Teaching about and with Informational Texts: What Does Research Teach Us?

Transcription

1 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 Copyright 2013 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved. July2013_LA.indd 441 6/5/13 8:51 AM

2 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 writing, and that same writing reveals students readerly awareness of the structures and strategies by which texts convey information to readers. In most of the classrooms from which data are drawn in 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. 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 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

3 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. 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, 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 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 page 443

4 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 of informational texts in combination with handson activities, all related to one central conceptual theme. Other recent research into the integration of science and lit- texts improve? eracy 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). Is it really so surprising that when children are engaged with texts for real purposes that their reading and writing of such 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.

5 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, page 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 not demonstrate transfer The research in the area to other text structures). of primary classrooms and Other than this work, we know of no research that informational texts is mixed examines the impact of when it comes to the value of explicit instruction of text structure in the primary explicit instruction. 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

6 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 (they include third graders along with fifth graders in their study) is Concept- Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) (Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 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 The mixed results on explicitness about text-structure and readingstrategy instruction suggest that explicit instruction is only warranted as a part of a 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.

7 References Barrentine, S. J. (1996). Engaging with reading through interactive read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 50, Bomer, R. (1998). Transactional heat and light: On making learning more explicit. Language Arts, 76, Bradley, L. G., & Donovan, C. A. (2010). Information book read-alouds as models for second-grade authors. The Reading Teacher, 64, Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. K. (1998). Nonnarrative as a catalyst for literacy development. Language Arts, 75, 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 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, Dreher, M. J. (2003). Motivating struggling readers by tapping the potential of information books. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(1), Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 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, 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 ). 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), 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), 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), Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relations between children s literacy diets and genre development: You write what you read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(1), Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning: Children writing stories, science reports, and poems. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of informational text in a second-grade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2012). Developing discussion. Language Arts, 90, Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2013). Informational texts and the Common Core Standards: What are we talking about anyway? Language Arts, 90, 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), Maloch, B., & Horsey, M. (2013). Living inquiry: Learning from and about informational texts in a second-grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 66, 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 ). 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 ). 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, 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, Moss, B., Leone, W., & Dipillo, M. (1997). Exploring the literature of fact: Linking reading and writing through information trade books. Language Arts, 74, Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations during teacher-led read-alouds of information books. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, page 447

8 page 448 Oyler, C., & Barry, A. (1996). Intertextual connections in read-alouds of information books. Language Arts, 73, Pappas, C. (1991). Fostering full access to literacy by including information books. Language Arts, 68, Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative primary? Some insights from kindergartners pretend readings of stories and information books. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, Pappas, C. C. (2006). The information book genre: Its role in integrated science literacy research and science. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 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, 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, Saul, E. W., & Dieckman, D. (2005). Choosing and using information trade books. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, Williams, J. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 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

9 Making the Case: Research Support for Valued Practices Research Supporting Informational Text Use in Primary Classrooms page 449 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 (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 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.

10 page 450 MAKING THE CASE: REFERENCES Duke, N. K. (2000a). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 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, 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, Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relations between children s literacy diets and genre development: You write what you read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(1), Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of informational text in a second-grade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 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), 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, Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations during teacher-led read-alouds of information books. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative primary? Some insights from kindergartners pretend readings of stories and information books. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 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, 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), 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, 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.