Teaching about and with Informational Texts

page
Research and Policy
441
Teaching about and with
Informational Texts: What
Does Research Teach Us?
Beth Maloch and Randy Bomer
T
his column, overall, is always about
research and policy. In this issue, however,
we focus on some of what research has had
to say about a particular area of instruction—teaching children about informational texts—because
of recent developments in curriculum policy. The
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and other
state standards (such as those in Texas) purport to
prepare students for college and career, and in that
pursuit, they insist that young children focus more
heavily on informational texts than they have done
in the past. Teachers need to know more about the
ways readers interact with texts that intend to teach
about the world and more about the kinds of teaching that have been shown to support those interactions. With new assessments designed to hold children, teachers, and schools accountable for what
children learn to do with these kinds of texts, we
can expect a huge industry to develop around products and services that advertise themselves as holding the secrets to success. When policy raises the
stakes and creates anxiety among administrators
and teachers, one starts to see snake oil being sold
as a cure-all on every corner. Now might be a good
time to pause and consider some of the evidence.
Teaching innovations generally do not come
from research because real innovation can only be
carried out through teaching that actually exists, not
on teaching that might come to be or that introduces
something brand new into the world. Not all good
teaching has been the subject of peer-reviewed
research, to be sure. But published research can
help teachers concentrate on the kinds of evidence,
the kinds of systematic inquiry that ultimately
should inform the ways we test one set of claims
against another. And conversations around research
can also be helpful in cueing us to ask questions
about why we predict a particular set of conditions,
strategies, or procedures would produce a particular
kind of thinking, knowing, interaction, or lives for
children as they mature.
In a previous column (Maloch & Bomer, 2013),
we worked through some of the varying (and shifting) names and definitions that researchers have
used for informational texts, as well as the terms
used by standards authors. We argued that unclear
terms and definitions cause trouble for teachers
and other educators and that it is important to be as
clear as possible about how we are defining informational texts and what boundaries we are setting
for the work we review. Here, we use Duke’s (2000)
definition of informational texts—“text written
with the primary purpose of conveying information about the natural and social world (typically
from someone presumed to be more knowledgeable on the subject to someone presumed to be less
so) and having particular text features to accomplish this purpose” (p. 205)—and review primarily the research that considers informational texts,
as defined in this way. We also focus here on the
research that has been done specifically within early
schooling contexts; for now, we must leave some
important research on disciplinary literacies in the
background, though we think readers would profit
from giving that research some attention. (See, for
example, Moje, Ciechanowski, Kramer, Ellis, Carrillo, & Collazo, 2004; Shanahan & Shanahan,
2008; Shanahan, Shanahan, & Misischia, 2011.)
What we will foreground in the rest of this column is a set of imperatives that have been derived
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
Copyright © 2013 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
July2013_LA.indd 441
6/5/13 8:51 AM
R esearc h an d P o licy | What Does Research Teach Us?
page
442
from research on teaching informational text: make
the texts available and accessible; create authentic opportunities for engagement; engage students
through interactive read-alouds and discussion; and
be explicit in instruction when necessary.
Throughout most of the research on teaching
informational text, a common assumption is that
children will be writing their own informational
texts while they are also reading informational
texts to learn about their topics. That means that the
lines that traditionally separate reading and writing
instruction disappear—evidence of content learning appears in new writIt is clear that one important ing, and that same writing
reveals students’ readerly
(perhaps the most important)
awareness of the strucstep in growing young children’s tures and strategies by
which texts convey inforknowledge, understanding, and
mation to readers. In most
use of informational texts is of the classrooms from
which data are drawn in
making these texts available and
these studies, it is already
accessible to them. understood that reading
and writing are mutually
supportive learning processes that progress atop a
supportive environment of talk, problem solving,
and intellectual negotiation with peers and teacher.
Perhaps even more than is the case with narrative or
poetic writing, environments that support constructing knowledge with informational texts involve
integrating modes of language and literacy, thus
employing every possible tool of thinking, learning,
sharing, and crafting.
Make Informational Texts Available
and Accessible
Over twenty years ago, Pappas (1991) reasoned
that educators should foster “full access to literacy”
by including information books in their classroom
libraries. She went on to argue against a then-common assumption in literacy development that narrative or story was “primary” for young children—
that is, that “children’s abilities to understand and
compose stories precede their capabilities to understand and use non-story, informational written language” (Pappas, 1993, p. 97). Her argument, along
with those of Meek (1988) and others, helped to
advance a shift in the field, one that viewed young
children as quite capable of learning the structures
of informational writing when given access to the
texts themselves.
A few years later, Kamberelis (1998, 1999)
found that children in kindergarten and first and
second grades make decisions as authors that
reflect their literary diets and reading experiences.
Specifically, in his study of 54 young children, he
found that students knew considerably more about
narrative genres than informational genres. This
difference, he argued, was in part due to students
being exposed to far more narrative discourse and
meta-discourse than to other kinds of discourse. He
argued that these findings suggested “a strong relationship between children’s literacy diets and their
genre knowledge” (p. 7).
From these studies and many others, it is
clear that one important (perhaps the most important) step in growing young children’s knowledge,
understanding, and use of informational texts is
making these texts available and accessible to them.
Recommendations vary in terms of just how many
texts to provide and how to balance these with other
genres, and no research has definitively settled the
question. For example, Moss and her colleagues
(Moss, Leone, & Dipillo, 1997) suggest that 25%–
50% of the texts in a classroom should be informational. The CCSS recommend that fully half of the
texts made available to children be informational in
nature.
It’s hard to know what the exact number should
be, but it is clear that educators should work to balance their story offerings with informational ones.
As we described in our previous column, informational texts are much less common in primary classrooms than are stories (e.g., Duke, 2000; Moss,
2008), although there are indications that teachers
are beginning to incorporate more informational
texts in their classrooms (Jeong, Gaffney, & Choi,
2010). In addition to larger-scale studies like Jeong
et al. (2010) that collect data across a range of classrooms, a growing number of case studies provide
descriptive and interpretive portraits of how individual teachers are integrating informational texts
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
July2013_LA.indd 442
6/5/13 8:51 AM
R esearc h an d P o licy | What Does Research Teach Us?
page
in their classrooms (see, for example, Bradley &
Donovan, 2010; Maloch, 2008; Maloch & Zapata,
2011).
These studies, along with others (Donovan &
Smolkin, 2002; Pappas, 2006; Smolkin, McTigue,
Donovan, & Coleman, 2009), suggest that in addition to increasing the quantity of informational
texts in classrooms, it is also important to consider
the qualities of those texts. In other words, as educators, we should pay attention to what texts we put
in front of children. Saul and Dieckman (2005), for
example, argue for the importance of text selection
in elementary classrooms and suggest that as teachers select trade books for use in their classrooms,
they should examine the texts along three dimensions: the content, the quality of the writing, and
the design.
With teachers’ text selection in mind, Pappas
(2006) set out to better understand the trade books
offered to children during science instruction. She
analyzed approximately 400 information books
to identify critical/common features of information books as well as the dimensions along which
information books may vary. Her results, which
we review in more detail in our previous column
(Maloch & Bomer, 2013), lay out defining elements
present in what she called “typical” information
books. Books that do not have the required elements she identified as “atypical”; these included
hybrid texts with both narrative and expository
structures (and fiction and nonfiction elements).
In their analysis of information books, Donovan
and Smolkin (2002) call these hybrid texts “dual
purpose” (books characterized by at least two purposes—to tell a story and to present information).
Pappas (2006) and Donovan and Smolkin (2002)
recommend that teachers read and make available
to students “typical” information books more often
than “atypical” or “hybrid texts” (although they are
open to the integration of hybrid texts in elementary
classrooms). Their caution is that students should
have regular access to high-quality informational
texts that represent typical examples of informational genres. This argument makes sense given the
research indicating that comprehension is genrespecific (Duke & Roberts, 2010). In other words,
the strategies readers employ to move through and
make sense of texts are specific to the kinds or types
of texts they are negotiating. That idea, along with
the idea that children learn what they are exposed
to, indicates that we need to pay attention to providing high-quality informational texts that represent
the genres we want kids to learn.
443
Create Authentic Opportunities
for Engagement
The first step, then, to growing children’s understandings of informational texts is to make these
texts available in classrooms and pay attention to
the qualities and structures of those texts. Also clear
in the research is the importance of engaging students in authentic reading and writing of such texts.
In a significant study conducted by Purcell-Gates,
Duke, and Martineau (2007), researchers found that
second graders’ growth and performance with informational texts was strongly related to the degree to
which teachers provided students with authentic
opportunities to engage with informational texts. In
their study of 420 second and third graders, PurcellGates et al. (2007) focused on students’ reading and
writing of informational texts and procedural texts.
Assessing students’ learning of these kinds of texts
using multiple outcome measures, Purcell-Gates et
al. (2007) found that providing students with realworld reasons for engaging with informational texts
was the most significant factor in improving their
reading and writing of these texts. It is interesting
to note that explicit teaching about how to approach
such texts showed almost no significant impact.
These researchers defined “authentic literacy
activity” as:
a) reading and writing of textual types, or genres, that
occur outside of a learning-to-read-and-write context
and purpose, and b) reading and writing those texts for
the purposes for which they are read or written outside
of a learning-to-read-and-write context and purpose
(p. 14).
Examples of authentic literacy activities include
reading a newspaper article about something the
child is interested in, composing fliers to advertise an event for the community, or reading across
multiple texts to inform their own questions. These
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
July2013_LA.indd 443
6/5/13 8:51 AM
R esearc h an d P o licy | What Does Research Teach Us?
page
444
kinds of activities stand in contrast to ones that are
driven by “school-only” purposes, such as spelling
tests, short passages with comprehension questions,
and test preparation activities.
Is it really so surprising that when children are
engaged with texts for real purposes that their reading and writing of such texts improve? In fact, we
know from other research (Caswell & Duke, 1998;
Dreher, 2003; Guthrie et al., 2009) that young children are often motivated by informational texts,
and their inclusion inside classrooms can be quite
engaging to children. The work of Guthrie and colleagues with CORI—Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction—demonstrated the power of teaching
practices directed toward fostering motivation and
engagement. In CORI, teachers engage students
in reading and writing
Is it really so surprising that of informational texts in
combination with handswhen children are engaged with
on activities, all related
texts for real purposes that their to one central conceptual theme. Other recent
reading and writing of such
research into the integratexts improve? tion of science and literacy similarly investigates the value of centering children’s reading and
writing around inquiry into topics of interest to the
children (e.g., Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010;
Varelas & Pappas, 2013).
Engage Students through
Interactive Read-Alouds
and Discussion
A third theme in the research on informational texts
is the value of engaging young children in interactive read-alouds and discussions of these texts. As
we have discussed in a previous column (Maloch
& Bomer, 2012), engaging students of any age in
sustained, productive discussion can lead to growth
in comprehension, engagement, and content learning. The work in the area of informational texts has
particularly highlighted the benefits of interactive
read-alouds with young children.
The phrase interactive read-aloud was coined by
Barrentine (1996), who described interactive readalouds as instructional conversations in which the
teacher poses questions throughout the reading “that
enhance meaning construction and also show how
one makes sense of text” (p. 36). Interactive readalouds are an attempt to move away from a centralized model of discussion in which the teacher asks
the questions and responds or evaluates the students’
answers. Instead, in these conversations, students
spontaneously offer up their own responses, observations, and questions (Maloch & Beutel, 2010). While
the teachers maintain an active role in these discussions, students are encouraged to verbally interact
with the text, their peers, and the teacher as they
work to construct meaning with a shared text.
Oyler (1996; Oyler & Barry, 1996), for example, studied a teacher implementing interactive
read-alouds of informational texts and reported
a heightened level of student engagement. She
reported on the ways students spontaneously shared
their observations, questions, and suggestions during the discussions and how they engaged in meaning making in dialogue with one another. Oyler’s
research, along with others (Maloch & Beutel,
2010; Smolkin & Donovan, 2001), exposes the
comprehension and response work that young children are capable of when engaged by their teachers in active discussion around informational texts.
One potential in these kinds of conversations is the
way in which students’ and teacher’s comprehension and response processes might be “laid bare”
in the conversation (Barrentine, 1996; Oyler, 1996;
Sipe, 2000). That is, as students and teacher openly
discuss their responses and sense making, students’
reasoning and comprehension work often becomes
visible to their peers.
Students also learn about text from these discussions. In a study of kindergartners, for example, Duke and Kays (1998) found that, after three
months of almost daily read-alouds of informational
books, the students showed more skill with the distinct linguistic features of information books. These
researchers concluded that informational book
read-alouds resulted in “fast-developing knowledge
of information book language” (p. 295). Similarly,
in Bradley & Donovan (2010), researchers report
a case study of a second-grade teacher working to
integrate more informational texts in her classroom.
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
July2013_LA.indd 444
6/5/13 8:51 AM
R esearc h an d P o licy | What Does Research Teach Us?
page
In a three-week focus study on weather, the teacher
incorporated focused read-alouds of information
books that included discussions of genre elements,
features, and organization. Over time, the researchers found that students’ use of genre elements was
greater and their writing was more focused. Bradley
and Donovan (2010) argue that their work supports
the use of model texts as important scaffolds for
writing instruction and “the repeated exploration of
model texts to discuss the elements and features of
typical information books” (p. 258).
Overall, research suggests that primary-grade
children respond well to read-alouds of informational books, learning genre knowledge (Kamberelis, 1998; Tower, 2002), making intertextual connections (Oyler & Barry, 1996; Maloch & Beutel,
2010), building comprehension (Smolkin & Donovan, 2001), and building their content learning
(Heisey & Kucan, 2011).
Be Explicit When Necessary
The final theme we will discuss is the role of explicit
instruction in relation to work with informational
texts. To be sure, the term “explicit” can be defined
in different ways. On the one hand, explicit means
being clear—being precise in explaining what
something means or how something works. Clarity,
though, is a function not just of a teacher’s language,
but of students’ transactions with that language
(Bomer, 1998). Most studies of informational text
learning do include descriptions of teaching that
are in some way explicit about text features, structures, and/or strategies. On the other hand, “explicit
instruction” has become a phrase that points toward
very particular notions of direct instruction. The
research in the area of primary classrooms and informational texts is mixed when it comes to the value
of explicit instruction, and that certainly should
make us question assertions that explicit instruction
is the one necessary ingredient for informational
text comprehension and composing.
Explicit prescriptions about textual features,
without access to the texts themselves or the
authentic conditions under which they are produced, would hardly be a rich environment for
learning. And at least some research (Purcell-Gates,
445
et al., 2007) seems to indicate that teachers’ words
may not be doing nearly as much as many people
assume they are. Still, few would argue against
teachers being as clear as possible in supporting
young readers and writers in developing their reading and writing of informational texts. We saved
this theme for last because being explicit in one’s
instruction only makes sense as contextualized by
and situated within the earlier themes.
A few studies have investigated the efficacy of
explicit instruction in regard to informational texts
and with primary-aged students (third grade or
lower). The work of Williams and colleagues (Williams, 2005; Williams et al., 2005), for example,
demonstrated that direct/explicit instruction in text
structures (e.g., compare/contrast) can lead to better understanding of that particular text structure
in new texts (students did
The research in the area
not demonstrate transfer
to other text structures).
of primary classrooms and
Other than this work, we
informational texts is mixed
know of no research that
examines the impact of
when it comes to the value of
explicit instruction of text
explicit instruction.
structure in the primary
grades, although other
work has been done within the context of upper
elementary grades and middle school (see Martin
& Duke, 2011, for a review of studies done with
students with reading difficulties).
Beyond the teaching of text structure, being
explicit about comprehension strategies has also
received attention from researchers. However,
only a small subset of work in explicit comprehension instruction has targeted primary grades
and expository text. One study was conducted by
Reutzel, Smith, and Fawson (2005) who compared
single-strategy instruction with multiple-strategy
instruction of informational text with second graders. Although they found no statistically significant differences, the multiple-strategy instruction
group scored higher on some measures, leading
the researchers to conclude that multiple-strategy
instruction presented a “clear added value” (p. 298).
Teaching sets of comprehension strategies—
what some refer to as multiple-strategy instruction
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
July2013_LA.indd 445
6/5/13 8:51 AM
R esearc h an d P o licy | What Does Research Teach Us?
page
446
(e.g., Reciprocal Teaching)—seems to hold promise
for elementary students, as seen in the Reutzel et al.
(2005) study, although we must remember that the
research is limited in the area of expository texts and
early elementary settings. One of the interventions
that shows positive academic (and motivational) outcomes for younger students
The mixed results on explicitness (they include third graders
about text-structure and reading- along with fifth graders in
their study) is Conceptstrategy instruction suggest Oriented Reading Instructhat explicit instruction is tion (CORI) (Guthrie,
Wigfield, & Perencevich,
only warranted as a part of a 2004; Guthrie et al., 2009).
broader approach. Notably, CORI includes
comprehension
strategy
instruction as a part of a comprehensive approach—
an approach centered on inquiry and investigation.
The CORI intervention, then, is not just about strategy
instruction; it’s about embedding students’ work with
informational texts in larger questions of interest.
Another important study in the area of explicit
instruction is Purcell-Gates et al. (2007). This
study, as we mentioned earlier, demonstrated the
significance of engaging students in authentic literacy activities in order to further students’ growth in
informational text comprehension and writing. The
researchers also found that students in the classes
assigned to the explicit teaching group did not show
significant growth over two years of the study. This
finding suggests that explicit instruction, on its
own, is not the answer to learning about informational texts. Moreover, the study found that those
students for whom explicit instruction is most often
prescribed—low-income or minority students—did
not benefit from more explicitness. Though this is
only one study, it is rare in its quality, scale, and
careful execution, and as such is a research project
whose findings deserve careful consideration.
The mixed results on explicitness about textstructure and reading-strategy instruction suggest
that explicit instruction is only warranted as a part
of a broader approach. One of us (Maloch, 2008),
for example, has previously documented the teaching of a teacher, Michelle, and her integration of
informational texts in a second-grade classroom. In
Michelle’s classroom, explicit attention to text features and strategy work was embedded in the reading and writing of informational texts across the
curriculum. That is, her explicit instruction emerged
in response to students’ needs as they engaged
together in the reading and writing of such texts.
This case study provided a detailed portrait of how
one elementary teacher embedded explicit instruction inside a community and curriculum focused on
inquiry (Maloch & Horsey, 2013). Case studies such
as this one (see also, Bradley & Donovan, 2010;
Smolkin & Donovan, 2001) offer teachers ways of
conceptualizing how key instructional ideas come
together into a cohesive and integrated approach to
the teaching of informational texts.
Final Thoughts
Although we agree with Bradley & Donovan (2010)
who suggest that we have “little information about
how a systematic approach to helping students identify information books’ elements and features will
help improve their understandings of how to read
and write informational texts” (p. 247), we argue
that what research does tell us is enough to move
forward in our instruction around informational
texts. That is, put informational texts—including a
range of text types—in the hands of children, guide
them to and through authentic activities with those
texts, engage the students in active dialogue around
those texts, and be explicit about comprehension
strategies and text structures and features as warranted by students’ developing understandings and
performance in those texts.
Policy makers, to be sure, will focus on the
explicit strategy instruction discussed in the research
literature. However, what seems abundantly clear to
us from the research is that this explicit instruction is
only effective for real reading and writing inasmuch
as it is situated within authentic opportunities for
reading and writing informational texts—opportunities that reflect what children might encounter outside of school. Only within these contexts of immersion, demonstrations, and support will explicit
instruction make sense to young readers and writers,
at least in ways that may transfer to new contexts
and propel their continued inquiry and learning.
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
July2013_LA.indd 446
6/5/13 8:51 AM
R esearc h an d P o licy | What Does Research Teach Us?
page
References
Barrentine, S. J. (1996). Engaging with reading through
interactive read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 50, 36–43.
Bomer, R. (1998). Transactional heat and light: On making
learning more explicit. Language Arts, 76, 11–18.
Bradley, L. G., & Donovan, C. A. (2010). Information book
read-alouds as models for second-grade authors. The
Reading Teacher, 64, 246–260.
Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. K. (1998). Nonnarrative as a
catalyst for literacy development. Language Arts, 75,
108–117.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core
State Standards for English language arts and literacy
in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://corestandards
.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2002). Considering
genre, content, and visual features in the selection
of trade books for science instruction. The Reading
Teacher, 55, 502–520.
Dreher, M. J. (2003). Motivating struggling readers by
tapping the potential of information books. Reading
and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties, 19(1), 25–38.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of
informational texts in first grade. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998). Can I say, “Once upon a
time”?: Kindergarten children developing knowledge
of information book language. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13, 295–318.
Duke, N. K., & Roberts, K. L. (2010). The genre-specific
nature of reading comprehension and the case of
informational text. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J.
Hoffman (Eds.), The international handbook of
English language and literacy teaching (pp. 74–86).
London, England: Routledge.
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C., Klauda, S. L.,
Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. (2009). Impacts of
comprehensive reading instruction on diverse
outcomes of low- and high-achieving readers. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 195–214.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. D. (2004).
Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented
reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heisey, N., & Kucan, L. (2011). Introducing science
concepts to primary students through read-alouds:
Interactions and multiple texts make a difference.
Reading Teacher, 63(8), 666–676.
Jeong, J., Gaffney, J., & Choi, H. (2010). Availability and
use of informational texts in second-, third-, and
fourth-grade classrooms. Research in the Teaching of
English, 44(4), 435–456.
447
Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relations between children’s
literacy diets and genre development: You write what
you read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 7–53.
Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning:
Children writing stories, science reports, and poems.
Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 403–460.
Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of
informational text in a second-grade classroom.
Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 315–362.
Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2012). Developing discussion.
Language Arts, 90, 129–137.
Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2013). Informational texts and
the Common Core Standards: What are we talking
about anyway? Language Arts, 90, 205–213.
Maloch, B., & Beutel, D. (2010). “Big loud voice—You
have important things to say”: The nature of student
initiations during one teacher’s interactive read-alouds.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 45(3), 20–29.
Maloch, B., & Horsey, M. (2013). Living inquiry: Learning
from and about informational texts in a second-grade
classroom. The Reading Teacher, 66, 475–485.
Maloch, B., & Zapata, A. (2011). “Dude, it’s the Milky
Way!”: An exploration of students’ approaches to
informational text. In P. Dunston, L. B. Gambrell,
S. K. Fullerton, V. R. Gillis, K. Headley, & P. M.
Stecker (Eds.), 60th yearbook of the Literacy Research
Association (pp. 322–335). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy
Research Association.
Martin, N. M., & Duke, N. K. (2011). Interventions to
enhance informational text comprehension. In R.
Allington & A. McGill-Franzen (Eds.), Handbook of
reading disabilities research (pp. 345–361). London,
England: Routledge.
Meek, M. (1988). How texts teach what readers learn.
Gloucestershire, UK: Thimble Press.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L.,
Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward
third space in content area literacy: An examination of
everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading
Research Quarterly, 39, 38–70.
Moss, B. (2008). The information text gap: The mismatch
between non-narrative text types in basal readers and
2009 NAEP recommended guidelines. Journal of
Literacy Research, 40, 201–219.
Moss, B., Leone, W., & Dipillo, M. (1997). Exploring the
literature of fact: Linking reading and writing through
information trade books. Language Arts, 74, 418–429.
Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations
during teacher-led read-alouds of information books.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 149–160.
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
July2013_LA.indd 447
6/5/13 8:51 AM
R esearc h an d P o licy | What Does Research Teach Us?
page
448
Oyler, C., & Barry, A. (1996). Intertextual connections in
read-alouds of information books. Language Arts, 73,
324–329.
Pappas, C. (1991). Fostering full access to literacy by
including information books. Language Arts, 68,
449–462.
Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative primary? Some insights
from kindergartners’ pretend readings of stories and
information books. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25,
95–129.
Pappas, C. C. (2006). The information book genre: Its role
in integrated science literacy research and science.
Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 226–250.
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy
and science: Each in the service of the other. Science,
328, 459–463.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., Martineau, J. (2007). Learning
to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of
authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42, 8–45.
Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An
evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading
comprehension strategies in the primary years using
science information texts. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 20, 276–305.
Saul, E. W., & Dieckman, D. (2005). Choosing and using
information trade books. Reading Research Quarterly,
40, 502–513.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary
literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area
literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011).
Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History,
mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy
Research, 43, 393–429.
Sipe, L. (2000). The construction of literary understanding
by first and second graders in oral response to picture
storybook read-alouds. Reading Research Quarterly,
35, 252–275.
Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2001). The contexts
of comprehension: The information book read-aloud,
comprehension acquisition, and comprehension
instruction in a first-grade classroom. The Elementary
School Journal, 97–122.
Smolkin, L. B., McTigue, E. M., Donovan, C. A., &
Coleman, J. M. (2009). Explanation in science trade
books recommended for use with elementary students.
Science Education, 93, 587–610.
Tower, C. (2002). “It’s a snake, you guys!”: The power
of text characteristics on children’s responses to
information books. Research in the Teaching of
English, 37, 55–88.
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2013). Children’s ways
with science and literacy: Integrated multimodal
enactments in urban elementary classrooms. New
York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Williams, J., Hall, K., Lauer, K., Stafford, K., DeCisto, L.,
& deCani, J. (2005). Expository text comprehension in
the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 538–550.
Williams, J. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension
for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure.
The Journal of Special Education, 39, 6–18.
Like Language Arts
Journal on Facebook
Making the Case: Research Support for Valued Practices
In recent years, schools have been under increasing pressure to teach to the test, often resulting in a
narrowing of the curriculum that squeezes out teaching methods that invite children into literacy and
critical thinking in more engaging ways. We regularly see teachers having to defend their instructional
decisions and practices to administrators, colleagues, parents, and district-level overseers, drawing on
research as evidence. To that end, we are adding to the Research and Policy column, where appropriate, a concise summary of research relevant to each particular column. As we are imagining it, teachers
might copy these summaries to have as a ready resource, with a bulleted list of claims on the front and a
reference list on the back. We hope these summaries will be useful to teachers making decisions in their
classrooms and defending those decisions to others. The front and back of this issue’s one-pager are on
the next two pages.
—Beth Maloch & Randy Bomer
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
July2013_LA.indd 448
6/5/13 8:51 AM
R esearc h an d P o licy | What Does Research Teach Us?
page
449
Ma king the Case : R esearch Suppo rt f o r Val u ed Practices
Research Supporting Informational Text Use in Primary Classrooms
Research indicates that informational texts are
under-represented in many elementary classrooms,
especially at the primary level. Research about
instruction related to informational texts suggests
that young children should be exposed to a wide
variety of informational texts—including a range
of text types. Students benefit from engaging in
authentic literacy activities, including both reading and composing opportunities, that reflect realworld purposes.
• Early childhood and primary classrooms
should make large numbers of informational
texts available to children (Duke, 2000a;
Jeong, Gaffney, & Choi, 2010; Moss, 2008).
• Every classroom should have a rich classroom
library with an ample supply of varied kinds
of texts, including expository texts and
narratives, fiction and nonfiction. Teachers
and students need immediate access to a
rich array of stories, information books,
magazines and newspapers, essays, persuasive
texts, biographies, historical narratives, and
procedural texts (Duke, 2000a; Duke, 2000b;
Kamberelis, 1998).
• Exposure to and instruction around particular
text types result in students’ acquisition of
those text forms in their own writing and in
their reading (Pappas, 1993; Purcell-Gates,
Duke, & Martineau, 2007; Tower, 2002).
• Engaging young children in authentic literacy
activities—activities designed with real-world
purposes—can lead to improved informational
text comprehension and writing (PurcellGates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007).
• Interactive read-alouds of informational texts
engage students in active and collaborative
meaning making and can provide opportunities
for informational text learning (Maloch
& Beutel, 2010; Oyler, 1996 ; Smolkin &
Donovan, 2001).
• Explicit instruction may improve young
children’s understandings of text structures,
features, and text-appropriate comprehension
strategies when embedded within a broader
approach to informational text learning that
includes extensive access to a broad range
of informational texts, authentic activities
with those texts, and opportunities to engage
actively and collaboratively with and around
such texts ( Maloch, 2008; Purcell-Gates, et
al., 2007; Williams, 2005)
On the back of this sheet, you will find the abovecited references. For a more extended discussion,
see Maloch & Bomer’s article in the January 2013
issue of Language Arts.
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
July2013_LA.indd 449
6/5/13 8:51 AM
R esearc h an d P o licy | What Does Research Teach Us?
page
450
M AK I N G THE C ASE: R EF ER ENC ES
Duke, N. K. (2000a). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of
informational texts in first grade. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations
during teacher-led read-alouds of information books.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 149–160.
Duke, N. K. (2000b). For the rich it’s richer: Print
experiences and environments offered to children in
very low- and very high-socioeconomic status firstgrade classrooms. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 441–478.
Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative primary? Some insights
from kindergartners’ pretend readings of stories and
information books. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25,
95–129.
Jeong, J., Gaffney, J., & Choi, H. (2010). Availability and
use of informational texts in second-, third-, and
fourth-grade classrooms. Research in the Teaching of
English, 44, 435–456.
Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relations between children’s
literacy diets and genre development: You write what
you read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 7–53.
Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of
informational text in a second-grade classroom.
Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 315–362.
Maloch, B., & Beutel, D. (2010). “Big loud voice—You
have important things to say”: The nature of student
initiations during one teacher’s interactive read-alouds.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 45(3), 20–29.
Moss, B. (2008). The information text gap: The mismatch
between non-narrative text types in basal readers and
2009 NAEP recommended guidelines. Journal of
Literacy Research, 40, 201–219.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., Martineau, J. (2007). Learning
to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of
authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42, 8–45.
Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2001). The contexts
of comprehension: The information book read aloud,
comprehension acquisition, and comprehension
instruction in a first-grade classroom. The Elementary
School Journal, 102(2), 97–122.
Tower, C. (2002). “It’s a snake, you guys!”: The power
of text characteristics on children’s responses to
information books. Research in the Teaching of
English, 37, 55–88.
Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading
comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on
text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39,
6–18.
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
July2013_LA.indd 450
6/5/13 8:51 AM