phones, talking with other caregivers, or are minded.” doing activities in other parts of the library. In It became clear that the expectations explic- some instances, we did not observe any sign of itly stated in the signs and brochures served a child’s family before, during, or after story- not as directives for the families, but rather a time; storytellers noted that children from the tool that could be used by the storyteller if the surrounding community often come to the li- adults were interfering with storytime. The sto- brary by themselves. Darlene talked about two rytellers worked hard in order to prepare litera- girls who come to the library nearly every week- cy rich opportunities for the children and only end, but she has never met their parents. She confronted caregivers when their actions took said: [The girls] came at 11 – 11:30 when we away from the experience of others. opened the door and left at 7:00 that night with 72 Young et al.

In addition, although the storytime signs we recorded the following: “I asked if [Amber] and brochures designated specific ages for each would like help cleaning up the craft supplies. program (as seen in Table 2), in practice chil- She said that she usually leaves them out for a dren of all ages were welcome to attend. When while in case other kids would like to complete providing oral invitations to patrons, storytell- the craft.” This practice of extending the length ers rarely considered age distinctions. Shannon of storytime was a common occurrence, partic- spoke of the importance of this flexibility saying: ularly on Sundays, when a craft was involved “It’s like well if I tell the 18 month [child] to go and materials were left out. In fact, providing then the whole family’s going to leave and then continued access to the craft did increase the the older brother’s not going to be able to enjoy number of children who were involved in story- storytime”. This type of flexibility was especial- time. Not only did this practice enable partici- ly important for families with multiple children. pation of those individuals who arrived late, but Rather than dictate attendance, the age require- it also allowed children who might be less com- ments on the brochures seemed to provide pa- fortable in a group setting to participate in the trons with an idea regarding the target audience literacy related craft independently. storytellers had in mind while planning a devel- opmentally appropriate program. Discussion Another explicit tip for a “successful story- Public libraries, alongside families and time” is to “be on time.” It is followed by the schools, have taken on the task of providing explanation that “storytimes are short and ev- children with early learning experiences such ery minute is full of fun and learning opportuni- as storytime in order to support their success ties.” In reality, however, it was quite common in school. Given national statistics regarding for families, or even children by themselves, to achievement based on social class, these ser- arrive late to storytime. When participants ar- vices are perhaps most essential for individu- rived late, most storytellers would pause and als who live in areas of lower socioeconomic greet them, making it known that their presence status. The purpose of the present study was was welcome. Such interruptions were com- to explore ways in which storytellers at a pub- mon during storytimes not just within the first lic library acted to recruit and maintain partici- few minutes, but throughout the entire duration pation in this free, voluntary program. Under- of the program as demonstrated by the follow- standing these processes may help contribute to ing fieldnote: “During the book, another wom- identifying more nuanced approaches in reach- an and young girl entered the room. Shannon ing a larger audience, thereby increasing the paused and said hi to the girl by name. The program’s potential benefits. Theoretical gen- girl responded with a smile, “Hi Ms. Shannon!” eralization of the ways in which these storytell- and then joined the rug.” While the fieldnote ers recruited and maintained attendance at sto- documents the late arrival of a “regular,” many rytime may also serve as a resource for other “drop-ins” were also absorbed into storytime community and school organizations seeking to who did not come to the library with the intent broaden their participant base. of going to storytime but happened to wander Through a combination of field notes, inter- into the children’s section of the library during views, and document analyses, we found two storytime. major avenues by which storytellers recruit- The flexibility of storytime expectations ed “drop-ins,” to storytime and four avenues in practice is further demonstrated by the fact by which storytellers established maintenance that, although formal documents said that sto- of “regulars” at storytime. These six process- rytime is 30 minutes long, the ending time was es of recruitment and maintenance did not oc- much more flexible. While this fact was doc- cur in isolation but rather in interactive and mu- umented in several fieldnotes, the staff mem- tually supportive ways. Figure 1 is a proposed bers also acknowledged this finding in their di- schematic regarding the ways in which these six alogue together: “The staff member asked when processes worked together. When storytellers storytime is over and Amber responded ‘two- appealed to community members to enter the ish.’” That same day, a full 15 minutes after physical space of the library, sometimes they re- the end of storytime as written on the brochure, cruited them directly for storytime by provid- ing an advertisement, an outreach event, or an Literacy Access Through Storytime 73

Figure 1 The Process of How Storytellers Recruit and Maintain Participation at Storytime

elevator talk. Other times, however, storytell- relationships, and offering flexibility in story- ers recruited new patrons to enter the library time expectations. so that the patrons could access library resourc- These six processes are not linked in linear, es such as computers or adult programming. monodirectional pathways; rather, the mainte- While in the library, storytellers could appeal to nance of patrons at storytime varied based on the current library patrons to attend storytime the needs and desires of each patron at any giv- via in-library advertising or verbal invitations. en point. For example, we observed a family Once a patron or family of patrons “dropped-in” who initially became “regulars” in an effort to for storytime, the storytellers at Marshall active- support their child’s literacy development, but ly worked in four ways to provide an experience continued to be “regulars” because the flex- that encouraged them to return to future sto- ibility of the expectations allowed the father rytime programs including facilitating meaning- to study for a higher degree while his children ful learning experiences, fostering enjoyment were busy at storytime. Another family that through participation, developing nurturing moved across town and could have experienced 74 Young et al. similar learning experiences at a closer library the importance of outreach events in broaden- chose, instead, to drive across town to Marshall ing the constituency of storytime (e.g., Beck- because of the relationship they have with one er, 2012; Johnson, 2015; McCune, 2010). Mar- of the storytellers. Thus, a “circle of mainte- shall’s outreach programs included several nance” was created in which the four processes daycares in the area, two community centers, of storytellers worked together at various times and a behavioral intervention program which in various ways to support family participation significantly increased the number of children at storytime to various degrees. exposed to storytime. Although it is not always While we were unable to identify any pub- possible given family constraints, the relation- lished empirical studies in the literature regard- ships children make with librarians in outreach ing the ways in which storytellers recruit and settings can serve as a way to bring families “in maintain participation in storytime programs, the door” of the library. This relationship car- this schematic model is well supported by the ried over into the library space may then contin- anecdotal and observational articles published ue to contribute to the “cycle of maintenance.” in the literature. For example, Hughes-Hassell et al. (2007) addressed the importance of offer- Limitations and Future Research ing storytime in the evenings and on the week- In the present study, we sought to contrib- ends in order to provide access to working-class ute to existing literature by offering a contex- families. Interestingly, Shannon acknowledged tualized account of the work that these story- the success of Marshall’s Tuesday evening and tellers did in recruiting and maintaining family Sunday storytimes, but also noted the sharp participation in storytime programming. How- contrast in program needs across the city with ever, the present study has limitations. First, less of a need for evening and weekend sto- we focused primarily on actions, insights, and rytime in some parts. She noted: “The north perceptions of the storytellers and thus inter- and the south part of [the city] are very differ- views were not conducted with the children and ent,” alluding to the well-known social class di- caregivers attending storytime events. Their in- vide. Thus, Marshall staff acknowledged and sights are instrumental in more fully under- responded to the needs of the community in standing the process of building a storytime which they serve. constituency. Second, observations were limit- The storytellers at Marshall also worked in ed to storytime programming and the time im- order to provide a nonjudgmental and cultur- mediately surrounding it. Attending outreach ally responsive space within the library. The events and other library programs for children traditional library culture of silence and rigid- could provide fruitful new data for exploration. ity was re-envisioned at Marshall as an excit- Third, qualitative studies of libraries set with- ing, community-oriented space that is welcom- in other cultural contexts, specifically those of ing of families; this is in line with the changes higher socioeconomic status, might prove use- in library programming reported by Celano and ful in better understanding the aspects of attrac- Neuman (2015). In addition, storytellers ac- tion and maintenance unique to issues of socio- knowledged the challenges that working-class economic status. Fourth, as teachers spanning families face and the difficulty of finding the the kindergarten to collegiate level, we real- time to attend storytime at the end of the long ize that our own educational experiences and day. As a result, families were welcome to ar- philosophies may have influenced our percep- rive late, bring children of all ages, and even tions of this literacy program and the actions of complete other tasks while their children partic- the storytellers. Although we attempted to de- ipated in storytime. In attending to these issues crease any potential biases by recording mem- addressed in the literature, storytellers at Mar- os and actively seeking to remain open to all shall served to nurture supportive and under- analytic possibilities, we acknowledge that it standing relationships with patrons, an impor- is impossible to completely bracket out our ex- tant step in helping families make the transition periences. Finally, although we attempted to from “drop-ins” to “regulars.” maximize the external validity or transferabili- In addition to flexible programming and ty of the present study through the use of maxi- welcoming staff, the literature also spoke of mum variation sampling and the provision rich Literacy Access Through Storytime 75 descriptions, the generalizability of this present librarians, families, and children learn simul- study is ultimately limited to the theoretical. taneously about literacy, literacy development, Due to the widespread inception of story- and one another. This free, voluntary event of- time across the nation, more research is war- fers a way to provide children with early literacy ranted regarding the potential benefits of sto- experiences to support school readiness. While rytime programs as well as further examination there is much anecdotal evidence and assump- of what is occurring in this shared space that tions regarding ways in which adults and chil- blurs the lines between public and family life. dren are attracted to attend and maintain partic- Specifically, research efforts could focus on ex- ipation in storytime, there has been a paucity of ploring the potential benefits of the partner- scientific inquiry focusing on the ways in which ship between libraries and schools in achiev- this involvement occurs. Currently, schools, ing their shared goal of fostering early literacy families, and community services are working development. While storytellers are working to tirelessly towards early literacy goals but are recruit and maintain engagement in storytime often doing so simultaneously and separately events, their reach is limited to individuals al- rather than collaboratively. The present study ready in the library, outreach events, or happen- takes a fundamental step towards a greater un- stance occurrences in the community. Schools derstanding of both the complexity and the po- offer what could be considered the ultimate out- tential benefits involved in creating long-term reach venue where the two entities may merge partnerships between families, schools, librar- in ways that extend the library doors to the ies, and other community organizations to sup- school, creating a seamless enterprise of litera- port literacy development. cy support for children in the area. Storytellers could be invited into the school space to do sto- References rytime and to build relationships with children Agar, M. H. (1996). The professional stranger: An in- and family that are pivotal to their return to sto- formal introduction to ethnography (2nd ed.). rytime. Similarly, teachers might venture into San Diego, CA: Academic Press the library space for storytime to assist in the Albright, M., Delecki, K., & Hinkle, S. (2009). The transfer of relational attachment from the teach- evolution of early literacy: A history of best prac- tices in storytimes. Children & Libraries: The er to the storyteller. Journal of the Association for Library Service to Further inquiry also could focus on find- Children, 7, 13-18. ing a balance between flexibility and structure American Library Association. (2015). Every child in storytime programming. Although signage ready to read @ your library. Retrieved from at the library explicitly stated rigid expecta- http://everychildreadytoread.org/about/. tions for storytime, in practice the storytellers Ayoub, C., O’Connor, E., Rappolt-Schlictmann, G., were flexible in regard to time, age limits, and Vallotton, C., Raikes, H., & Chazan-Cohen, R. amount of parent and child participation. This (2009). Cognitive skill performance among flexibility enabled caregivers and children in- young children living in poverty: Risk, change, creased options for storytime and it respond- and the promotive effects of early head start. ed to differences in personality styles and in- Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 289-305. Babchuk, W. A., Guetterman, T. C., & Garrett, A. L. dividual preferences. Conversely, based upon (2017). A horse of a different color: Establishing observations and in-depth interviews, structure validity and reliability in qualitative research. in terms of staff scheduling was instrumental in Proceedings of the 36st Annual Research-to-Prac- transitioning “drop-ins” to “regulars.” The con- tice Conference in Adult and Higher Education. tinuity from one week to the next allowed for Memphis, TN: University of Central Oklahoma. the creation of a culture-sharing community, as Barone, D. (2011). Welcoming families: A parent lit- could be seen in the Tuesday evening storytime. eracy project in a linguistically rich, high-pov- In addition to public libraries, other communi- erty school. Early Childhood Education Journal, ty services aimed at supporting families might 38, 377-384. gain valuable insight from this unique balance Bayliss, S. (2014). Why music matters. School Library as well. Journal, 60, 20. Becker, K. (2012). 24 hours in the children’s section: For nearly eight decades, a culture has An observational study at the public library. Ear- been developing within storytimes in which ly Childhood Education Journal, 40, 107-114. 76 Young et al.

Campana, K., Mills, J. E., Capps, J. L., Dresang, E. T., Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnogra- Carlyle, A., Metoyer, C. A., … Kotrla, B. (2016). phy: Principles in practice (3rd ed., p. 36). Lon- Early literacy in library storytimes: A study of don, UK: Routledge. measures of effectiveness. Library Quarterly, 86, Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastro- 369-388. phe. Education Review, 17, 110-118. Campbell-Hicks, R. (2016). Early literacy programmes Hughes-Hassell, S., Agosto, D. E., & Sun, X. (2007). in public libraries: Best practice. Australian Li- Making storytime available to children of work- brary Journal, 65, 121-129. ing parents: Public libraries and the schedul- Celano, D. C., & Neuman, S. B. (2001). The role of ing of children’s literacy programs. Children & public libraries in children’s literacy develop- Libraries: The Journal of the Association for Li- ment: An evaluation report. Harrisburg, PA: brary Service to Children, 5, 43-48. Pennsylvania Department of Education Office of Johnson, K. (2015). An Ohio storytime changes Commonwealth Libraries. lives. School Library Journal, 62, 12-13. Celano, D. C., & Neuman, S. B. (2015). Libraries Kahlenberg, R. D. (2003). All together now: Creat- emerging as leaders in parent engagement. Phi ing middle-class schools through public school Delta Kappan, 96, 30-35. choice. New York, NY: The Century Foundation. Colburn, N. (2013). Secrets of storytime. School Li- Kainz, K., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2007). The ecol- brary Journal, 59, 30. ogy of early reading development for children Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining in poverty. The Elementary School Journal, 107, validity in qualitative research. Theory Into Prac- 407-427. tice, 39, 124-130. Lee, J. A. C., & Al Otaiba, S. (2015). Socioeconom- Creswell, J. W., & Poth C. N. (2018). Qualitative in- ic and gender group differences in early litera- quiry and research design: Choosing among the cy skills: A multiple-group confirmatory factor five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: analysis approach. Educational Research & Eval- Sage. uation, 21, 40-59. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual brown Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic In- lecture in education Research—The flat earth quiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. and education: How America’s commitment to Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing equity will determine our future. Educational Re- qualitative research (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, searcher, 36, 318-334. CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical Martinez, G. (2007). Partnering for reading readiness: introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). A case study of Maryland public librarians. Chil- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. dren and Libraries, 5, 32-39. Dowd, F. S. (1997). Evaluating the impact of public McCune, B. (2010). Early literacy: A sustainable state- library storytime programs upon the emergent wide approach. American Libraries, 41, 42-44. literacy of preschoolers: A call for research. Pub- McKenzie, P. J., & Stooke, R. K. (2007). Producing lic Libraries, 36, 346. storytime: A collectivist analysis of work in a Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). complex communicative space. Library Quarter- Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chi- ly, 77, 3-20. cago, IL: University of Chicago Press. McKenzie, P. J., & Stooke, R. K. (2012). Making a Erickson, F. (1984). What makes school ethnogra- difference: The importance of purposes to ear- phy ‘ethnographic’? Anthropology and Educa- ly learning programs. Children and Libraries, 10, tion Quarterly, 15, 51-66. 47-52. Evans, G. W., & Rosenbaum, J. (2008). Self-regula- McNeil, H. (2014). Jump start storytime! Children & tion and the income-achievement gap. Early Libraries: The Journal of the Association for Li- Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 504-514. brary Service to Children, 12, 13-36. Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative re- Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. search: A guide to design and implementation Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an in- (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and terpretive theory of culture. The Interpretation of Sons. Cultures (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Basic Books. Morse, J. (2018). Reframing rigor in qualitative re- Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of search. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., Graham, S., & Gagnon, A. (2013). A quasi-experi- pp. 796-817). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. mental evaluation of an early literacy program Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. C. (2006). The knowl- at the Regina public library. Canadian Journal edge gap: Implications of leveling the playing of Information & Library Sciences, 37, 103-121. field for low-income and middle-income chil- dren. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 176-201. Literacy Access Through Storytime 77

Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. C. (2012). Don’t level the playing field: Tip it toward the underdogs. American Educator, 36, 20-21. Pflug, S. (2004). Storytimes to go! Godfrey award winner connects literacy and art. Public Library Quarterly, 23, 27-34. Reid, R. (2009). Family storytime. American Librar- ies, 40, 44-45. Reta, C. O., & Brady, D. (2007). Digging deep - The humanities approach to family literacy. Public Library Quarterly, 26, 61. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Bel- mont, CA: Wadsworth Group. Spradley, J. (2016). Participant observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. (Original work published 1980) Stewart, R. A., Bailey-White, S., Shaw, S., Comp- ton, E., & Ghoting, S. (2014). Enhanced story- times. Children & Libraries, 12, 9-14. Tong, X., Deacon, S. H., Cain, K., Kirby, J. R., & Parri- la, R. (2011). Morphological awareness: A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 523-534. Vera, D. (2011). Using print to increase emergent lit- eracy skills in one high-poverty urban school district. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11, 307-330. Copyright of Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research is the property of Academic Research Resources, LLC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.