The internet is filled with discussions of the CCSS “emphasis” on informational text. In elementary schools, however, there shouldn’t be an emphasis at all. The Common Core recommends a 50/50 split between informational text and literature. So, both genres should get equal, instructional attention in K-5.
In a video posted to EngageNY, David Coleman explains:
Overwhelmingly today in kindergarten through fifth grade, students read stories, they read literature. And we have data that only seven percent of what students read now in kindergarten through fifth grade is informational text, including text about history or science, information about the world. And what that does, and that’s also true for the curriculum they read and the exams they take. (David Coleman, EngageNY, 7:01)
Additionally, the same percentage is articulated in Appendix A, with three citations presented to support it:
What is more, students today are asked to read very little expository text—as little as 7 and 15 percent of elementary and middle school instructional reading, for example, is expository (Hoffman, Sabo, Bliss, & Hoy, 1994; Moss & Newton, 2002; Yopp & Yopp, 2006)–(Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, Appendix A, p. 3)
Similar statements abound in videos explaining the informational text ratios in the Common Core State Standards. Because the percentages listed above seemed questionable, Jan engaged in a close reading of the three studies. Here is what she found.
Study #1
Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., Bliss, J., & Hoy, W. (1994). Building a culture of trust. Journal of School Leadership, 4, 484–501.While this is an interesting study, it does not offer insight into the statement that 7-15% of reading in classrooms today is in informational texts, as this study is about the emotional climate in middle schools. The article states,
Important aspects of faculty trust and school climate are identified and examined in this empirical study of middle schools. In general, openness in interpreting personal relationships promotes trust among teachers, and interpersonal trust seems to foster openness in organizational relationships…. (Hoffman, Sabo, Bliss, & Hoy; 1994).
This study has nothing to do with informational text reading in elementary and middle schools.
Study #2
Moss, B., & Newton, E. (2002). An examination of the informational text genre in basal readers. Reading Psychology, 23(1), 1–13.
In this study, the researchers analyzed basal reading series published from 1995-1997 to determine how much informational children’s literature was reprinted in the basal anthologies. Nonfiction text with a narrative structure, such as autobiographies, were not counted as informational text.
While this study deals directly with the informational texts in classrooms, it has two significant limitations in terms of its use in promoting the instructional distributions across genre as recommended in the Common Core:
1. The basal readers analyzed in this study were published 15+ years ago and are probably in use in very few classrooms today, which makes any reference to “classrooms today” questionable.
2. An analysis of the number of informational texts published in basal reading series does not necessarily warrant assumptions about the volume of informational text reading in classrooms. That is, even if the analyses of the basal readers were current, an analysis of their content cannot actually tell us how much informational text reading students are doing in classrooms.
This study indicates that 7% of the text in the second grade and 15% of the text in the fourth grade, MacMillan McGraw Hill (1997) basal reader was informational text. Similarly, 15% of the sixth grade text in the Scott Foresman (1995) basal was informational text. As this is the only reference to these numbers in any of the three articles cited in support of the Appendix A statement quoted above, it seems that the references are to individual grade levels, in individual basal reading series from basal readers published well over a decade ago.
Of interest, in 2008 Barbara Moss published a second content analysis of reading series. She found that 40% of the text in the most popular basal reading series was nonfiction text, with the vast majority of that text being expository rather than literary nonfiction. This information presents a very different, and much more current, view of informational text use in classrooms, although the evaluated texts were published from 2002-2003, which is still ten years ago. Barbara Moss is currently working on a third content analysis of basal reading series and their presentations of informational text.
Study #3
Yopp, H.K., & Yopp, R.H. (2006). Primary students & informational text. Science and Children, 44(3), 22-25.
While this is an interesting article with strategies for using informational texts in classrooms, it is a practical article rather than a research study and thus it does not offer any support for the statement about informational text percentages with which it is presented in Appendix A.
What does all this mean? …. To be continued. Read Part 2, tomorrow.
Resources
For a more extensive analysis of these studies as they relate to Appendix A, see this blog on IRA/Engage: http://engage.reading.org/READING/READING/Go.aspx?c=BlogViewer&BlogKey=730fe1a4-f683-4301-873b-ef089771e8dd
Allington, R. L., Askew, B. J., Blackowicz, C. L., Butler, A., Cole, Jl, Edwards, P. A., Gonzales, G. A., Harris, V. J., Hutchinson, S. M., Morrow, L. M., Sebasta, S. L., Sul;zby, E., & Tierney, R. (1995). Scott Foresman celebrate reading. Glenview, IL and New York: Scott Foresman.
Aoki, E. M., Arnold, V., Flood, J., Hoffman, J., Lapp, D., Martinez, M. Palincsar, A. S., Pressley, M., Smith, C. B., Teale, W. H., Tinajero, J., Webb, A. W., & Wood, K. (1997). Macmillan McGraw Hill spotlight on literacy. New York: Macmillan McGraw Hill.
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards; Glossary of terms. Retrieved from:http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf
Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., Bliss, J., & Hoy, W. (1994). Building a culture of trust. Journal of School Leadership, 4, 484–501.
Moss, B., & Newton, E. (2002). An examination of the informational text genre in basal readers. Reading Psychology, 23(1), 1–13.
Yopp, H.K., & Yopp, R.H. (2006). Primary students & informational text. Science and Children, 44(3), 22-25.
Hmmmn…of note is the 100 percent non- fiction reading that my son wanted and received between the ages of 3 and 8. This is unresearched, although it happened. While he may have been in one of the outdated basal readers in school, he more than made up for it in “home” reading. I wonder how many other youngsters read exclusively non-fiction at these ages and how that relates to their achievement now? I know this is no commentary on the research done for the common core but rather a noticing on research that could be done. It is also very suspicious that irrelevant research was used to support this document. Maybe there is a lack of pertinent research on this school of thought, or maybe you are right time was not available. I know we are not getting the time needed to close read the document or implement it properly…Thanks for the help.
Re: I wonder how many other youngsters read exclusively non-fiction at these ages and how that relates to their achievement now?
Hubby–read about police, various equipment, biographies and encyclopedias as a kid.
Me–read World Book encyclopedia, biographies, and large medical reference book as a kid.
Total years of schooling: 24 + 27
Total degrees: 2 Bachelor’s, 2 Masters, 1 Doctorate
And we read plenty of fiction too (he more than me).