page

441
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
Research and Policy
Teaching about and with
Informational Texts: What
Does Research Teach Us?
Beth Maloch and Randy Bomer
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 shift-
ing) names and defnitions that researchers have
used for informational texts, as well as the terms
used by standards authors. We argued that unclear
terms and defnitions cause trouble for teachers
and other educators and that it is important to be as
clear as possible about how we are defning infor-
mational texts and what boundaries we are setting
for the work we review. Here, we use Dukes (2000)
defnition of informational textstext written
with the primary purpose of conveying informa-
tion about the natural and social world (typically
from someone presumed to be more knowledge-
able on the subject to someone presumed to be less
so) and having particular text features to accom-
plish this purpose (p. 205)and review primar-
ily the research that considers informational texts,
as defned in this way. We also focus here on the
research that has been done specifcally within early
schooling contexts; for now, we must leave some
important research on disciplinary literacies in the
background, though we think readers would proft
from giving that research some attention. (See, for
example, Moje, Ciechanowski, Kramer, Ellis, Car-
rillo, & Collazo, 2004; Shanahan & Shanahan,
2008; Shanahan, Shanahan, & Misischia, 2011.)
What we will foreground in the rest of this col-
umn is a set of imperatives that have been derived
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 instructionteach-
ing children about informational textsbecause
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 teach-
ing that have been shown to support those interac-
tions. With new assessments designed to hold chil-
dren, teachers, and schools accountable for what
children learn to do with these kinds of texts, we
can expect a huge industry to develop around prod-
ucts and services that advertise themselves as hold-
ing 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
What Does Research Teach Us?
July2013_LA.indd 441 6/5/13 8:51 AM
Copyright 2013 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
page
442
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
RESEARCH AND POLI CY | What Does Research Teach Us?
with those of Meek (1988) and others, helped to
advance a shift in the feld, 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 frst and
second grades make decisions as authors that
refect their literary diets and reading experiences.
Specifcally, 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 fndings suggested a strong rela-
tionship between childrens literacy diets and their
genre knowledge (p. 7).
From these studies and many others, it is
clear that one important (perhaps the most impor-
tant) step in growing young childrens 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 defnitively 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 informa-
tional. The CCSS recommend that fully half of the
texts made available to children be informational in
nature.
Its hard to know what the exact number should
be, but it is clear that educators should work to bal-
ance their story offerings with informational ones.
As we described in our previous column, informa-
tional texts are much less common in primary class-
rooms 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 class-
rooms, a growing number of case studies provide
descriptive and interpretive portraits of how indi-
vidual teachers are integrating informational texts
from research on teaching informational text: make
the texts available and accessible; create authen-
tic 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 disappearevidence of content learn-
ing appears in new writ-
ing, and that same writing
reveals students readerly
awareness of the struc-
tures and strategies by
which texts convey infor-
mation to readers. In most
of the classrooms from
which data are drawn in
these studies, it is already
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 construct-
ing 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-com-
mon assumption in literacy development that nar-
rative or story was primary for young children
that is, that childrens abilities to understand and
compose stories precede their capabilities to under-
stand and use non-story, informational written lan-
guage (Pappas, 1993, p. 97). Her argument, along
It is clear that one important
(perhaps the most important)
step in growing young childrens
knowledge, understanding, and
use of informational texts is
making these texts available and
accessible to them.
July2013_LA.indd 442 6/5/13 8:51 AM
page
443
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
RESEARCH AND POLI CY | What Does Research Teach Us?
the strategies readers employ to move through and
make sense of texts are specifc 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 provid-
ing high-quality informational texts that represent
the genres we want kids to learn.
Create Authentic Opportunities
for Engagement
The frst step, then, to growing childrens under-
standings 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 stu-
dents in authentic reading and writing of such texts.
In a signifcant study conducted by Purcell-Gates,
Duke, and Martineau (2007), researchers found that
second graders growth and performance with infor-
mational 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, Purcell-
Gates 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 real-
world reasons for engaging with informational texts
was the most signifcant 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 signifcant impact.
These researchers defned 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 fiers to adver-
tise an event for the community, or reading across
multiple texts to inform their own questions. These
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 addi-
tion to increasing the quantity of informational
texts in classrooms, it is also important to consider
the qualities of those texts. In other words, as edu-
cators, 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 teach-
ers select trade books for use in their classrooms,
they should examine the texts along three dimen-
sions: 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 informa-
tion 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 defning elements
present in what she called typical information
books. Books that do not have the required ele-
ments she identifed as atypical; these included
hybrid texts with both narrative and expository
structures (and fction and nonfction elements).
In their analysis of information books, Donovan
and Smolkin (2002) call these hybrid texts dual
purpose (books characterized by at least two pur-
posesto 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 informa-
tional genres. This argument makes sense given the
research indicating that comprehension is genre-
specifc (Duke & Roberts, 2010). In other words,
July2013_LA.indd 443 6/5/13 8:51 AM
page
444
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
RESEARCH AND POLI CY | What Does Research Teach Us?
teacher poses questions throughout the reading that
enhance meaning construction and also show how
one makes sense of text (p. 36). Interactive read-
alouds are an attempt to move away from a central-
ized 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, observa-
tions, and questions (Maloch & Beutel, 2010). While
the teachers maintain an active role in these discus-
sions, 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 exam-
ple, 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 dur-
ing the discussions and how they engaged in mean-
ing making in dialogue with one another. Oylers
research, along with others (Maloch & Beutel,
2010; Smolkin & Donovan, 2001), exposes the
comprehension and response work that young chil-
dren are capable of when engaged by their teach-
ers in active discussion around informational texts.
One potential in these kinds of conversations is the
way in which students and teachers comprehen-
sion 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 dis-
cussions. In a study of kindergartners, for exam-
ple, Duke and Kays (1998) found that, after three
months of almost daily read-alouds of informational
books, the students showed more skill with the dis-
tinct 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.
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 read-
ing and writing of such texts improve? In fact, we
know from other research (Caswell & Duke, 1998;
Dreher, 2003; Guthrie et al., 2009) that young chil-
dren are often motivated by informational texts,
and their inclusion inside classrooms can be quite
engaging to children. The work of Guthrie and col-
leagues with CORIConcept-Oriented Reading
Instructiondemonstrated the power of teaching
practices directed toward fostering motivation and
engagement. In CORI, teachers engage students
in reading and writing
of informational texts in
combination with hands-
on activities, all related
to one central concep-
tual theme. Other recent
research into the integra-
tion of science and lit-
eracy similarly investi-
gates the value of centering childrens 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 interac-
tive 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 learn-
ing. The work in the area of informational texts has
particularly highlighted the benefts of interactive
read-alouds with young children.
The phrase interactive read-aloud was coined by
Barrentine (1996), who described interactive read-
alouds as instructional conversations in which the
Is it really so surprising that
when children are engaged with
texts for real purposes that their
reading and writing of such
texts improve?
July2013_LA.indd 444 6/5/13 8:51 AM
page
445
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
RESEARCH AND POLI CY | What Does Research Teach Us?
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 read-
ing and writing of informational texts. We saved
this theme for last because being explicit in ones
instruction only makes sense as contextualized by
and situated within the earlier themes.
A few studies have investigated the effcacy of
explicit instruction in regard to informational texts
and with primary-aged students (third grade or
lower). The work of Williams and colleagues (Wil-
liams, 2005; Williams et al., 2005), for example,
demonstrated that direct/explicit instruction in text
structures (e.g., compare/contrast) can lead to bet-
ter understanding of that particular text structure
in new texts (students did
not demonstrate transfer
to other text structures).
Other than this work, we
know of no research that
examines the impact of
explicit instruction of text
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 diffculties).
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 compre-
hension 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 grad-
ers. Although they found no statistically signif-
cant 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
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 research-
ers 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 informa-
tional books, learning genre knowledge (Kambere-
lis, 1998; Tower, 2002), making intertextual con-
nections (Oyler & Barry, 1996; Maloch & Beutel,
2010), building comprehension (Smolkin & Don-
ovan, 2001), and building their content learning
(Heisey & Kucan, 2011).
Be Explicit When Necessary
The fnal 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 defned
in different ways. On the one hand, explicit means
being clearbeing precise in explaining what
something means or how something works. Clarity,
though, is a function not just of a teachers 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, struc-
tures, 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 infor-
mational 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 pro-
duced, would hardly be a rich environment for
learning. And at least some research (Purcell-Gates,
The research in the area
of primary classrooms and
informational texts is mixed
when it comes to the value of
explicit instruction.
July2013_LA.indd 445 6/5/13 8:51 AM
page
446
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
RESEARCH AND POLI CY | What Does Research Teach Us?
Michelles classroom, explicit attention to text fea-
tures and strategy work was embedded in the read-
ing 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 instruc-
tion 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 iden-
tify 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 textsincluding a
range of text typesin 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 war-
ranted 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 textsopportuni-
ties that refect what children might encounter out-
side of school. Only within these contexts of immer-
sion, 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.
(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) out-
comes for younger students
(they include third graders
along with ffth graders in
their study) is Concept-
Oriented Reading Instruc-
tion (CORI) (Guthrie,
Wigfeld, & Perencevich,
2004; Guthrie et al., 2009).
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; its 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
signifcance of engaging students in authentic liter-
acy 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
signifcant growth over two years of the study. This
fnding suggests that explicit instruction, on its
own, is not the answer to learning about informa-
tional texts. Moreover, the study found that those
students for whom explicit instruction is most often
prescribedlow-income or minority studentsdid
not beneft 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 fndings deserve careful consideration.
The mixed results on explicitness about text-
structure 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 teach-
ing of a teacher, Michelle, and her integration of
informational texts in a second-grade classroom. In
The mixed results on explicitness
about text-structure and reading-
strategy instruction suggest
that explicit instruction is
only warranted as a part of a
broader approach.
July2013_LA.indd 446 6/5/13 8:51 AM
page
447
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
RESEARCH AND POLI CY | What Does Research Teach Us?
fourth-grade classrooms. Research in the Teaching of
English, 44(4), 435456.
Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relations between childrens
literacy diets and genre development: You write what
you read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 753.
Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning:
Children writing stories, science reports, and poems.
Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 403460.
Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of
informational text in a second-grade classroom.
Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 315362.
Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2012). Developing discussion.
Language Arts, 90, 129137.
Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2013). Informational texts and
the Common Core Standards: What are we talking
about anyway? Language Arts, 90, 205213.
Maloch, B., & Beutel, D. (2010). Big loud voiceYou
have important things to say: The nature of student
initiations during one teachers interactive read-alouds.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 45(3), 2029.
Maloch, B., & Horsey, M. (2013). Living inquiry: Learning
from and about informational texts in a second-grade
classroom. The Reading Teacher, 66, 475485.
Maloch, B., & Zapata, A. (2011). Dude, its 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. 322335). 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. 345361). 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, 3870.
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, 201219.
Moss, B., Leone, W., & Dipillo, M. (1997). Exploring the
literature of fact: Linking reading and writing through
information trade books. Language Arts, 74, 418429.
Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations
during teacher-led read-alouds of information books.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 149160.
References
Barrentine, S. J. (1996). Engaging with reading through
interactive read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 50, 3643.
Bomer, R. (1998). Transactional heat and light: On making
learning more explicit. Language Arts, 76, 1118.
Bradley, L. G., & Donovan, C. A. (2010). Information book
read-alouds as models for second-grade authors. The
Reading Teacher, 64, 246260.
Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. K. (1998). Nonnarrative as a
catalyst for literacy development. Language Arts, 75,
108117.
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, 502520.
Dreher, M. J. (2003). Motivating struggling readers by
tapping the potential of information books. Reading
and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Diffculties, 19(1), 2538.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of
informational texts in frst grade. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 202224.
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, 295318.
Duke, N. K., & Roberts, K. L. (2010). The genre-specifc
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. 7486).
London, England: Routledge.
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C., Klauda, S. L.,
Wigfeld, A., & Barbosa, P. (2009). Impacts of
comprehensive reading instruction on diverse
outcomes of low- and high-achieving readers. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 195214.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfeld, 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), 666676.
Jeong, J., Gaffney, J., & Choi, H. (2010). Availability and
use of informational texts in second-, third-, and
July2013_LA.indd 447 6/5/13 8:51 AM
page
448
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
RESEARCH AND POLI CY | What Does Research Teach Us?
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011).
Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History,
mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy
Research, 43, 393429.
Sipe, L. (2000). The construction of literary understanding
by frst and second graders in oral response to picture
storybook read-alouds. Reading Research Quarterly,
35, 252275.
Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2001). The contexts
of comprehension: The information book read-aloud,
comprehension acquisition, and comprehension
instruction in a frst-grade classroom. The Elementary
School Journal, 97122.
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, 587610.
Tower, C. (2002). Its a snake, you guys!: The power
of text characteristics on childrens responses to
information books. Research in the Teaching of
English, 37, 5588.
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2013). Childrens 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, 538550.
Williams, J. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension
for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure.
The Journal of Special Education, 39, 618.
Oyler, C., & Barry, A. (1996). Intertextual connections in
read-alouds of information books. Language Arts, 73,
324329.
Pappas, C. (1991). Fostering full access to literacy by
including information books. Language Arts, 68,
449462.
Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative primary? Some insights
from kindergartners pretend readings of stories and
information books. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25,
95129.
Pappas, C. C. (2006). The information book genre: Its role
in integrated science literacy research and science.
Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 226250.
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy
and science: Each in the service of the other. Science,
328, 459463.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., Martineau, J. (2007). Learning
to read and write genre-specifc text: Roles of
authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42, 845.
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, 276305.
Saul, E. W., & Dieckman, D. (2005). Choosing and using
information trade books. Reading Research Quarterly,
40, 502513.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary
literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area
literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 4059.
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 appropri-
ate, 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 issues one-pager are on
the next two pages.
Beth Maloch & Randy Bomer
July2013_LA.indd 448 6/5/13 8:51 AM
page
449
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
RESEARCH AND POLI CY | What Does Research Teach Us?
MAKI NG THE CASE: RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR VALUED PRACTI CES
Research Supporting Informational Text Use in Primary Classrooms
their reading (Pappas, 1993; Purcell-Gates,
Duke, & Martineau, 2007; Tower, 2002).
Engaging young children in authentic literacy
activitiesactivities designed with real-world
purposescan lead to improved informational
text comprehension and writing (Purcell-
Gates, 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
childrens 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 fnd the above-
cited references. For a more extended discussion,
see Maloch & Bomers article in the January 2013
issue of Language Arts.
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 textsincluding a range
of text types. Students beneft from engaging in
authentic literacy activities, including both read-
ing and composing opportunities, that refect real-
world 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, fction and nonfction. 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
July2013_LA.indd 449 6/5/13 8:51 AM
page
450
Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013
RESEARCH AND POLI CY | What Does Research Teach Us?
Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations
during teacher-led read-alouds of information books.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 149160.
Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative primary? Some insights
from kindergartners pretend readings of stories and
information books. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25,
95129.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., Martineau, J. (2007). Learning
to read and write genre-specifc text: Roles of
authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42, 845.
Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2001). The contexts
of comprehension: The information book read aloud,
comprehension acquisition, and comprehension
instruction in a frst-grade classroom. The Elementary
School Journal, 102(2), 97122.
Tower, C. (2002). Its a snake, you guys!: The power
of text characteristics on childrens responses to
information books. Research in the Teaching of
English, 37, 5588.
Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading
comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on
text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39,
618.
Duke, N. K. (2000a). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of
informational texts in frst grade. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 202224.
Duke, N. K. (2000b). For the rich its richer: Print
experiences and environments offered to children in
very low- and very high-socioeconomic status frst-
grade classrooms. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 441478.
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, 435456.
Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relations between childrens
literacy diets and genre development: You write what
you read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 753.
Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of
informational text in a second-grade classroom.
Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 315362.
Maloch, B., & Beutel, D. (2010). Big loud voiceYou
have important things to say: The nature of student
initiations during one teachers interactive read-alouds.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 45(3), 2029.
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, 201219.
MAKI NG THE CASE: REFERENCES
July2013_LA.indd 450 6/5/13 8:51 AM