The Information Text Gap: The Mismatch between Non-Narrative Text Types in Basal Readers and 2009 NAEP Recommended Guidelines

Abstract

Spanish

French

The purpose of this study was to compare the text genres represented in two recent California-adopted basal readers (grades 1 through 6) with the guidelines for informational text types in the 2009 NAEP framework. Phase 1 of data collection involved the use of two measures to determine the presence of each text genre: number of pages and number of selections. The researchers assigned pages and selections to one of four categories: narrative, poetry, play, or nonfiction. The second phase of data collection involved classification of nonfiction selections according to one of four categories: literary nonfiction, or one of three types of informational text: expository, argumentation and persuasive, or procedural and documents. The researchers computed percentages of pages and selections devoted to each genre and each type of nonfiction across grade levels and series. Results overall indicated that 40% of pages/selections in both series were devoted to nonfiction text, and that 50% of nonfiction text selections were expository and 33% were literary nonfiction. The findings indicate that these basal readers expose students to more nonfiction text than in the past, but that the exposure to informational text is still less than recommended by the 2009 NAEP and limited mainly to exposition.

References

American Institutes for Research. (2005). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress pre-publication edition. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/reading_fw_06_05_prepub_edition.doc.

Armbruster

Anderson

T. H.

Armstrong

J. O.

Wise

M. A.

Janisch

Meyer

L. A.

(1991). Reading and questioning in content area lessons. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 35–59.

Baumann

J. F.

Hoffman

J. V.

Duffy-Hester

J. M.

(2000). The First R: Yesterday and today: U.S. elementary reading instruction practices reported by teachers and administrators. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 338–377.

Bereiter

Adams

M. J.

Pressley

Roit

McKeough

Hirshberg

Scardamalia

Campione

Carruthers

Treadway

G. H.

(2002). SRA Open Court reading. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw Hill.

Bernhardt

Destino

Kamil

Rodriguez-Munoz

(1995). Assessing science knowledge in an English/Spanish bilingual elementary school. Cognosos, 4(1), 4–8.

California Department of Education. (1998). The English-language arts content standards for California public schools (kindergarten through grade twelve). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

California Department of Education. (1999). Reading/language arts framework for California public schools. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Calkins

L. J.

Montgomery

Santman

Falk

(1998). A teacher's guide to standardized reading tests: Knowledge is power. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.

Campbell

J. R.

(1995). Interviewing children about their literacy experiences: Data from NAEP's Integrated Reading Performance Record (IRPR) at grade 4. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

10.

Caswell

Duke

N. K.

(1998). Non-narrative as a catalyst for literacy development. Language Arts, 75, 108–117.

11.

Chall

J. S.

Jacobs

V. A.

(1983). Writing and reading in the elementary grades: Developmental trends among low SES children. Language Arts, 60, 617–626.

12.

Chambliss

M. J.

Calfee

R. C.

(1998). Textboooks for learning: Nurturing children's minds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

13.

Cooper

J. D.

Pikulski

J. J.

Ackerman

P. A.

K. H.

Chard

D. J.

Garcia

G. G.

(2003). Houghton Mifflin reading California edition: A legacy of literacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

14.

Daniels

(2002). Expository text in literature circles. Voices from the Middle, 9(4), 7–14.

15.

Donovan

C. A.

(1996). First graders' impressions of genre-specific elements in writing narrative and expository texts. In Leu

D. J.

Kinzer

C. K.

Hinchman

K. A.

(Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century research and practice: Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 183–194). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

16.

Dreher

M. J.

Voelker

A. N.

(2004). Choosing informational books for primary-grade classrooms: The importance of balance and quality. In Saul

E. W.

(Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 260–276). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

17.

Duke

(2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.

18.

Duke

N. K.

Bennett-Armistead

V. S.

(2003). Reading and writing informational texts in the primary grades: Research-based practices. New York: Scholastic.

19.

Duke

N. K.

Kays

(1998). “Can I say ‘once upon a time’?”: Kindergarten children developing knowledge of information book language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 295–318.

20.

Duke

N. K.

Martineau

J. P.

Frank

K. A.

Bennett-Armistead

V. S.

(2003). 3.6 minutes per day: What happens when we include more informational text in first grade classrooms? Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.

21.

Durkin

(1981). Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reading series. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 515–544.

22.

Flood

Lapp

(1986). Types of texts: The match between what students read in basals and what they encounter in tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 284–297.

23.

Hoffman

J. V.

McCarthey

S. J.

Abbott

Christian

Corman

Curry

(1994). So what's new in the new basals? A focus on first grade. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 47–74.

24.

Hoffman

J. V.

Roser

N. L.

Battle

(1993). Reading aloud in classrooms: From the modal toward a “model.” Reading Teacher, 46, 496–503.

25.

Hoffman

J. V.

Sailors

Patterson

E. U.

(2002). Decodable texts for beginning reading instruction: The year 2000 basals. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 269–298.

26.

Jennings

Rentner

D. S.

(2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 110–113.

27.

Kamil

(2004, August). Reading to learn 2004. Paper presented at the Reading to Learn Summer Institute, Escondido, CA.

28.

Kamil

Bernhardt

E. B.

(2004). The science of reading and the reading of science: Successes, failures and promises in the search for prerequisite skills for science. In Saul

E. W.

(Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 123–139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

29.

Kamil

M. L.

Lane

(1997, December). A follow-up report on the classroom study of the efficacy of using information text for first grade reading instruction. Presented to the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.

30.

Kletzien

S. B.

Dreher

M. J.

(2004). Informational text in k–3 classrooms: Helping children read and write. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

31.

Korkeamäki

Tiainen

Dreher

M. J.

(1998). Helping Finnish second graders make sense of their reading and writing in their science project. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, 334–344.

32.

Leal

D. J.

(1994). A comparison of third-grade children's listening comprehension of scientific information using an information book and an informational storybook. In Kinzer

C. K.

Leu

D. J.

(Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-Third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 137–145). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

33.

Lukens

(2003). A critical handbook of children's literature. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

34.

Moss

Newton

(2002). An examination of the informational text genre in basal readers. Reading Psychology, 23, 1–13.

35.

Mullis

I. V. S.

Martin

M. O.

Gonzalez

E. J.

Kennedy

A. M.

(2003). PIRLS 2001 international report: IEA's study of reading literacy achievement in primary schools. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

36.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

37.

Olson

Dillner

(1976). Learning to teach reading in the elementary school: Utilizing a competency-based instructional system. New York: Macmillan.

38.

Oyler

Barry

(1996). Intertextual connections in read-alouds of information books. Language Arts, 73, 324–329.

39.

Palincsar

A.S.

Duke

N. K.

(2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children's reading development and achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 105(2), 183–197.

40.

Pappas

(2006). The information book genre: Its role in integrated science literacy research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 226–250.

41.

Pappas

C. C.

(1987, August). Exploring the generic shape of “information books”: Applying typicality notions to the process. Paper presented at the World Conference of Applied Linguistics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 299 834).

42.

Pappas

C. C.

(1991). Fostering full access to literacy by including information books. Language Arts, 68, 449–462.

43.

Pearson

P. D.

(2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18, 216–252.

44.

Pressley

Rankin

Yokoi

(1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 363–384.

45.

Salinger

Kamil

M. L.

Kapinus

Afflerbach

(2005). Development of a new framework for the NAEP reading assessment. In Fairbanks

C. M.

Worthy

Maloch

Hoffman

J. V.

Schallert

D. L.

(Eds.), 54th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 334–349). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

46.

Saul

E. W.

(2004). What's next: A view from the editor's perch. In Saul

E. W.

(Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 447–454). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

47.

Saul

E. W.

(2006). Crossing borders: In literacy and science instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

48.

Schmidt

W. H.

Caul

Byers

J. L.

Buchmann

(1984). Content of basal selections: Implications for comprehension instruction. In Duffy

G. G.

Roehler

L. R.

Mason

(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 144–163). New York: Longman.

49.

Venezky

R. L.

(2000). The origins of the present-day chasm between adult literacy needs and school literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 19–39.

50.

Wade

S. E.

Moje

E. B.

(2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In Kamil

M. L.

Mosenthal

P. B.

Pearson

P. D.

Barr

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume 3 (pp. 609–629). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

51.

Wineburg

(2006). A sobering big idea. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 401–402.