Reconsidering the Hypothetical Adolescent in Evaluating and Teaching Young Adult Literature

Abstract

Evaluating young adult literature on behalf of hypothetical adolescent readers may naturalize a series of myths about who adolescents are, what they care about, and what they are capable of.W ould adolescents choose to read this book? What problems or issues could I address with this book? Would adolescents see these issues as relevant? These are questions that English language arts (ELA) teachers often ask themselves when evaluating young adult literature (YAL), defined in this article as literature marketed for a youth audience. Indeed, these are the kinds of questions that we have used to guide our own instruction in our preservice teacher education courses on YAL. These questions always seemed logical given that they urge preservice teachers to consider and take seriously the needs and desires of their future students. However, we noticed that preservice teachers' responses to these questions often seemed to evoke limited ideas about their future students. Knowing the preservice teachers in our courses to be thoughtful, insightful people, we began to wonder about the questions we were asking and how they might be shaping our students' understandings of adolescents. In this article, we turn a critical eye toward these familiar questions, considering how they might create a restrictive framework for discussing both YAL and adolescence/ts.

Doctors, Drugs, and Danger

“…The youth adaptation of Dreamland, therefore, positions youth as needing simplicity, protection, and a sense of optimism. This finding resonates with previous scholarship suggesting youth are often imagined reductively as readers and thinkers, as if they are a monolithic group with a preditable set of characteristics, thoughts, and needs (Lesko, Simmons, Uva, 2020;Sarigianides, Petrone, & Lewis, 2017;Sulzer & Thein, 2016).…”

Constructions of youth and responses to problematic authors: examining ELA teachers’ choices to select or avoid Sherman Alexie

“…Other scholars have used Lesko’s work to think critically about teaching and learning in ELA. Sulzer and Thein (2016) examined 13 pre-service teachers (PST) in a YAL course and found that “monolithic stances toward youths, while deeply embedded in the fabric of Western culture, are not simply something that preservice teachers bring to their readings of YAL.” Such stances may be unintentionally fostered by “a familiar style of questioning often used to evaluate YAL” (p. 168), which can lead to monolithic and deficit thinking. Researchers have also pointed to connections between teacher thinking and curricular decisions.…”

Imagined innocence meets lived experience

“…Research shows that many PSTs hold these same preconceived notions of youth readers: that youth fit a decontextualized, universal definition and are all the same; that they need protecting from harsh realities; and that they are incapable of having critical and productive conversations about issues of social justice (Gay and Kirkland, 2003;James, 2008;Petrone and Sarigianides, 2017;Sulzer and Thein, 2016). Given the tensions surrounding these same important topics in the adult world at large, it is not surprising that PSTs would presume incompetence in young people's enactment of democratic discussions around issues of social justice.…”