When considering how to improve early literacy outcomes in children, researchers naturally first focus on early childhood classrooms and home environments. Yet, public libraries are also an important mechanism to support early literacy skills. During storytime programming, storytime providers expose young children to critical early literacy skills, including phonological awareness, vocabulary, alphabet knowledge, and comprehension (Neuman et al., 2017). Furthermore, many public library storytime programs also indirectly promote children’s early literacy skills through teaching caregivers literacy strategies that they can implement at home (ECRR, 2023; Family Place Libraries, 2023). To achieve these aims, however, storytime providers must have sufficient training and experience to provide literacy support for both children and caregivers. Because many storytime providers lack this necessary experience and education (Simpson, 2014), these providers need professional development (PD) training to actualize the potential of public libraries to promote early literacy skills.

The purpose of PD is to align providers’ knowledge and practices to evidence-based literacy instruction as well as increase their self-efficacy about providing high quality storytime programming. Educators’ knowledge and practices have been proven, predominantly in the context of classroom research, to be critical in providing high-quality early literacy environments (Moats & Foorman, 2003; Schachter et al., 2016). In turn, teacher knowledge and practice has been positively linked to children’s literacy outcomes (e.g., Piasta, 2016; Wasik & Hindman, 2011). In educational contexts, self-efficacy is a judgment of one’s ability to achieve outcomes in children’s engagement and learning (Bandura, 1986; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Numerous studies have found relations between teachers’ self-efficacy, language and literacy practices, and improved language and literacy outcomes in both school age and preschool students (Guo, et al., 2021; Justice et al., 2008; Landry, et al., 2006; Piasta, 2016; Powell et al., 2010).

Public Library Storytime

Public libraries have a long tradition of supporting young children’s early literacy skills through storytime programming. The most prominent example is Every Child Ready to Read, a joint effort of the Public Library Association and the Association for Library Services to Children, which aims to facilitate the delivery of evidence-based storytimes in public libraries (ECRR, 2023; IMLS, 2023). Notably, storytime programs should be targeted not just towards the child but also as opportunities to model techniques that caregivers can use in the home (Hinkle, 2014). Given that public libraries already exist in so many communities, and because they have already embraced early literacy as part of their fundamental mission, the potential for them to make meaningful contributions to the early literacy landscape in their communities is immense. A public library’s mission is to serve its community at large, but they are also often perceived as safe places by vulnerable populations and their programs may lack the stigmas that can be associated with social welfare initiatives (Morgan, et al., 2016).

While storytimes have critical potential as educational programs, the nature of storytime programs is unique from traditional classroom settings. First, storytimes are voluntary programs that caregivers opt into attending because they perceive some value to themselves, the children in their care, or both. Likewise, there are no external pressures, such as a loss of tuition, that might encourage caregivers to prioritize attending beyond the intrinsic value they ascribe to the program. As a result of the voluntary nature of storytime programs, attendance is often not stable but may vary widely week-to-week. Because children may not attend on a regular basis, it is critical that storytime providers ensure that they disseminate early literacy practices to caregivers. Second, storytime programs are typically open to a wider age range of children than early childhood classrooms, with infants through preschool-age children attending the same storytime session. As a result, providers must be able to implement a range of early literacy strategies into a session to meet the developmental needs of a diverse audience. Third, there are no universally recognized required qualifications for the role of storytime provider (ALA COA, 2024; Simpson, 2014). As such, storytime providers may bring very different levels of knowledge, practice, and self-efficacy to the table. Given this, professional development (PD) is necessary in order to provide high-quality and engaging storytime programs for a diverse audience.

Professional Development for Storytime Providers

When designing PD, it is also important to recognize the unique context of storytime programs to develop content that is meaningful and feasible to storytime providers. As previously noted, compared to parents and teachers, storytime providers have the added challenges of storytime being a voluntary opt-in program with variable attendance which serves children of mixed ages alongside their caregivers (Neuman et al., 2017). In sum, to design successful PD, it is important for researchers to understand what factors influence storytime providers’ knowledge, practices, and self-efficacy. Currently, no known research on this topic exists.

Supporting Early Literacy Skills

Rich language and literacy experiences in home, classroom, and community environments promote early literacy skills. Research has demonstrated key early literacy skills, namely phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, vocabulary, comprehension/narrative skills, print awareness, and print motivation, are foundational to later literacy outcomes (e.g., NELP, 2008). For example, young children who have greater skills in phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, vocabulary, and comprehension achieve better reading outcomes in elementary school (e.g., Justice et al., 2018; Lonigan et al., 2000; NELP, 2008). Likewise, children who develop print motivation through positive relationships with reading demonstrate more engagement and perseverance when learning to read (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Toste et al., 2020). Leaders in storytime programming recommend that programs promote early literacy skills through these key evidence-based practices: shared book-reading, talking, singing, playing, and writing (Campbell-Hicks, 2016; Mills, et al., 2018; Stewart et al., 2014).

Given the strong relation between early literacy skills and later literacy outcomes, it follows that storytime providers should design programs to support these skills in children. A handful of studies have examined providers’ practices and targeted early literacy skills during library storytime programs. Neuman et al. (2017) conducted a nationwide mixed-methods study of Every Child Ready to Read in 60 libraries. The researchers found providers commonly included reading, talking, singing, and playing in their programming but rarely incorporated writing. Further, storytime providers seemed less prepared to actively teach caregivers strategies to promote children’s early literacy skills. In a smaller study of 11 New Zealand libraries, Goulding et al. (2017) found that storytime providers provided more activities to promote children’s phonological awareness, narrative skills, and developing vocabulary, while devoting less time to print awareness and alphabet knowledge. The VIEWS2 study examined early literacy skills targeted in 40 libraries and is the only large-scale study to measure the impact of storytime practice on child outcomes (Campana et al., 2016). The number of early literacy skills targeted by storytime providers was positively correlated with the number of early literacy behaviors demonstrated by children in attendance. Continuing the work of VIEWS2, Mills et al. (2018) found that storytime providers who completed a PD intervention designed to improve early literacy knowledge and practice demonstrated statistically significant increases in early literacy behaviors during their programming when compared to a control group. While this research provides evidence that early literacy behaviors demonstrated during storytime may positively impact the number of behaviors demonstrated by the storytime audience, it also reveals there are often differences in the level of support for individual early literacy skills. For example, researchers found more evidence for providers intentionally embedding practices in support of vocabulary and narrative skills than they did for writing practice and print awareness (Campana et al., 2016; Goulding et al., 2017; Neuman et al., 2017). Taken together, this research indicates that storytime providers need PD to optimize their programming.

Designing Effective Professional Development

Currently there is no universally accepted minimum qualification or credential for storytime providers, and PD provides the clearest avenue towards improving knowledge, practice, and self-efficacy in this population (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2013; Mills et al., 2018; Simpson, 2014). A robust body of extant literature indicates high quality PD improves teachers’ knowledge, practice, and self-efficacy (e.g., Justice et al., 2009; Piasta et al., 2020; Towson et al., 2023; Wasik & Hindman, 2011; Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005). Developing high-quality PD experiences for storytime providers, therefore, appears to be a logical approach towards improving knowledge, practice, and self-efficacy in that population. Professional development is most effective when it is context specific and adult learning principles indicate that adults learn best when they can easily see the connection between what they are learning and their specific setting (Knowles et al., 2005). Understanding the unique context of storytime, therefore, is key to developing optimal professional development for storytime providers.

Theoretical Framework: Social Cognitive Theory

Professional development must be thoughtfully designed and built upon what we already know about how people learn. Ertmer and Newby (2013) discuss the twofold responsibility of the instructional designer: to understand the instructional problem their design is intended to solve and to understand theories of human learning that will best provide solutions to that problem. Given our focus on enhancing storytime providers’ knowledge, practice, and self-efficacy, we selected Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) as our theoretical framework. Social Cognitive Theory is rooted in an agentic perspective and posits that individuals are self-reflecting, self-regulating, and do not merely react to external events. Further, individuals and the environment are in reciprocal determinism whereby they are continuously influencing each other. Specifically, Social Cognitive Theory argues that learning (i.e., knowledge and practice) and enhanced self-efficacy occurs through mastery and vicarious experiences, social persuasion (encouragement), and positive physical and emotional states.

Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory argues that knowledge acquisition or learning occurs as a result of mastery and vicarious experiences. Mastery experiences are when individuals are successful in achieving the outcomes that they desire, such as increasing engagement of the children in their storytime program. Vicarious experiences are when individuals see another achieve success, such as through the observation of models. SCT stresses the importance of learning through the observation of models, including live modeling (when a person is being observed in real time), symbolic modeling (when a person is being observed through a medium such as video), and verbal modeling (when a behavior is described in words). Bandura asserts that modeling resonates more when behaviors are demonstrated by someone with whom the learner identifies. Individuals also experience growth in learning and self-efficacy when they are affirmed and encouraged by others as well as feel physically and emotionally secure in their contexts.

Storytime Behind the Scenes: A New Intervention

A researcher-developed PD intervention for storytime providers, entitled Storytime Behind the Scenes (SBS), served as the backdrop to the current study. SBS focused on bolstering storytime providers’ early literacy knowledge, practice, and self-efficacy via content drawn from current research and accepted best practices in library and early childhood settings. It consisted of four online asynchronous modules that introduced six targeted early literacy skills (i.e., alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, print awareness, print motivation, vocabulary, narrative skills/comprehension) and five evidence-based practices (i.e., reading, talking, playing, singing, and writing). SBS also provided tips for engaging children, teaching caregivers, and planning storytime programs. SBS was grounded in Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). In alignment with the principles of SCT, SBS (a) systematically defined and explained the importance of evidence-based practices to teach early literacy skills, (b) included numerous videos of providers, who were diverse in age, race/ethnicity, and gender, modeling these practices, and (c) offered encouragement and provided a mastery experience through successful completion of the module activities (Bandura, 1986).

The nine storytime providers who are described in the method participated in SBS. Data were gathered from measures embedded in the SBS modules, pre- and post-interviews, and pre- and post-observations of storytime providers’ practice. Gains were found in some but not all domains of knowledge, practice, and self-efficacy. For instance, greater growth was evident in practices related to alphabet knowledge and vocabulary, whereas changes related to phonological awareness were minimal. Participants deemed the delivery and content of SBS to be feasible and acceptable. Perkins (2021) provides further details about the intervention and its effects. While findings of the study were promising, the researcher hoped to see a more uniform impact from the intervention. This led to a deeper mining of the interview data to better understand the unique context of storytime described by the study participants, as there is little literature that explores the unique PD needs of storytime providers. With an improved understanding of the storytime context, it may be possible to design more effective PD for this population.

Study Purpose

As storytime providers have a critical role in promoting early literacy skills, the field must develop effective and ecologically valid ways of training this population. There is currently a gap in the extant literature about storytime providers’ experiences that can inform PD development. The aim of the current study was to examine the contextual factors that influence storytime providers’ knowledge, practices, and self-efficacy.

Method

The current study was part of a larger mixed-methods professional development intervention study (Perkins, 2021).

Participants

We employed a purposeful selection process that sought to minimize extraneous variables and create a participant pool with specific shared characteristics (Yin, 2018). Namely, we recruited providers who were current employees of public libraries with limited to moderate (i.e., fewer than six years) of experience as storytime providers. We sought a participant group with fewer experiences within their public library settings that may have impacted their knowledge or self-efficacy. Nine storytime providers participated in the study; for individual participant characteristics, see Table 1.

Table 1 Participant demographics
Full size table

Data Sources and Procedures

The university IRB committee approved study procedures, and all participants provided informed consent prior to participating. The larger 12-week study followed a pretest, intervention, posttest design that included numerous data sources. Only the interviews provided data relevant to the current study’s aim.

The first author interviewed each storytime provider at pre- and post-intervention using the same semi-structured interview protocol, see Appendix A. The interviews lasted between 45 and 60 min and were conducted using Zoom. The interview protocol was developed using the theoretical framework of Bandara’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory which emphasizes the importance of self-efficacy, self-reflection, and self-regulation. The interview protocol was created within the context of the larger mixed-methods study that investigated the promise of a PD intervention to promote the knowledge, practice, and self-efficacy in storytime providers. The questions were developed to encourage the storytime providers to engage in self-reflection about their practices (i.e., “What did you think went well at today’s storytime) and their self-efficacy (i.e.,” I see you felt confident about ______, can you tell me why?”) as well as the factors that influenced these domains.

Analysis

Prior to coding, the recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. Coding commenced with within-case analysis, where the first author examined the transcripts from the participants’ pre- and post-interviews looking for implicit and explicit reflections upon their knowledge and practice, and self-efficacy. The first author also examined the transcripts to gain an understanding of why individuals felt higher or lower self-efficacy in specific domains. She began with first cycle coding which Saldaña (2016) describes as codes initially assigned to the data units. A priori coding was used first; this employed a deductive, provisional “start list” of codes derived from prior research. These codes were selected based upon the literature review and included terminology related to early literacy skills, evidence-based literacy practices, setting expectations for child behavior, setting expectations for caregiver behavior, communicating to caregivers, storytime structures or routines, as well as terminology related to Social Cognitive Theory and the attainment of self-efficacy (See Appendix B).

During the second and subsequent cycle coding (Saldaña, 2016) the coding process involved expanding the codes to include emergent, inductive coding that were grounded in the data to reflect the full continuum of providers’ responses and the heuristic nature of the coding process. Examples of emergent codes used during second-cycle coding included caregivers are intimidating which was used when a participant discussed feeling a lack of confidence when interacting with caregivers, or virtual vs. F2F which was used when a participant talked about how their practice differed when providing programs online versus when the programs were held in-person in the library. This was followed by axial coding that synthesized the collective and move towards consolidated meaning (Saldaña, 2016). For example, caregivers are intimidating and caregivers using phones were emergent codes that were grouped together under the axial code challenges to engaging caregivers.

The within case analysis laid the groundwork for cross-case analysis that followed. After identifying the within-case patterns, the first author looked for patterns and discrepant data across all the participants (Miles et al., 2019). During this process, codes were grouped across cases and then further reduced. For example, while some participants talked about feeling intimidated by caregivers, others described more confidence interacting with caregivers during these interactions. Initially, these two ideas were coded separately during the within case analysis, but during this phase, the two were grouped together during the cross-case analysis as a pattern representing feelings about caregiver interactions. Finally, this axial code became part of the subtheme Are Storytime Providers seen as Reassuring or Condescending?, which fell under the larger theme of How does the unique nature of storytime programming impact providers’ practice and self-efficacy?

During the coding process, the researcher wrote memos to record and reflect upon her thinking process about the data during this process. This included an examination of the preconceptions and personal or professional biases she brought to the study. The memoing process included keeping separate documents where she could trace back each step in the evolution of her coding process. The researcher also used memoing to assist with focusing on the research questions in the face of rich qualitative data.

Establishing Trustworthiness for the Qualitative Analysis

Peer debriefing is a technique used to increase the trustworthiness and credibility of qualitative research. A qualified peer researcher is given access to the original data and reviews the analysis of the primary researcher. A peer debriefer assesses whether the primary researcher has thoroughly and objectively analyzed the data, with an eye towards potential areas of bias or oversimplification. The second author acted as a peer debriefer during the analysis of these data. During the analysis phase, the second author engaged in written and spoken dialogs with the primary researcher regarding the codes, categories and themes that emerged, providing critical feedback and ensuring that the process was exhaustive and unbiased (Brantlinger et al., 2005).

Results

Because the library storytime context differs from that of homes or early childhood classrooms, it is critical to understand what factors may relate to providers’ acquisition of knowledge, practice, and self-efficacy. Two major themes and nine subthemes emerged that focused on how providers learn and the unique context of storytime.

Theme One: How Do Providers Learn?

The first theme centered on how participants learned and developed self-efficacy about early literacy practices. Four subthemes emerged: (a) impact of formal education and training, (b) influence of mentors and role-models, (c) developing practice through experimentation and mastery experiences, and (d) importance of feedback.

Formal Education and Training

Formal education in library science did not appear to contribute to knowledge about evidence-based literacy practices. The three participants with master’s degrees in library science (MLS) discussed how their MLS programs did not provide them with adequate knowledge to deliver early literacy-focused programming. Coursework lacked a focus on child development (Maria) and did not provide opportunities to design any storytime programming (Ashley). Interestingly, participants from other fields discussed the value of formal education. Blake, Jessica, and Barb referred to how their education in family studies, education, and social work respectively prepared them to create developmentally appropriate programming, including storytimes that modeled dialogic reading strategies, programs that incorporated movement, and an understanding of child development.

By contrast, participants perceived PD as offering more utility to their learning. Eight participants had completed some prior PD about storytime programming in public library settings, and these training workshops were referenced as sources of knowledge for Blake, Jessica, Ashley, Gretta, and Maria. Although not prompted by the researcher to discuss their experience in SBS, eight participants volunteered that they had gained or reinforced existing knowledge through completing SBS. Isabella, Hannah, and Gretta mentioned learning new ways to communicate with caregivers. Jane and Blake talked about how they were already implementing some practices, but they did not have the “jargon” and did not understand why it was important until they completed SBS. At post-intervention, Ashley indicated that SBS helped her be more intentional, saying, “I really did try to focus more on being intentional and having reasons for the things I was doing rather than just picking songs that I felt like singing.”

Additionally, seven participants noted that participating in the SBS intervention increased their self-efficacy. Hannah and Ashley specifically noted the SBS videos as a good source of confidence. These gains in self-efficacy are encouraging because higher self-efficacy is associated with higher quality instructional literacy environments and gains in early literacy skills (Guo et al., 2010, 2021).

Mentors and Role-Models

Most participants pointed to the helpfulness of observing mentors and role-models, aligning with the importance of modeling in Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory. Six participants reported observing programs led by a supervisor/predecessor and modeling their own practice from those observations. Ashley, who had limited experience with storytimes before beginning her first storytime provider position, said she watched her colleagues “for the first month because I had really no idea exactly what the components were.” Models also occurred outside of immediate work context. Participants referenced finding models in PD, through online resources, and contact with other professionals. For example, Jane described how watching occupational and speech therapists working with her own child gave her ideas for working with children during library programs. Although most participants discussed positive modeling experiences, one participant, Hannah, noted that not every storytime provider has access to good mentors: “When my director was doing it…for her it was just like, reading the books and that was it.” The ability to apply content to practice is a cornerstone in adult learning, and modeling is a useful way to scaffold the import of new content into existing contexts (Knowles et al., 2005). Through modelling (e.g., videos of individuals practicing in library contexts), professional development can demonstrate the application of early literacy content to storytime practice.

Experimentation and Mastery Experiences

All participants referred to developing their practice through a process of self-teaching and experimentation. In both her pre- and post-interviews, Jane used the phrase “trial and error” several times, largely in reference to keeping her audience engaged. Isabella admitted that experimentation can be intimidating, but she has learned not to “freak out” when something goes wrong. Bandura (1997) suggests that these kinds of mastery experiences, when an individual takes on a new challenge, perseveres through hurdles, and ultimately finds success, are key to self-efficacy.

Jane, Barb, and Hannah indicated that they developed their practice outside the library context, such as through interactions with their own children or young family members. For instance, Jane described “experimenting” on her own kids and feeling confident that if her own children respond positively to something, then the larger group would enjoy it. In contrast, Maria and Ashley, who appeared to be among the youngest participants, identified their age and the fact that they were not parents as concerns. They both voiced anxieties around whether caregivers would resent advice delivered by them. They also worried that the caregivers would feel their own expertise was being questioned if a younger person, who themselves was not a parent, provided instruction. Ashley was asked by caregivers if she has children, and she wondered whether she was considered as a legitimate source of information for caregivers because she was not a parent; “It’s a little harder and it seems more preachy if it’s coming from someone who’s not a parent, who’s younger, who hasn’t experienced any of those things.”

Importance of Feedback

When developing programs through experimentation, the participants relied on feedback from a variety of sources, including children, caregivers, and mentors. For instance, Isabella described watching for “body language” from young children, while Jane, Maria, and Ashley talked about adjusting their programs if they noticed that children are not responding to a particular book or activity. None of the participants had formal mechanisms in place to collect feedback from caregivers, but several shared anecdotes about receiving spontaneous feedback. Blake and Jessica both described situations in which caregivers shared acting upon something modeled during a program and expressed appreciation to the storytime provider. Several participants mentioned the key role that mentor feedback plays in developing their programs. Jessica specifically noted a desire for more professional feedback, arguing that it is difficult to improve practice without feedback. After completing SBS, Gretta received positive feedback from her supervisor regarding her inclusion of more phonological awareness activities, and she noted her sense of satisfaction.

This study confirmed that practicing storytime providers perceive professional development as being beneficial to improving their knowledge, practices, and self-efficacy. Unprompted in the post-intervention interviews, eight participants described how SBS had a positive impact on their knowledge, indicating that the providers valued the PD. This highlights the importance of accessible PD, as storytime providers may otherwise rely on trial and error, or on modeling from mentors who themselves may not be aware of best practices.

Theme Two: How Does the Unique Nature of Storytime Programming Impact Providers’ Practice and Self-Efficacy?

Participants shared several conditions that differentiate public library storytime programs from formal early childhood classroom environments and how the unique nature of storytime programs impacts their practice and self-efficacy. Five subthemes emerged: (a) voluntary nature of storytime programming, (b) balance between education and entertainment, (c) whether the primary audience is children or caregivers, (d) concerns about how caregivers perceive communication, and (e) how the informal, mixed-age audience influences programming.

Storytime is Voluntary

Many participants alluded, both directly and indirectly, to the voluntary nature of storytimes and how that impacts their decisions when designing programs; they noted that programs must be fun and engaging to ensure participants will continue to attend. Blake expressed her worry that if people had a negative experience, they might not return, saying, “I don’t want it to be a horrible experience… then [they] never come back.” Gretta acknowledged the scrutinization of attendance statistics to justify continuing the programs. She shared that her programming “does feel driven by how many [are in attendance].”

Should Providers Prioritize Education or Entertainment?

All the participants talked about how storytime must be entertaining to retain an audience, thus establishing a friction between the need to provide entertaining programs and the goal of creating educational content. Comments by several participants revealed a perceived dichotomy between school as a structured educational environment and storytime as a fun setting with more flexibility. Maria said, “Sometimes kids will be like, ‘Can we do this instead?’ I’m like, ‘Yeah, sure I don’t care.’ It’s a library…This isn’t a classroom.” Barb drew upon her own school experiences and contrasted it with what she hopes to achieve during storytime: “I did not have a great school experience…I don’t want kids to have that kind of experience…I want them to feel reading is fun. Learning is fun.”

Hannah, Barb, Blake, and Jane all confessed to feeling competitive with other storytime providers and worrying that they could lose their audiences to programs that are deemed more entertaining or less restrictive. Blake shared, “I have had caregivers tell me that they’re members of other libraries and stuff, and they come to ours for storytime. So that does make me feel good.” Taken together, these perspectives indicate that storytime providers may believe that they are valued by their communities for providing entertaining, rather than educational, content.

Is Storytime for Children or Caregivers?

While several storytime providers recognized the importance of engaging both caregivers and children, most participants prioritized children. During the pre-intervention interviews, only two participants indicated that they considered caregivers when developing their programs. Jessica, who had extensive training as an early literacy educator before entering library contexts, explicitly noted that one of her goals was to model for caregivers. She explained, “They’re coming to me once or twice a week. They’re home with their family lots more, so there’s more opportunities for the family to have a bigger impact.” Gretta and Ashley recognized that while caregivers should be considered, they believed they often needed to choose between the two audiences. Ashley noted “I feel like I usually err on the side of gearing it more towards the kids than the parents.” Blake and Maria also described caregivers as a secondary audience. Of the providers who described this tension, only Isabella described herself as focusing primarily on the parents, perhaps because she often works with infants and toddlers who are more reliant on caregivers than preschool-aged children. The remaining three providers did not talk about having goals for caregivers. In the most extreme case, Barb described encouraging caregivers to leave programs. “It gives mom a break especially if the child is not shy and is willing to engage with other kids.”

During the post-intervention interviews, all participants discussed the importance of engaging caregivers, even if they were not yet confident in how best to do so. Maria talked about wanting caregivers to “realize that storytime is important and I’m not just reading to their kids. I’m trying to teach them, the kids and the adults, different strategies.” Four participants explicitly noted the positive influence of SBS in this area. Gretta and Hannah described how SBS encouraged them to think about ways to effectively communicate with caregivers. Ashley and Jane described feeling more comfortable with the idea of engaging directly with caregivers after completing SBS.

Reassuring or Condescending?

Caregivers are key to successful storytimes in that they are (a) responsible for attendance and (b) best suited to carry out the modeled early literacy strategies at home where their impact may be amplified. Blake and Jessica talked about how communicating with caregivers about child development and early literacy skills can be seen as reassuring, and Jessica hoped she could help parents “to stop worrying about” typical child behaviors. This empathy was echoed by Maria who pointed out that early literacy skills and school readiness information can overwhelm caregivers, and she has “to reassure them” and encourage them to “just do your best.” However, three providers worried that they might make caregivers uncomfortable or be perceived as patronizing. For instance, Jane said she was concerned about “offending a parent” or being perceived as “talking down to them.”

Mixed-Ages

Many storytimes have mixed-age groups as audiences, presenting challenges to providers who are attempting to design developmentally appropriate programs. Many public libraries attempt to group children by age; for example, a library may advertise separate programs for infants birth-18 months, toddler programs for 18 months-3 years, and preschool programs for children who are 4–5 years old. Not all libraries strictly enforce these categories, however, and many allow older and younger siblings to attend programs, resulting in audiences that may range from infants to early elementary aged children.

While all participants indicated their programs are advertised and targeted to specific age ranges, none actively enforced a policy limiting participation based on age. Six participants talked about adjusting their programs to be more accommodating of mixed ages, such as using books that appeal to wide age-ranges and providing activities that can be modified for older children. For example, Ashley noted how the same song or activity can be modified to accommodate developmental differences: “If you have a baby…you can clap their hands, you can tap their foot, you can bend their knees. And then they can participate. But an older child watching can actually physically stand up and clap, tap, and bend.” Despite this willingness to be flexible, four participants mentioned that mixed ages present challenges to designing educational programs. Jane pointed out “It’s harder I think, to then determine how to make it a little more of a learning experience.”

Discussion

The goal of offering high-quality early literacy programs in public libraries crucially depends on understanding how to successfully train storytime providers. Findings from this study revealed compelling themes about how providers learn and the important role of self-efficacy. The findings identified many of the challenges within the unique context of public library storytime, including the perceived dichotomy of education vs. entertainment, designing programs for mixed-age groups, and engaging caregivers. These findings also provide important insight for developing future successful PD for this population.

Learning and Self-Efficacy through Professional Development

The participants in this study indicated that they valued the experience of participating in an early literacy storytime PD, and they recognized that they were able to apply new knowledge to their practice after learning early literacy content and observing models who demonstrated best-practices in a library storytime context. Further, they described increased self-efficacy and confidence in their abilities to design and deliver programs in support of early literacy. Participants noted that in the absence of PD they instead relied on trial and error and observations of mentors and role-models who themselves had not been effectively trained in best practices. Together these findings indicate that PD specifically designed for public library storytime providers may be an effective way to improve practice and self-efficacy.

Research that focuses on in-home or traditional classroom settings may not consider broader contextual elements unique to storytime programs. Likewise, existing PD that was not created with the reality of public library storytime contexts in mind may not address some of the conditions that are unique to public library settings. Effective PD for this population, therefore, should center the public library setting to best facilitate bringing learning into practice specifically within the library context, in alignment with adult learning principles (Knowles et al., 2005).

Education vs. Entertainment

Unlike in-home settings and traditional classrooms, public libraries must attract a voluntary audience. While storytime is highly accessible, the fact that it is typically free means there is no transactional incentive (i.e., investment of tuition or fees) to remain in a program. Simultaneously, program attendance numbers are often used to justify the continued support for the programs’ budgets and staff. There is, therefore, tremendous pressure on storytime providers to deliver programs that caregivers will choose to attend. The participants in this study indicated this creates an incentive to prioritize programs that are entertaining, perhaps at the expense of programs that are educational. It is understandable why storytime programmers may perceive this false dichotomy. Yet, learning can happen in ways that are engaging and entertaining. For example, the SBS intervention provided multiple examples of rhyming songs and fingerplays, skywriting letters, dynamic read-alouds, and letter-identifying games; all these activities engage audiences while also reflecting best-practices for early literacy. PD for this population must, therefore, acknowledge that attracting and maintaining an audience is essential to effective storytime programs, and provide reassurance and support to storytime providers who are seeking to balance fun and learning.

Mixed-Age Groups

While some libraries do enforce age-restrictions on programs, many do not, which can result in attendance by children with a very wide range of skills. There are benefits to grouping children by developmental level, as is done in most traditional classroom settings. Yet, there may also be benefits that occur when children observe others who are at different developmental stages (Foster et al., 2020; Sarigoz & Deveci, 2023). Since mixed-age groupings in many public libraries are a reality, PD for storytime providers should offer strategies to differentiate and modify activities depending on the age-range and developmental capabilities of children in attendance during a given session. For example, while a younger child may be guided through the motions of a fingerplay by a caregiver, an older child may participate independently, act as a model for the group or a sibling, or be given a toy to manipulate through the movements.

Engaging Caregivers During Storytime

The results of this study emphasize the importance of storytime providers having the confidence and skills to communicate early learning skills to caregivers. In an early childhood classroom, the primary audience is a relatively stable population of children who are similar in age. During a storytime, the focus of the program is split between engaging the children and modeling early literacy practices for the caregivers. Existing PD programs, including Every Child Ready to Read, Family Place Libraries, and Supercharged Storytimes, all describe caregiver engagement and education as a central priority of early literacy storytime programming. These programs tacitly acknowledge that storytime programs alone may be too inconsistent to produce measurable outcomes in children, although the VIEWS2 research has shown some promise in this area (Campana et al., 2016). Instead, the efforts focus on modeling best practices for caregivers and actively encouraging caregivers to bring these practices into their homes.

The ability to effectively educate caregivers without appearing condescending was identified by study participants as a difficult balance to achieve. Neuman et al. (2017) contended that storytime providers lack training in early childhood education and child development which leads to a lack of confidence. Several participants in the current study attested to their MLS training lacking these components as well. Further, recent research shows that parents may not prioritize their own learning when they decide to attend storytime programming. In a survey of over 300 caregivers, Cahill et al. (2020) found that only 2.9% of respondents indicated they attend to learn early literacy tips to support their children, whereas 24.5% and 23.3% attend because their child enjoys the programs or because it provides opportunities for their child to interact with other children, respectively. These findings illustrate a need to increase efforts to train providers to effectively communicate with caregivers about the importance of early literacy.

Implications

PD may be a feasible route to promote high-quality programming in public libraries. Future PD for storytime providers must consider and explicitly address the unique context of storytime because contextual elements influence practice (Knowles et al., 2005). PD for storytime providers should acknowledge that the role of the storytime provider differs from that of a traditional early childhood teacher. Key variables that differentiate storytime from a classroom include simultaneously engaging children and caregivers in a single audience, mixed-age groups, and voluntary participation.

During the interviews, all nine of the participants talked about how storytime has to be entertaining in order to attract and retain an audience. Several participants discussed the perceived dichotomy between school as a structured educational environment and storytime as a fun setting that provides more flexibility to the storytime provider and the audience. Maria and Ashley specifically contrasted storytime with classroom environments in terms of the freedom that library storytime allows and discussed prioritizing the children’s enjoyment over educational goals. Gretta, another participant, explicitly captured the tension by stating, “Well, this isn’t school so we’re not going to do phonics and that kind of thing. And maybe I’ll just leave that to the teachers.’” Providers expressed concerns that that they would not attract a large enough audience to justify continuing their programs if they were not sufficiently entertaining to satisfy the children and caregivers. These findings revealed that providers have created a problematic false dichotomy whereby they must design programs that prioritize entertainment at the cost of education. These concerns should be explicitly addressed, and not minimized, in PD through providing specific strategies that are both educational and fun.

It is possible to address the unique environment of storytime through context-specific practices. When working with mixed-aged groups, storytime providers can demonstrate how the same song or fingerplay can be modified to be a lapsit activity or a full-body movement activity depending on the development of the child. Going one step further, the provider can supply dolls or stuffed animals and encourage the older children to help teach the songs to the toy or even to their younger siblings. When reading aloud, the provider can model various ways to talk about the same book; on one page, the provider can encourage a younger child to speak a single targeted vocabulary word, while on another, the provider could ask an older child to predict what might happen next in the story.

The storytime provider can use the unique storytime context to model how any environment can provide engaging opportunities to develop early literacy skills. The provider can demonstrate how to bolster letter awareness, writing, and vocabulary skills by taking a “letter scavenger hunt” through the library space and pointing out letters on signs and posters, “skywriting” letters, and encouraging play-based or art activities after the formal program that incorporate newly introduced vocabulary. Storytime providers can also encourage dialogic reading practices and the associated gains in narrative awareness by modeling to caregivers how to engage children in conversations about the words that appear in shared books and songs. To reinforce vocabulary, they can encourage children to offer suggestions for words or concepts to incorporate into songs and rhymes (i.e., animals for Old McDonald’s Farm) while explaining to caregivers the importance of asking children to provide the words themselves. Storytime providers can also emphasize to caregivers that singing is a powerful way to help children listen for differences in the sounds of words, thereby developing their phonological awareness. Finally, storytime providers can remind both the children and the caregivers that learning is fun by explicitly noting the educational value of the activities embedded in each storytime program as they are sharing them and sending caregivers home with resources to help them carry more early literacy strategies into their home environments.

Limitations

This was a small-scale study with a sample of nine participants. Any attempt to generalize these findings to a larger population should be done with caution, although the participants in this study did represent various levels of background experience and education which strengthens external validity.

Future Research

The findings suggest the need to explore what caregivers hope to gain from attending storytime. Several emergent themes suggest that storytime providers are planning programs based upon their assumptions about what caregivers value. This was particularly evident in the conversations around how storytime is a voluntary experience and families will only attend if the program is fun or entertaining. Future research should examine these questions through caregiver interviews or focus groups.

Conclusion

Public libraries, already situated in most communities in the United States and with an established commitment to supporting literacy, are logical sites for early literacy outreach. Yet research regarding how to best prepare individuals to support early literacy in young children remains primarily centered on in-home and traditional classroom settings. This study illuminated the need for accessible PD to prepare storytime providers who will then be able to design and implement effective storytime programs that intentionally embed best practices for early literacy. This PD must center the unique context of the public library setting to facilitate the implementation of context-specific practices that align with the new knowledge gained by the storytime provider. These considerations, distinct to public library settings, include the need to balance education with entertainment to attract and maintain an audience, the often mixed-age nature of the audience, and, perhaps most importantly, ways to engage with caregivers comfortably and effectively.