page

Research and Policy 205

Informational Texts and the Common

Core Standards: What Are We Talking
about, Anyway?
Beth Maloch and Randy Bomer

E
veryone reading this column is likely to be the different ways this term is defined and used
aware of the recent push in education pol- within the CCSS.
icy toward a curriculum that requires stu-
dents to read and write more informational texts. The Research
At the time of this writing, teachers in the 45 states There is nothing new about a call for attention to non-
that have adopted the Common Core State Stan- fiction texts in earlier years of children’s schooling.
dards (CCCS) undoubtedly also are aware that the After all, as we demonstrated in our column about
college-­readiness standards, the grade-level stan- the history of this journal (Maloch, Bomer, & Burke,
dards, the guidelines for publishers, and the now- 2012), many of our current obsessions as a field
emerging assessments all emphasize students work- have long been with us. Thirty years ago, for exam-
ing with informational texts. The policy trend is not ple, Applebee (1984) described elementary literacy
limited to that 90% of the states, however. In Texas, education as “reliance on primarily time-ordered or
for instance, new standards rooted in a notion of descriptive modes of presentation” and secondary
college readiness, like the CCSS, have also tipped literacy education as moving “toward more analytic
the balance toward more expository, nonfiction text modes of presentation” (p.  185). Newkirk (1989)
in the reading and writing curriculum. described this split in levels of schooling as “the
In this month’s column, we want to help read- Great Divide approach to literacy,” in which elemen-
ers become acquainted with the state of the field in tary students are asked to write “creative” sorts of
this area, to get clearer about what has been demon- texts, and secondary students are suddenly asked to
strated with evidence, what has been argued with or write exposition and argument. Newkirk went on
without evidence, and what gaps still exist in what to show that much in very young children’s writ-
we know about children, literacy, and these texts ing could be seen as the beginnings of categoriza-
that take up the position of informing their readers tion, abstraction, logical organization, argument, and
about the world. In our review of the literature, we analysis. Therefore, there is nothing necessarily or
found enough material to fill two columns—this naturally developmental in this split; it’s apparently a
one, and the upcoming July issue on Insights and product of unquestioned curricular habits.
Inquiries. So here, we lay the groundwork for our Similarly, Chall and Jacobs (1983) suggested
later discussion of instruction by working through three decades ago that this split occurs even earlier
the various ways that researchers and CCSS writ- in students’ school careers, contributing to what
ers have defined terms like informational texts and is known as the “fourth-grade slump.” Sometimes
nonfiction. Our purpose is to help provide clarity this split is explained as a shift from “learning to
on what researchers mean when they say informa- read” to “reading to learn”; the assumption is that
tional texts and, more important, why we as teach- children read stories until they have achieved flu-
ers and researchers must consider and understand ency, after which they are able to use reading as a

Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 3, January 2013

Copyright © 2013 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.

A596_Jan2013_LA.indd 205 Informational Texts and the Common 12/11/12 8:47 AM

 Resea r ch an d P o lic y  | Informational Texts and the Common Core Standards
page
206
tool for learning academic content. Duke and Tower discrepancies between narrative (mostly fictional
(2004) contend that these “phases” represent a stories) and expository texts still exist.
false dichotomy and argue, like others (Newkirk, This discrepancy has implications for children.
1989; Pappas, 1993), that children should be read- Research indicates that although young children are
ing and writing in varied modes of discourse from capable of making sense of and crafting informa-
the earliest years of schooling. Young readers, these tion when given the opportunity (Duke & Kays,
researchers argue, need to explore all kinds of texts, 1998; Newkirk, 1989; Pappas, 1993), students are
and young writers need opportunities to experience typically more able to craft stories than informa-
a range of texts as they read, compose, and commu- tion (Kamberelis, 1998). Kamberelis (1998) found
nicate for different purposes. that this difference is at least partly a result of the
Educational researchers have intensified their literacy diets of most primary-age children. Chil-
call for more informational text in the elementary dren write what they read. If they read (and hear)
classroom over the last 15 to 20 years. In the liter- lots and lots of stories, they are better at composing
ature-based movement of the 1980s and ‘90s, edu- stories. If, on the other hand, they read (and hear)
cators worked toward building up literature inside stories, but also information books, procedural
elementary classrooms. Researchers (Kamberelis, texts, and feature articles, they are more likely to
1998; Kamil & Lane, 1997; Moss, 2008; Pappas, learn the conventions of those genres and be able to
1993) noted, perhaps as a byproduct of educators’ compose according to those purposes. If we expect
faith in the importance of story, the prominence of our students to write for any number of purposes,
fictional texts inside of primary classrooms. These to be able to shift their composing to match the
researchers suggested there could be problems needs of the moment, or effectively communicate
associated with limiting students’ literacy diets to according to real-world purposes, we must provide
fiction, and they called for more inclusion of non- and teach around texts of varying kinds so that they
fiction or informational texts. have models and mentors for their own composing
Nell Duke (2000a) offered further evidence of (Duke & Kays, 1998; Kamberelis, 1998; 1999; Pap-
the scarcity of informational texts in her study of 20 pas, 1993; Tower, 2002).
first-grade classrooms, finding few informational Similarly, Duke and Roberts (2010) argue
texts on shelves (less than that “rather than being a unitary construct, read-
If we expect our students to write 10% of the classroom ing comprehension is best seen as a collection of
for any number of purposes, we libraries) or walls (less processes that are substantially differentiated by
than 3% of the print envi- genre” (p. 75). That is, comprehension is genre-
must provide and teach around ronment), and an aver- specific; to make sense of texts, readers employ
texts of varying kinds so that age of only 3.6 minutes a comprehension strategies in particular ways for
day devoted to activities particular types of text. The paucity of expository
they have models and mentors related to these types of texts in elementary classrooms, then, can lead to
for their own composing. texts. Her study (Duke, students’ lack of familiarity of the structural con-
2000b) also exposed a ventions of expository texts and too few opportuni-
worrisome disparity between classrooms serving ties for them to investigate reading strategies that
higher socioeconomic students and lower socio- are appropriate with these texts. The final argument,
economic students; classrooms from low SES areas and perhaps the most important one, is that the
averaged only 1.9 minutes per day with informa- addition of informational texts to classrooms adds
tional texts, and half of classrooms in this category to the possibilities of young children learning about
spent no time at all. Since that time, studies (Jeong, the world around them—building content knowl-
Gaffney, & Choi, 2010; Moss, 2008) have indi- edge that can influence their future sense-mak-
cated that the presence of expository text is grow- ing of texts and also build their knowledge about
ing (slowly) in primary classrooms, but substantial the world.

Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 3, January 2013

A596_Jan2013_LA.indd 206 11/19/12 1:25 PM

 Resea r ch an d P o lic y  | Informational Texts and the Common Core Standards
page
207
Defining “Informational Text” the category of nonfiction hides much complexity,
one of the most important distinctions being the one
Before we can move into what research says about
between narrative and expository texts. These text
informational texts (coming up in July), we need to
type differences make for very distinct experiences
spend some time pinning down just how folks are
for readers. They affect our instruction as well, for
defining informational texts, and how this fits or
when we lump all nonfiction together and treat the
doesn’t fit with how these texts are discussed within
very different texts as if they aren’t different at all,
the CCSS. Informational text is a common term, but
we’re likely to confuse our students. Understand-
it can be confusing. All kinds of texts include infor-
ing these differences as teachers, then, is a first step
mation, of course, and lots of different genres can
toward planning appropriate instructional expe-
be used to inform readers or can be read in order to
riences for our students. Bradley and Donovan
develop knowledge and understanding. Here, we’ll
(2010) argue:
first consider the ways informational texts have
A teacher knowledgeable of genre elements, features,
been defined in the research literature, then we’ll
and organizational patterns will be able to routinely
return to the way they are talked about inside of the direct young students’ attention to them during read-
CCSS and other state standards. We hope that this alouds within meaningful contexts, to assess student
order will help clarify some of the terminology as a compositions for the ways in which the students apply
way of making sense of the CCSS document. these insights, and to invite students to examine their
In reviewing research for this column, we own texts for elements, features, and organization, as
well. (p. 259)
found both similarities and differences in the ways
researchers were talking about informational text. For these very reasons, researchers have worked to
These differences are significant if educators are to clarify these differences. Duke and Tower (2004)
have a clear understanding of what research has and divide nonfiction into five categories of texts: infor-
has not demonstrated. A number of researchers, but mational texts, concept books, procedural texts,
not all, use nonfiction as an umbrella term to include biographies, and reference materials. Their use of
all texts that present factual information (e.g., Duke the term informational text, then, is narrower than
& Tower, 2004; Moss, 2008). It is important to the way some people use it, including the CCSS
clarify right from the start, of course, that fiction and other state standards. We think this restricted
and nonfiction are not genres; rather, they denote definition is a good thing in that it brings more pre-
a binary about referentiality to the world. Genres cision to thinking about text types in classrooms.
are forms or types of text with a particular purpose, The definition that Duke (2000a) uses is “text
and particular shapes and features to accomplish written with the primary purpose of conveying
those purposes (Duke, Caughlin, Juzwik, & Martin, information about the natural and social world (typ-
2012). Inside of fiction, for example, exist multiple ically from someone presumed to be more knowl-
genres, including fantasy, historical fiction, and edgeable on the subject to someone presumed to
realistic fiction, to name a few. Inside of nonfiction, be less so) and having particular text features to
you find narratively structured genres like biogra- accomplish this purpose” (p. 205). By defining
phy and historical narrative; you also find genres informational texts in this way, she does not include
structured by exposition, like arguments, explana- more narratively structured texts like biographies
tions, and articles packed with facts (which often (biographies are about people, not about the world)
get called “informational writing”). These exposi- or procedural texts (procedural texts do not explain
tory types of texts are organized categorically, mov- the world; they give directions). In her most recent
ing from one subtopic to another, like from “where book, she and her colleagues (Duke, et al., 2012)
they live” to “what they eat,” rather than being orga- extend this work by differentiating texts as sets of
nized in time, like stories and biographies are. genres. They identify five sets of genres (including
From this discussion, it is already apparent that those that fall under the headings of fiction and

Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 3, January 2013

A596_Jan2013_LA.indd 207 11/19/12 1:25 PM

 Resea r ch an d P o lic y  | Informational Texts and the Common Core Standards
page
208
nonfiction) found inside of classrooms: narrative, defined more broadly, Pappas’s (2006) recent anal-
expository, procedural, persuasive, and dramatic. ysis of information books focused on books that are
Researchers have worked to make these dis- structured by exposition. In her analysis, she iden-
tinctions between text types clear by considering tified four elements of information books that she
texts’ purposes, features, and structures (Donovan called obligatory: topic presentation, descriptive
and Smolkin, 2002; Duke et al., 2012; Moss, 2008). attributes, characteristic events, and final summary,
For example, a number of text genres fall into what along with several optional elements. If books
Donovan and Smolkin (2002) call nonnarrative- included these elements, she labeled them “typi-
informational. Nonnarrative-informational texts are cal” information books, and Pappas argued strongly
topic-oriented texts and use expository structures. for the use of such texts in classrooms because of
The term “nonnarrative” helps contrast these texts the ways they exposed students to expository struc-
from ones that are struc- tures. She contrasted these with what she called
Researchers have worked to tured as narratives, such “atypical” information books—hybrid texts that
make these distinctions between as biography, autobiogra- include both narrative and expository structures.
phy, and historical narra- These hybrid texts, or what Donovan and
text types clear by considering tives. Kletzien and Dreher Smolkin (2002) call dual purpose texts, are texts
texts’ purposes, features, and (2004), in fact, call this that combine more than one text type. Donovan and
category expository-infor- Smolkin assert that these texts:
structures. mational to be transparent (a) are intended by their authors to present facts and
about its structure. Some- provide a story, and (b) use a dual format that allows
times called “reports” by linguists, these texts tend them to be accessed by readers like a nonnarrative in-
to focus on general classes of things, rather than formation book or like a storybook. (p. 507)
specific instances. Because of this focus on more Donovan and Smolkin (2002) suggest that although
generalized concepts, the tense is generally present information is sometimes found in the running sto-
or time-less (e.g., “all snakes hunt prey to eat”), and ryline, more often than not the content appears in
vocabulary is technical. the insets and diagrams. Readers would need to
Inside this category of texts, researchers have draw on strategies for both narrative and expository
studied particular text types. Kamberelis (1998), texts as they engaged with hybrid texts like these.
for example, examined the ways young children The most common example of these texts is the
acquired understandings about the scientific report Magic School Bus series by Joanna Cole (e.g., The
(in contrast to their learning about story and poetry). Magic School Bus on the Ocean Floor, Cole, 1992),
Wollman-Bonilla (2000) was interested in how stu- although there exists a range of texts that employ
dents’ writing fit within four genres: report, exper- some sort of hybridization of narrative and exposi-
iment-report, experiment-procedure, and expla- tory structures (see Pappas, 2006, for a typology of
nation. Thus, even inside of this smaller category hybrid texts). Pappas (2006), as mentioned earlier,
of nonnarrative informational text (narrower than cautioned teachers not to include only hybrid texts
nonfiction or even informational text), there exists in their classrooms. She recommended use of more
a range of genres written for an array of purposes. typical, expository texts in addition to these hybrid
One type of text that sometimes fits in this cat- texts and narratively structured books.
egory, the information book, has received particular Clearly, there are variations in the ways in
attention in the field because of its growing promi- which researchers have defined informational texts.
nence in classrooms. Information trade books are The work of Duke and colleagues (Duke & Tower,
children’s books that are mainly designed to teach 2004; Duke, et al., 2012; Purcell-Gates, Duke, &
their readers about the real world (Saul & Dieck- Martineau, 2007), Donovan and Smolkin (2002;
man, 2005). While information books have been 2006), and Moss (2008) provide a way forward in

Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 3, January 2013

A596_Jan2013_LA.indd 208 11/19/12 1:25 PM

 Resea r ch an d P o lic y  | Informational Texts and the Common Core Standards
page
209
this area through their careful attempts to define ing educators to follow. In one part, they contrast
the categories they use. All of these researchers literary nonfiction with “historical, scientific, and
focus the reader’s attention on the different ways technical texts,” seeming to suggest that literary
text types shape children’s reading and writing. nonfiction includes those texts that are narrative
Further, Pappas (2006) argued in her work that the in structure, but not those that feature exposition
most important aspect to attend to in thinking about (p. 31). Later, though, they include as examples of
these texts is the talk around the book and nature of literary nonfiction, “subgenres of exposition, argu-
its use. In our upcoming column, we take up this ment, and functional text in the form of personal
notion in more detail as we explore the research essays, speeches, opinion pieces, essays about art
that has been done related to instruction about and or literature, biographies, memoirs, journalism,
around informational texts. For now, though, hav- and historical, scientific, technical, or economic
ing considered how researchers are talking about accounts (including digital sources written for a
informational texts, we turn back to the Common broader audience)” (p. 57).
Core State Standards to work through the language In this long list of genres, the authors include
used in this document. texts that explain, argue, narrate, or perform some
combination of those functions. So here, the term
CCSS and Informational Texts “literary nonfiction” could be taken to include
In contrast to recent research, the CCSS employ the almost all the different kinds of informational texts.
term informational texts as a broad term, including Earlier in the Standards, however, the authors list
biographies and autobiographies; “books about his- literary nonfiction as a “special category of infor-
tory, social studies, science, and the arts”; “tech- mational texts,” so it does not seem to be the case
nical texts, including directions, forms, and infor- that the Standards’ authors view these synony-
mation displayed in graphs, charts, or maps”; and mously. Educators may be frustrated when trying
“digital sources on a range of topics” (p. 31). They to figure out the contradictions in an authoritarian
direct special attention to what they call literary document, but it is understandable that the writers
nonfiction. Not defined in the Standards, literary of the CCSS document got tangled up, as so many
nonfiction (also called creative nonfiction) typically people do, in these forms and functions. Perhaps the
refers to a range of genres that attempt to represent lesson to carry away is not a definitive final word on
the real world while also employing characteris- what texts are in or out, but rather an understand-
tics of literature, such as interesting and beautiful ing that students can be engaged in an interesting
authorial style, rich characterizations (including the and perpetually uncompleted inquiry process into
author’s persona), metaphorical as well as literal the different types of text that exist in the world.
meanings, and sometimes complex and indetermi- That can happen if teachers open the textual world
nate themes. Literary nonfiction often contains at in their classrooms to a wider array of text types,
least some narrative and may be written as the story making sure to offer texts that explain, inform, and
of an investigation to learn about the subject matter. argue in a range of ways.
Many, perhaps most, memoirs are literary nonfic-
tion (other than those written by political figures
So Now What?
and the like), and so are many biographies. Essays At the end of this discussion of terms and defini-
in the tradition of Montaigne are literary nonfic- tions, our recommendation is to not get bogged
tion, as are more recent forms of personal essay that down in the terms used inside of the CCSS (like
came of age in columns, commentaries, and maga- we did), but to focus instead on the range of text
zine features (see Bradway & Hesse, 2009). types included inside the Standards. We hope that
The CCSS’s use of literary nonfiction across teachers will take the inevitable taxonomies coming
the Standards may be hard for many discriminat- out from publishers, state departments of education,

Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 3, January 2013

A596_Jan2013_LA.indd 209 11/19/12 1:25 PM

 Resea r ch an d P o lic y  | Informational Texts and the Common Core Standards
page
210
and test consultants with substantial grains—no, References
handfuls—of salt. These categories are not fixed Applebee, A. (1984). Contexts for learning to write.
or agreed-upon, even among people who have each Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
spent years researching them. It is probably fitting Bradley, L. G., & Donovan, C. A. (2010). Information book
to keep in mind the descriptions of classrooms read-alouds as models for second-grade authors. The
that have so little informational texts in them—of Reading Teacher, 64, 246–260.
any kind—and to beef up classroom libraries with Bradway, B., & Hesse, D. (2009). Creating nonfiction. New
York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
appropriate resources. But to come up with a tax-
Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (1983). Writing and reading in
onomy of fixed categories that correspond to a set
the elementary grades: Developmental trends among
of standards? Good luck. Instead, perhaps the most low SES children. Language Arts, 60, 617–626.
educative stance would be to open up the world of Cole, J. (1992). The magic school bus on the ocean floor.
books that teach to students, and to involve them in New York, NY: Scholastic.
the categorizing, to ask them to discriminate among Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common
the many types of books that purport to tell the truth core state standards for English language arts
about the world. and literacy in history/social studies, science, and
In this column, we hope we have begun to technical subjects. Retrieved from http://corestandards
.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
break open this broad category of text that some
Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2002). Considering
call nonfiction and some call informational text.
genre, content, and visual features in the selection
Inside of this very broad category are genres or of trade books for science instruction. The Reading
text types that vary widely from one another in Teacher, 55, 502–520.
purpose, structure, and mode. We argue that a cat- Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2006). Children’s
egory this broad, while perhaps useful in the ways understanding of genre and writing development. In
it draws attention to a whole set of texts that have C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
been largely ignored in primary classrooms, actu- Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 131–143). New
York, NY: Guilford.
ally masks the variety within it. We hope that this
Duke, N. K. (2000a). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of
column helps educators and consumers of educa-
informational texts in first grade. Reading Research
tional research build an awareness of the ways that Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
informational texts, as a term, can be thrown about Duke, N. K. (2000b). For the rich it’s richer: Print
in all sorts of ways. experiences and environments offered to children in
For teachers, we suggest that it will be worth very low- and very high- socioeconomic status first-
their while to ask questions when that term is used, grade classrooms. American Educational Research
and to dig deeper and ask more questions when they Journal, 37, 441–478.
read about it. For researchers, we call for greater Duke, N. K., Caughlin, S., Juzwik, M., & Martin, N.
(2012). Reading and writing genre with purpose in
precision when talking about the varied text types
K–8 classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
in use inside of classrooms. When using a term
Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998). “Can I say, ‘Once upon a
like informational text, what exactly do research- time’?”: Kindergarten children developing knowledge
ers mean to include? Are there other terms that of information book language. Early Childhood
might be more specific and more transparent of Research Quarterly, 13, 295–318.
their meaning? Greater precision in the use of terms Duke, N. K., & Roberts, K. L. (2010). The genre-specific
like these can only strengthen our understandings nature of reading comprehension and the case of
of what research is actually telling us about chil- informational text. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J.
Hoffman (Eds.), The international handbook of
dren’s use of and learning about a range of text
English language and literacy teaching (pp. 74–86).
types found in classrooms—those meant to tell sto- London, UK: Routledge.
ries, those meant to convey information, and those Duke, N. K., & Tower, C. (2004). Nonfiction texts for young
meant to change our minds. readers. In J. V. Hoffman & D. L. Schallert (Eds.),

Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 3, January 2013

A596_Jan2013_LA.indd 210 11/19/12 1:25 PM

 Resea r ch an d P o lic y  | Informational Texts and the Common Core Standards
page
211
The texts in elementary classrooms (pp. 125–144). 2009 NAEP recommended guidelines. Journal of
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Literacy Research, 40, 201–219.
Jeong, J., Gaffney, J., and Choi, H. (2010). Availability Newkirk, T. (1989). More than stories: The range of
and use of informational texts in second-, third-, and children’s writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
fourth-grade classrooms. Research in the Teaching of Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative primary? Some insights
English, 44, 435–456. from kindergartners’ pretend readings of stories and
Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relations between children’s information books. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25,
literacy diets and genre development: You write what 95–129.
you read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3, 7–53. Pappas, C. C. (2006). The information book genre: Its role
Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning: in integrated science literacy research and science.
Children writing stories, science reports, and poems. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 226–250.
Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 403–460. Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., Martineau, J. (2007). Learning
Kamil, M., & Lane, D. (December, 1997). Using to read and write genre specific text: Roles of
information text for first-grade reading instruction: authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Theory and practice. Paper presented at the annual Research Quarterly, 42, 8–45.
meeting of the National Reading Conference, Phoenix, Saul, E. W., & Dieckman, D. (2005). Choosing and using
AZ. information trade books. Reading Research Quarterly,
Kletzien, S. B., & Dreher, M. J. (2004). Informational 40, 502–513.
text in K–3 classrooms. Newark, DE: International Tower, C. (2002). “It’s a snake you guys!”: The power
Reading Association. of text characteristics on children’s responses to
Maloch, B., Bomer, R., & Burke, A. (2012). Reading the information books. Research in the Teaching of
past: Policy and professionalism in this journal’s English, 37, 55–88.
earliest issues. Language Arts, 89, 329–334. Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2000). Teaching science writing to
Moss, B. (2008). The information text gap: The mismatch first graders: Genre learning and recontextualization.
between non-narrative text types in basal readers and Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 35–65.

Beth Maloch is an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin and can be reached at
[email protected]. Randy Bomer is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin
and can be reached at [email protected].

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 issue’s one-pager
are on the next two pages.
—Beth Maloch and Randy Bomer

Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 3, January 2013

A596_Jan2013_LA.indd 211 11/19/12 1:25 PM

 Resea r ch an d P o lic y  | Informational Texts and the Common Core Standards
page
212
M A K I N G T H E C A S E : R E S E A R C H S U P P O RT I N G I N F O R M AT I O N AL
T E X T U S E I N P R I M A RY C L A S S R O O M S

Research indicates that informational texts are underrepresented in many elementary

classrooms, especially at the primary level. Young children are capable of learning
about and learning from informational texts when given the opportunity. Students
benefit from instruction about these texts and occasions to read and learn from them.
When given these kinds of opportunities, students grow in their comprehension of
such texts and in their use of these genres, strategies, and structures in their own
writing.
• Early childhood and primary classrooms should make large numbers of
informational texts available to children (Duke, 2000a; Jeong, Gaffney, & Choi,
2010; Moss, 2008).
• Young children are capable of learning the features and structures of expository
text (Duke & Kays, 1998; Kamberelis, 1998; Newkirk, 1989; Pappas, 1993).
• 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).
• Children are motivated by informational texts, often choosing to read them
when given a chance. Because of this motivational or engaging quality, for some
children informational texts can be a way into overall literacy development
(Caswell & Duke, 1998; Guthrie & Alao, 1997).
• 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).
• Teachers should have professional development on purposes, structures, and
forms of informational, expository texts. This professional development might
include time to read such texts with other teachers and discuss how they work
(Martin & Duke, 2010; Williams, 2005).
On the back of this sheet, you will find the above-cited references. For a more
extended discussion, see Maloch and Bomer’s article in the January 2013 issue of
Language Arts.

Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 3, January 2013

A596_Jan2013_LA.indd 212 11/19/12 1:25 PM

 Resea r ch an d P o lic y  | Informational Texts and the Common Core Standards
page
213
MAKING THE CASE: REFERENCES

Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. K. (1998). Nonnarrative as a catalyst for literacy development.
Language Arts, 75, 108–117.
Duke, N. K. (2000a). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade.
Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
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 first-grade classrooms.
American Educational Research Journal, 37, 441–478.
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.
Guthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading.
Educational Psychologist, 32, 95–105.
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, 7–53.
Martin, N. M., & Duke, N. K. (2010). Interventions to enhance informational text
comprehension. In R. Allington & A. McGill-Franzen (Eds.), Handbook of reading
disabilities research. London, England: Routledge.
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.
Newkirk, T. (1989). More than stories: The range of children’s writing. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
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.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-
specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research
Quarterly, 42, 8–45.
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 3, January 2013

A596_Jan2013_LA.indd 213 11/19/12 1:25 PM