Reading Psychology, 32:28–53, 2011Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02702710903241322

TEACHERS’ USE OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARDINFORMATIONAL TEXT IN K–5 CLASSROOMS

MOLLY NESSGraduate School of Education, Fordham University, New York, New York

The purposes of this research were (a) to understand the frequency with whichK–5 teachers use informational text in their routine classroom instruction, (b) tounderstand the percentage of informational text in classroom libraries, and (c) toexplore teachers’ attitudes about informational text. Survey data of 318 partic-ipants indicated that K–5 teachers used an average of 31.55 minutes (SD =22.24) of informational text per day and that classroom libraries consisted ofan average of 32.77% (SD = 14.16) of informational text. Participants wereoverwhelmingly positive about the instructional value of informational text butalso reported that a lack of time, a lack of resources, and curricular limitationsrestricted their use of informational text. Implications on how to increase the useof informational text in K–5 classrooms are provided.

In recent years, much attention has been given to the role of in-formational text in our elementary classrooms. Informational textengages the reader with aspects of the real world by conveyingand communicating factual information. Informational text dif-fers from narrative text in both the content and the structure ofthe text. Informational text typically has the following character-istics: (a) the communication of information about the natural orsocial world, (b) content that is both factual and durable, (c) time-less verb tenses and generic noun construction, (d) technical orcontent-specific vocabulary, (e) material to classify and define thetopic of interest, (f) text structures including compare/contrast,problem/solution, cause/effect, and enumeration/description,and (g) embedded graphical features including diagrams, in-dices, charts, and maps (Duke, 2000; Duke & Kays, 1998; Pappas,1986).

Address correspondence to Molly Ness, Graduate School of Education, FordhamUniversity, 113 West 60th Street, New York, NY 10023. E-mail: mness@fordham.edu

28

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 29

Related Literature

The Instructional Importance and Benefits of Informational Text

Our elementary school students must be prepared for frequentand purposeful use of informational text. By the time they en-ter secondary schools, students are expected to adeptly maneu-ver through informational text; in fact, 75% of texts used in sixthgrade and beyond are nonnarrative (Moss, 2004a, 2004b). Fur-thermore, the majority of reading and writing done by adult read-ers is informational in nature (Venezxky, 2000). Approximately95% of the sites commonly visited on the Internet contain infor-mational text (Kamil & Lane, 1998).

Informational text presents a wealth of instructional oppor-tunities for teachers and students. Firstly, it exposes students tospecialized vocabulary and topic-specific language (Duke & Kays,1998). Informational text also builds the background knowledgethat promotes text comprehension (Hirsch, 2003). An additionalbenefit of informational text lies in its diverse text structure; asstudents increase their exposure to text structure and features,they become more prepared to encounter similar features in theinformational texts they will use later in secondary schooling andthe workplace (Kamberelis, 1998; Ogle & Blachowicz, 2002). Themotivational aspects of informational text cannot be overlooked(Leal & Moss, 1999; Moss & Hendershot, 2002). In explainingthe engaging nature of informational text, Doiron (1994) notedthat “children are naturally curious, with a great thirst to knowabout the world around them” (p. 618). Furthermore, informa-tional text appeals to both struggling readers and boys (Dreher,2003; Kletzien & Szabo, 1998).

Because of its rich benefits, multiple researchers have advo-cated for the inclusion of informational text in elementary class-rooms (Chall & Snow, 1988; Doiron, 1994; Dreher 1998–1999,2003; Duke, 2003, 2004; Duke, Bennett-Armistead, & Roberts,2003; Smolkin & Donovan, 2002). Additionally, the professionalstandards in English language arts call for the inclusion of multi-ple genres to increase young children’s familiarity with and prepa-ration in a variety of genres (International Reading Association &National Council of Teachers of English, 1996).

30 M. Ness

The Scarcity of Informational Text in Classroom Instruction

Despite the undeniable importance of informational text, re-search indicates that our elementary students may be missing outof vital exposure to it. In her year-long study of 20 first-gradeclassrooms, Duke (2000) pointed out an alarming dearth of in-formational text; during written language activities, students wereexposed to only 3.6 minutes of informational text per day. Fur-thermore, informational text represented less than 10% of first-grade classroom libraries. Doiron (2003) found that when select-ing books from the school library, children chose twice as manyinformational texts as novels, yet classroom libraries were severelylimited in the availability of informational text. Yopp and Yopp(2000) reported that only 14% of primary-grade read-alouds dur-ing an average instructional day were informational text. In sur-veying 1,874 elementary teachers, researchers (Jacobs, Morrison,& Swinyard, 2000) found that teachers read aloud from informa-tional book an average of only 3 of their last 10 days of instruction.Children are equally unlikely to be exposed to informational textsduring parent read-alouds at home (Yopp & Yopp, 2006). Infor-mational texts are also scarce in basal readers; Moss and Newton(1998) found that of the selections in six second-grade basal se-ries, 16% were informational text.

Though our students may not have adequate exposure toinformational texts in their routine literacy instruction, they areasked to demonstrate proficiency with informational text in stan-dardized reading tests; Flood and Lapp (1986) found that 38% ofpassages on standardized reading tests were expository. The con-sequences of overlooking informational text as an instructionaltool can be severe. Some researchers (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin,1990; Chall & Snow, 1988) argued that the lack of informationaltext may contribute to the decline in reading achievement afterthird grade.

The Challenges of and Resistance to Informational Text

There are several possible explanations for the scarcity of infor-mational text in our elementary classrooms. The first is the be-lief that young children cannot handle the complex demands of

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 31

informational text, with vocabulary often being a primary con-cern. Informational texts are often replete with technical,content-specific vocabulary words. Not only may students lackfirm understandings of these unfamiliar terms, they may alsostruggle to derive the meanings of these words because of thelack of background knowledge to support their efforts (Hall &Sabey, 2007). The complex text structures embedded in informa-tional text are an additional source of difficulty. Meyer (1985)pointed out several commonly occurring text structures, includ-ing description, sequence, problem/solution, cause/effect, andcompare/contrast; a single text may contain several of these struc-tures, demanding the reader transition fluently between thesestructures (Chambliss & Calfee, 1989). In addition to complextext structures, informational texts contain unique features in-cluding headings/subheadings, typography, and graphics whichmay be sources of difficulty. Hall and Sabey explained that chil-dren may not understand how captions, text boxes, graphics, andheadings/subheadings contain essential information and helpreaders navigate through related topics. Furthermore, teachersthemselves may be unsure of how to help students in using infor-mational text. In surveying elementary educators, Davinroy andHiebert (1984) found many participants who were more comfort-able with and confident in using narrative text. These same teach-ers expressed uncertainty in how to support children’s compre-hension of informational text and how to coach students throughexamining text structures.

Unsubstantiated Beliefs About Young Children and Informational Text

Informational text certainly may present instructional challenges,but it is imperative to examine the unsubstantiated nature ofthe belief that young children cannot successfully negotiateinformational text; in fact, multiple studies have shown thatyoung children can be successful with informational text. Morespecifically, young children can successfully explore written lan-guage (Richgels, 2002), can learn about information book lan-guage (Pappas, 1993), can retell informational text (Moss, 1997;Pappas), can learn content from informational text (Duke & Kays,1998; Leal, 1994), can understand author’s craft (Farest, Miller,& Fewin, 1995), can participate in sophisticated discussions of

32 M. Ness

informational text (Heller, 2006), can draw intertextual connec-tions in informational text (Oyler & Barry, 1996), can producehigher numbers of comprehension discourse moves from infor-mational text read-alouds than storybook read-alouds (Smolkin &Donovan, 2002), can examine the purposes and features of infor-mational text structures (Maloch, 2008), and can construct writ-ten responses to informational text (Moss & Leal, 1994). In sum,the reasons to support the use of informational text in elementaryclassrooms far outweigh any potential obstacles to impede its use.

Purposes of the Study and Conceptual Framework

I began this study to examine K–5 teachers’ use of and attitudestoward informational text. My overarching objective was to under-stand the frequency with which teachers use informational textduring classroom instruction. I also hoped to understand whyteachers choose either to use or not use informational text in theirinstructional practices. Research questions were as follows:

1. With what frequency do K–5 teachers include informationaltext in an average day of classroom instruction and in theirclassroom libraries? Are there differences in the use of infor-mational text according to grade levels?

2. What are teachers’ attitudes toward the benefits and challengesof informational text?

3. Are there any obstacles preventing teachers from using infor-mational text in their routine K–5 classroom instruction?

To answer the first research question, I decided to have teach-ers self-report their frequency of use of informational text. My in-tent here was to determine whether K–5 teachers prioritized infor-mational text in classroom instruction and in classroom libraries.

More specifically, my hope was to understand whether theincreased attention given to informational text in practitionerjournals, online resources, and professional organizations was im-pacting teachers’ instructional choices. In other words, had any-thing changed Duke’s (2000) alarming report about the scarcityof informational text in elementary classrooms? In asking teachersabout their inclusion of informational text in classroom libraries,

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 33

I hoped to explore whether Young and Moss’s (2006) cry for“classroom libraries overflowing with quality nonfiction titles” (p.212) was a priority for K–5 teachers. I also asked about the in-clusion of informational text in classroom libraries in order tounderstand whether students in K–5 classrooms might have thesetexts as options for use during independent reading. The secondand third research questions intended to explore the reasons thatteachers use or do not use informational text in classroom prac-tice. Much of the literature suggests that informational text is notreadily used in classroom practices; my hope was to give voice tothe reasons behind this phenomenon.

This study was meant to fill a gap in our understanding of re-cent trends in classroom use of instructional text; the related re-search relies on teacher questionnaires that are growing increas-ingly outdated, are restricted to a select number of grade levels(Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi, 1996), or pertain largely to teachers’use of informational text in read-alouds rather than in generalliteracy instruction (Jacobs et al., 2000; Yopp & Yopp, 2000).

This work is guided by Rosenblatt’s (1978) transactional the-ory of literature, defining reading as an interactive transaction be-tween the reader and the text. This theory distinguishes betweenthe aesthetic and the efferent points of view. The aesthetic stancelooks at the readers’ personal reactions, including feelings andemotions, to text, whereas the efferent focuses on the reader’squest for information. In creating literacy experiences focusingon the inclusion of informational text, teachers can create op-portunities for readers to learn about themselves and the contentof texts. My work is also influenced by the importance of infor-mational literacy or the ability to access, evaluate, comprehend,and use information from a variety of sources. In today’s Informa-tion Age, students encounter a myriad of facts and informationthrough textbooks, newspapers, and the Internet. The ability touse and comprehend informational text is “central to success, andeven survival, in advanced schooling, the workplace, and the com-munity” (Duke, 2000, p. 202). Logically, our public schools andnation’s teachers hold the enormous responsibility of preparingstudents who are information literate. To aid their students in be-coming information literate, teachers must encourage students tobecome “intellectually curious observers, creators, and users of in-formation” (Lenox & Walker, 1993, p. 324). Thus, informational

34 M. Ness

text becomes an important resource in the effort to promote in-formation literacy among young students.

Methodology

The objectives of the study were addressed through a descriptivestudy conducted among 318 K–5 teachers. This study occurredover an 8-month period and involved teachers from six states.

Data Sources

Data for this study consisted of written responses to an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix A). I developed the question-naire in three phases: drafting, piloting, and finalizing (Dillon,1999). After drafting, I shared the questionnaire items with tworeading researchers and modified items based on their feedback.Then, I piloted the draft questionnaire with 33 elementary schoolteachers in New York and Maine. The purpose of the pilot wasto evaluate and assess the reliability of the questions. Analyzingthe data from the pilot study helped to design the format of thequestionnaire used for the present study. As a result of the pilot,I added and dropped items and clarified the wording and formatof particular items.

To inform teachers about the focus of the questionnaire andto clarify any potential confusion about the usage of the termi-nology informational text, the questionnaire provided participantswith a basic definition of informational text (see Appendix A). Inthe questionnaire, participants reported the amount of instruc-tional time allotted for informational text during an average dayof instruction. Next, teachers approximated the percentage of in-formational text in their classroom libraries.

In short-answer paragraphs, teachers provided (a) their be-liefs about the instructional benefits of informational text, (b) anypossible reasons why students might struggle with informationaltext, and (c) any potential obstacles preventing them from usinginformational text in their classroom. The questionnaire also in-cluded a number of demographic items. Teachers reported mini-mal biographic information including gender, age, years of teach-ing experience, and current grade(s) taught.

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 35

Participants

Participants in this study were 318 full-time elementary schoolteachers in Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Texas, andVirginia public schools. The sample of 318 teachers included 45kindergarten teachers, 55 first-grade teachers, 52 second-gradeteachers, 64 third-grade teachers, 40 fourth-grade teachers, and62 fifth-grade teachers. All participants were general classroomteachers, responsible for teaching all areas of the curriculum. Par-ticipants ranged in age from 22 to 54, with an average age of 35.25(SD = 5.48). Participants ranged in teaching experiences from 3to 34 years, with an average length of 16.75 years of classroom ex-perience (SD = 7.34). The vast majority of the 318 participantswere female (89%), whereas only 11% were men; this proportionis typical of elementary school teachers nationwide (National Ed-ucation Association, 2003). Sixty-six percent of teachers identifiedtheir schools as Title I schools.

Participants in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Yorkwere affiliated with a graduate school of education in a majormetropolitan area; these participants were either current gradu-ate students or alumni. Participants from Maine, Texas, and Vir-ginia attended district-wide mandatory professional developmentworkshops, focused on vocabulary and reading comprehensioninstruction, which I delivered.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

Data collection occurred over an 8-month period in the2007–2008 academic year. I employed a mixed-mode strategy ofboth written questionnaires and online questionnaires; this ap-proach allowed me to capitalize on the advantages of Web ques-tionnaires and to minimize nonresponse (Dillon, 1999; Kaplowitz,Hadlock, & Levine, 2004; Schaefer & Dillman 1998). The contentof the questionnaire was identical across both forms. I initiallyinvited 271 K–5 teachers in Maine, Texas, and Virginia to com-plete the survey on hard copy at the conclusion of professionaldevelopment workshops; I secured 200 participants, yielding a re-sponse rate of 73%. I also invited 321 teachers in Connecticut,New Jersey, and New York to complete the survey through an on-line data collection site; I secured 119 participants, for a response

36 M. Ness

rate of 37%. In evaluating response rates for the Web-based sur-vey, Archer (2008) reported that response rates of approximately40% provide a great deal of information.

To understand teachers’ self-reported inclusion of informa-tional text in daily classroom instruction and in classroom li-braries, I used statistical analysis software to examine the means,ranges, and standard deviations for the data across all 318 partic-ipants. To examine any possible trends about teachers’ use of in-structional text according to grade level, data were disaggregatedaccording to grade level. I used an analysis of variance (ANOVA)procedure to determine whether grade-level differences in teach-ers’ use of informational text existed.

To guide my examination of short-answer responses, I cate-gorized data using a constant comparative method (Bogdan &Biklen, 1992). Through inductive analysis (Patton, 1990), I al-lowed patterns and categories of analysis to “emerge out of thedata rather than being imposed on them prior to data collectionand analysis” (p. 390). To begin data analysis, I read and rereadthe data coding emerging patterns and phases, writing analyticaland methodological memos to form initial categories (LeCompte& Preissle, 1993). I then named each of these categories and iden-tified direct quotes that typified the category. For instance, partic-ipants wrote that informational text does “not have enough built-in hooks to make texts relevant.” Subsequently, I created a codeto note responses about disengaged readers as an obstacle to theinclusion of informational text. In the final stage of data analy-sis, I reread data to confirm categories and noted confirming anddisconfirming evidence (Erickson, 1986).

Findings

Both qualitative and quantitative data indicated that informa-tional text played an important role in the classrooms of the 318participants. Several findings and related themes, including thefollowing, are presented in further detail: (a) the inclusion of in-formational text in K–5 daily classroom instruction and classroomlibraries, (b) teachers’ beliefs about the benefits of informationaltext, (c) teachers’ beliefs about the challenges of informational

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 37

text, and (d) obstacles preventing the inclusion of informationaltext in K–5 classrooms.

The Inclusion of Informational Text in K–5 Daily ClassroomInstruction and Classroom Libraries

Quantitative findings indicated that K–5 teachers regularly incor-porated informational text into their daily classroom instructionand their classroom libraries. As displayed in Table 1, the meanuse of informational text for K–5 teachers was 31.55 minutes perday (SD = 22.24).

Not only do K–5 teachers use informational text during rou-tine instruction, it also appeared to hold an important place inclassroom libraries. On average, informational text comprised32.77% of classroom libraries (SD = 14.16). Data presented inTable 1 suggest an increase of informational text as grade levelincrease; these increases were particularly sharp when looking atteachers’ use of informational text in routine classroom instruc-tion. It is important to note the large increase in teachers’ useof informational text in daily classroom instruction from fourthgrade to fifth grade. Another interesting trend is that the percent-age of informational texts in teachers’ libraries jumped in secondgrade and then levels out. Surprisingly, though fifth-grade teach-ers seemed to use informational text with much more frequencyin their classroom instruction, the percentage of informationaltext included in their libraries was relatively similar to that of sec-ond, third, and fourth grades.

Because an additional intent of the study was to understandthe use of informational text according to grade level, I conductedan ANOVA on the daily minutes of informational text use withgrade level as the independent variable. When investigating teach-ers’ use of informational text in daily classroom instruction, re-sults from ANOVA analyses indicated grade-level differences at ap < .05 level of statistical significance, F (5, 313) = 26.10. As pre-sented in Table 2, results from Tukey testing for post hoc analysisof informational text used in daily instruction showed the signif-icant grade-level differences for the use of informational text inclassroom instruction.

Results from ANOVA analyses indicated differences in in-formational class in classroom libraries according to grade level,

TA

BL

E1

Part

icip

ants

’In

clus

ion

ofIn

form

atio

nal

Text

inD

aily

Cla

ssro

omIn

stru

ctio

nan

dC

lass

room

Lib

rari

es

Gra

deL

evel

Num

ber

ofPa

rtic

ipan

ts

Mea

nN

umbe

rof

Min

utes

ofIn

form

atio

nal

Text

Use

din

Dai

lyC

lass

room

Inst

ruct

ion

Min

imum

Num

ber

ofM

inut

esof

Info

rmat

ion

alTe

xtU

sed

inD

aily

Cla

ssro

omIn

stru

ctio

n

Max

imum

Num

ber

ofM

inut

esof

Info

rmat

ion

alTe

xtU

sed

inD

aily

Cla

ssro

omIn

stru

ctio

n

Mea

nPe

rcen

tage

ofIn

form

atio

nal

Text

inC

lass

room

Lib

rari

es

Min

imum

Perc

enta

geof

Info

rmat

ion

alTe

xtin

Cla

ssro

omL

ibra

ries

Max

imum

Perc

enta

geof

Info

rmat

ion

alTe

xtin

Cla

ssro

omL

ibra

ries

K–5

318

31.5

5(S

D=

22.2

4)0

100

32.7

7(S

D=

14.1

6)5

75K

4515

.54

(SD

=9.

44)

035

23.9

2(S

D=

10.4

3)5

501

5518

.36

(SD

=7.

20)

530

27.8

1(S

D=

14.4

9)10

602

5227

.51

(SD

=20

.06)

1090

36.4

4(S

D=

12.5

8)20

603

6435

.31

(SD

=14

.85)

1570

35.3

9(S

D=

9.05

)15

504

4038

.13

(SD

=23

.74)

1080

36.8

8(S

D=

20.7

1)15

755

6250

.40

(SD

=27

.85)

1010

035

.32

(SD

=13

.08)

1560

38

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 39

TABLE 2 Post Hoc Tukey Testing for Differences Among Grade Levels inTeachers’ Self-Reported Daily Use of Informational Text Structure

Grade Level K 1 2 3 4 5

K — ns ns .000∗ .000∗ .000∗

1 — ns .000∗ .000∗ .000∗

2 — ns ns .000∗

3 — ns .000∗

4 — ns5 —

∗The mean difference is significant at the 0.01 level.

F (5, 313) = 7.61, p < .05. Results from Tukey testing for post hocanalysis of informational text in classroom libraries are presentedin Table 3.

I was also interested to see whether patterns among teachers’inclusion of informational text emerged when comparing primarygrades to upper elementary grades. In considering this pattern, Iincluded kindergarten, first, and second grades in the primarygrades, with third, fourth, and fifth grades being upper elemen-tary grades (Jacobs et al., 2000). Results of ANOVA tests indicatedthat teachers in upper elementary grades included informationaltext in their daily classroom instruction and in their classroom li-braries more frequently than primary grade teachers (F = 91.074,df = 1, 317, p < .000).

TABLE 3 Post Hoc Tukey Testing for Differences Among Grade Levels inTeachers’ Self-Reported Percentage of Informational Text in ClassroomLibraries

Grade Level K 1 2 3 4 5

K — ns .000∗ .000∗ .001∗ .001∗

1 — ns .010∗ ns ns2 — ns ns ns3 — ns ns4 — ns5 —

∗The mean difference is significant at the 0.01 level.

40 M. Ness

Teachers’ Beliefs About the Benefits of Informational Text

Subsequent to self-reporting their inclusion of information text inclassroom instruction and libraries, participants answered ques-tions about their attitudes toward the genre. The vast majorityof participants pointed out the cognitive, linguistic, and moti-vational benefits of informational text. More specifically, teach-ers explained that informational text benefited K–5 students bybuilding (a) new knowledge, (b) literacy skills and preparationfor content-specific state tests, and (c) motivation.

Building New Knowledge

In arguing that informational text was highly beneficial for theirstudents, participants explained that “informational text providesstudents with facts, information, and insight on topics that maybe largely unfamiliar to them.” A second-grade teacher explainedthat the informational texts in her classroom library have enabledstudents to research unfamiliar topics and satisfy their own intel-lectual curiosity.

Every day, my kids ask me questions that I can’t or don’t always answer.While I might want to put down whatever we’re doing and answer a stu-dent’s seemingly off-topic question about the adaptations of snakes, I can’tdo it. By increasing informational text that’s available to my students, theynow have a place to go to answer their own questions or learn more aboutwhatever topic intrigues them.

Because many of the participants were teachers in schools eligi-ble for Title I funding, several teachers indicated that informa-tion texts were particularly useful in expanding knowledge forstudents from low socioeconomic backgrounds who mayhave “limited understandings of the world outside of theirneighborhoods.”

Building Literacy Skills and Readiness for Content-Specific Tests

Participants lauded informational text for preparing students togain information from text, a practical literacy skill commonlyused by older readers in secondary schools, higher education, and

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 41

the workplace. In particular, several upper elementary teachersused informational text to prepare their students for the demandsof middle school, where, as explained by a fifth-grade teacher,“students better come in knowing how to read for information intheir content classes” Other teachers reported that informationaltext opened up new opportunities to teach reading comprehen-sion strategies. Specifically, teachers cited that informational textwas a tool to teach compare/contrast, text-to-world connections,graphic organizers, and summarization. A second-grade teachernoted, “Informational texts help me teach a wide range of skillsand strategies. It’s important for my kids to look compare and con-trast, but I can’t always find picture books that lend themselves tothat skill.” A fifth-grade teacher explained that informational textallowed her to use reciprocal teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984)as a comprehension strategy:

I’ve always liked reciprocal teaching as a comprehension strategy—thatstudents collaboratively construct the meaning of a text. For whatever rea-son, I never had much success doing it with narrative texts. But my studentsare quite skilled in using it with informational text. They can always askquestions about informational text, and then they often find that some-one in their group knows the answer to those questions. Or, even moreexciting, sometimes we turn to another informational text to answer ourlingering questions.

Other benefits of informational text included preparing stu-dents for content-specific state tests, which challenge students toread for information. A fourth-grade teacher posed, “How wouldI get my students ready for content-area state tests without infor-mational text? Students have to be able to know how to read theinformational passages that they’ll see on those tests.” Data sug-gested that K–5 teachers approached informational text as an es-sential tool that prepares students for the academic demands ofschooling in an era of accountability.

Building Motivation

Teachers also reported that the motivating and engaging formatof informational text tapped into the natural curiosity displayedby young children. Participants stated that the abundant topics of

42 M. Ness

informational text enabled both struggling readers and reluctantreaders to find “the right book for them.” A second-grade teacherexplained that her male students “routinely squabbled over booksabout sports, trucks, and ‘gross stuff.’ It’s exciting to see my reluc-tant readers be so eager to dive into a book.”

Teachers’ Beliefs About the Challenges of Informational Text

Though highly favorable of informational text, participants alsopointed out its instructional challenges. Teachers cited (a) vocab-ulary, (b) background knowledge, and (c) text structure.

THE CHALLENGES OF VOCABULARYAcross participants’ responses, vocabulary emerged as the

most prevalent challenge for students. A first-grade teacher saidthat the demanding vocabulary of informational text “almost en-sures that my students wouldn’t comprehend.” Similarly, manyteachers cited that the language demands of informational textwere a significant obstacle to beginning readers and English-language learners. Many teachers explained that the vocabularydemands of informational text resulted in reading levels higherthan those of their students.

THE CHALLENGES OF BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGEAccording to participants, students’ lack of background

knowledge or exposure to the topic posed an additional chal-lenge. A fourth-grade teacher elaborated as below:

My students lack the prior knowledge to be successful in connecting tothe topic at hand. Because many of the informational texts assume thereader brings knowledge to the page, I have to do an enormous amountof frontloading, including preteaching vocabulary, providing an overviewof the topic, or finding pictures, photos, or Internet resources to introducethe topic.

Thus, teachers were acutely aware that their students’ limitedbackground knowledge may impede their comprehension of in-formational text.

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 43

THE CHALLENGES OF TEXT STRUCTUREParticipants also cited informational text structure, including

captions, typography, and sequencing, as challenging for youngreaders. A common sentiment, as voiced by several participantsand explained here by a first-grade teacher, was that “my studentsget overwhelmed by so much going on one page. They don’t knowwhere to begin, how to begin, or how to navigate through thesetexts.” Other respondents cited the length and amount of infor-mation as troublesome.

Obstacles Preventing the Inclusion of InformationalText in K–5 Classrooms

In their open-ended responses, many participants reported thatthey would like to include more information in routine instruc-tion. These participants provided multiple barriers that impededtheir use of informational text, including the following: (a) in-structional time constraints, (b) lack of resources, (c) curricularlimitations, and (d) disengaged readers.

INSTRUCTIONAL TIME CONSTRAINTS AS AN OBSTACLEThe most prevalent obstacle was the lack of instructional

time. Nearly half of participants cited the lack of instructionaltime as an impediment to the inclusion of informational text. Athird-grade teacher, who cited using 10 minutes of informationaltext per day, explained the following:

In our classrooms today, there’s so much pressure to prepare students forthe state tests. As test preparation becomes a top priority, everything elseseems to get pushed to the periphery. At this point, my students get onlyabout 30 minutes of science and 50 minutes of social studies per week.Those content areas provide the best opportunity for informational text,but there’s often just not enough time to get there.

Similarly, a fourth-grade teacher explained that “it can be so time-consuming to wade through the complexities of informationaltext, that I often summarize the content just to save time.” As theirinstructional time dwindles, teachers may see informational text

44 M. Ness

as both time consuming and pertinent only for content-specificinstruction.

LACK OF QUALITY RESOURCES AS AN OBSTACLEAnother common obstacle pertained to either the lack of

resources or limited funding to buy informational texts. Onesecond-grade participant explained, “I need more leveled infor-mational text in order to better use it during reading and writingworkshops. I’d also like a variety of big books so that I may bet-ter teach the various features of informational text in a sharedreading format.” Many participants pointed out the lack of lev-eled informational texts appropriate to students’ levels. In par-ticular, participants who taught in schools with high populationsof English-language learners indicated a lack of suitably differen-tiated informational texts. Others pointed to the “poor choices”and “limited availability of quality texts” as preventing further in-clusion in their instruction. A third-grade teacher explained thefollowing:

I am frustrated by the lack of quality informational texts that are availablefor my students with limited background knowledge, low comprehensionlevels, or unsophisticated vocabulary. I’ve struggled to find informationaltexts that aren’t wordy, that match students’ “just right” reading levels, andthat relay curriculum-related topics in an engaging format.

Thus, teachers demanded not just an increased quantity of infor-mational text but increased quality of informational texts to servespecific instructional purposes and to meet the needs of diversestudents.

CURRICULAR LIMITATIONS AS AN OBSTACLECurricular limitations and school-adopted basal readers also

served as an impediment to informational text in K–5 classrooms.Several respondents in Grades K, 1, and 2 taught in Reading Firstschools, in which basal readers determined the type of text usedin classrooms. A common sentiment, as stated here by a first-grade teacher, was “If only my basal reader had it, I’d incorporatemore informational text.” These teachers appeared to have felt

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 45

restricted to their basal readers and struggled to bring in informa-tional text as additional reading material.

DISENGAGED READERS AS AN OBSTACLEA final obstacle preventing the inclusion of more informa-

tional text came from a relatively small number of teachers, whofound that informational texts failed to entertain or engage theirstudents, particularly young girls. More specifically, participantsexplained that informational text didn’t lend itself to the oppor-tunity “to curl up with a favorite book” in the way that narrativetext does. Other teachers explained that their disengaged readersfound informational text “boring.” These teachers expressed thatstudents’ lack of background knowledge and limited world knowl-edge did not motivate them to read about “dry topics presentedin informational text.”

Implications and Conclusions

Before examining the implications of this data, we must consider-ate the possible limitations of this study. Because the results werederived from analyses of self-reported data, teachers may have pro-vided answers that they thought were the “correct” ones. Teach-ers may have overinflated their responses and findings may havebeen quite different if an observational component were an ad-ditional data source. Furthermore, as with almost any survey re-search, nonresponder bias is a possible limitation. This study re-ports the results of 318 participants, but it is impossible to predicthow other teachers, who opted not to respond to the survey, mayhave responded. As explained by Jacobs et al. (2000), the resultsmay or may not represent the instructional practices and opinionsof a larger portion of K–5 teachers.

These findings suggest positive implications about teachers’use of and attitudes toward informational text in K–5 classroominstruction. It seems that K–5 teachers incorporate informationaltext into both their daily instruction and their classroom libraries.Looking across all data, it appears that teachers include more in-formational text in their classroom instruction and classroom li-braries in the upper grades than in primary grades. Whereas Duke(2000) pointed out the shortage of informational text in class-room instruction, teachers in this study reported using it for an

46 M. Ness

average of 31 minutes per day and estimated that informationaltext makes up 32% of their classroom libraries. Thus, it seems thatprogress is being made in reaching Moss’s (2003) recommenda-tion that about half of classroom libraries consist of informationaltext. These classroom libraries seem to include much more thanthe 10% of informational text found in Duke’s study.

In examining trends across grade levels, it is important tonote that as grade levels increase, so too does teachers’ relianceupon and inclusion of informational text. This trend may betraced back to Chall’s (1983) phases of literacy instruction; in theprimary grades, teachers devote more time to explicit instructionin learning to read, whereas teachers in upper elementary gradesmay incorporate informational text to encourage reading to learn.It is possible that the primary teachers in this study see narrativetexts as a platform for teaching students to read and that upperelementary grade teachers utilize informational text to teach bothcontent and reading comprehension strategies.

There are several possibilities to explain what appears to bean increasing reliance on informational text. It is possible thatteachers are receiving messages about the importance of infor-mational text from a variety of sources. Duke (2000) posited thatresearchers’ calls for “substantial attention to informational textin the early grades” (p. 221) had not yet impacted instructionalpractices; perhaps this message, which has recently been reflectedin more practitioner-oriented journals, is finally reaching largernumbers and varied audiences. These findings may also reflectan increase not only in the amount of informational texts frompublishing companies but also in the quality of texts, as revealedby Leal, Cunningham, and Mowrer (2006), who explained that“Informational books have made major advances in providing in-teresting topics in an appealing manner” (p. 1). As teachers andlibrarians have demanded more engaging and appropriate selec-tions for young readers, the call has been answered with “an influxof informational text . . . covering almost any subject” (p. 2).

Though the findings of this study suggest progress, there cer-tainly is room to grow in the possibilities of informational text.The fact remains that informational text is still a relatively over-looked genre. To resolve this issue, it is not enough merely tofill classroom libraries with a slew of informational text; rather,these texts must been selected with much thought and care. Moss,

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 47

Leone, and DiPillo (1997) suggested that teachers and librariansconsider five criteria when selecting informational text: (a) theauthority of the author; (b) that accuracy of the text content;(c) the appropriateness of the book for its audience; (d) the liter-ary artistry, including engaging information and devices to hookreaders; and (e) the appearance and attractiveness of the book.When selecting quality titles on a wide range of topics, teacherscan take advantage of multiple resources, including book reviewsfrom the American Library Association and awards for nonfictiontitles such as the National Council of Teachers of English’s Or-bis Pictus Award and the American Library Association’s RobertF. Siebert Awards. It is also crucial that the informational texts se-lected represent a range of reading levels; teachers and schoolsmust also make concerted efforts to find informational text tomeet the diverse needs of English-language learners and strug-gling readers. Additionally, as requested by several participants inthis study and recommended by Duke (2000), schools must con-tinue to increase budgets and allot funding for the purchase of in-formational text. Finally, I urge publishing houses to continue toincrease the amount of informational text in basal readers: a possi-ble solution to the participants in this study whose tightly scriptedcurriculum impeded their ability to rely upon more informationaltext.

In addition to increasing the number of quality informationaltexts used in classroom instruction and included in classroom li-braries, we must help teachers see informational texts as a teach-ing and learning tool. Through professional development effortsand graduate coursework, we must encourage teachers to step out-side of the comfort zones of teachers’ manuals. We must helpteachers adopt creative approaches to including informationaltext, particularly in schools with strictly adopted curricula. Instruc-tional opportunities with informational text abound; teachers canincorporate informational text into read alouds (Duke & Kays,1998), into guided and independent reading (Duke, 2004), intolessons on decoding and phonemic awareness (Duke, Martineau,Frank, & Bennett-Armistead, 2003), and into reading comprehen-sion and writing instruction (Duke; Duke & Purcell-Gates, 2003).

Furthermore, we must continue to support teachers in theirefforts to use these texts in their classrooms. The majority ofteachers in this study understood the instructional value of

48 M. Ness

informational texts, but participants were also cognizant of the in-structional challenges which they present. Hall and Sabey (2007)suggested that many teachers lack the methods and strategies thatenable young children to successfully use informational text;teacher training should prepare teachers with the instructionalpractices that equip young readers to navigate the vocabulary,text structure, and general comprehension difficulties posed byinformational text. Teachers need a practical and theoreticalunderstanding of how to use informational texts in their rou-tine literacy activities to promote students’ fluency, vocabulary,comprehension, and writing skills. With knowledge in these in-structional strategies, teachers may be better prepared and moreconfident in providing explicit instruction in informational text.Additionally, as teachers better understand the rich instructionalopportunities in informational text, they may come to see it as anessential component in literacy, rather than an add-on; perhapsthis may alleviate teachers citing a lack of instructional time as anobstacle to informational text.

Concluding Thoughts

The purpose of this study was to understand teachers’ inclusionof informational text, as well as their attitudes that influence theseinstructional decisions. It is my hope that this study will pave theway for substantial follow-up work. It would be logical to furtherexamine grade-level differences in informational text. It wouldalso be prudent to follow up with case studies of individual teach-ers who span a range of use of informational text; for example,it would be interesting to compare and contrast the a fifth-gradeteacher who used only 15 minutes a day of instructional text andanother fifth-grade teacher who used 100 minutes a day.

Though teachers appear to be receiving the message aboutthe instructional importance of and increased need for informa-tional text, our work is far from done. If the goal is for our ele-mentary school students to be fluent and proficient in reading forinformation, to perform well on content-based tests, and to be en-gaged and literate members of the information age, we must fur-ther increase the informational text our young readers encounteron a daily basis. We also must ensure that teachers continue to

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 49

grow in their professional knowledge regarding how best to usethese texts to promote cognitive and literacy development.

References

Archer, T. (2008). Response rates to expect from Web-based questionnairesand what to do about it. Journal of Extension, 46(3). Retrieved fromhttp://www.joe.org/joe/2008june/rb3.shtml

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.).Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Chall, J., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall

behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Chall, J., & Snow, C. (1988). Influences of reading in low-income students. Edu-

cation Digest, 54, 53–56.Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1989). Designing science textbooks to enhance

student understanding. Educational Psychologist, 24(3), 307–322.Davinroy, K. H., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). An examination of teachers’ thinking

about assessment of expository text. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Mul-tidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice (pp. 60–71). Chicago,IL: National Reading Conference.

Dillon, D. (1999). Mail and Internet questionnaires: A tailored design method. NewYork, NY: Wiley.

Doiron, R. (1994). Using nonfiction in a read-aloud program: Letting the factsspeak for themselves. The Reading Teacher, 47(8), 616–624.

Doiron, R. (2003). Boy books, girl books: Should we re-organize our school li-brary collections? Teacher Librarian, 30(3), 14–17.

Dreher, M. (1998–1999). Motivating children to read more nonfiction. The Read-ing Teacher, 52(4), 414–417.

Dreher, M. (2003). Motivating struggling readers by tapping the potential ofinformation books. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 25–38.

Duke, N. (2000). 3.6 Minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in firstgrade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224.

Duke, N. (2003). Reading to learn from the very beginning: Information booksin early childhood. Young Children, 58(2), 14–20.

Duke, N. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6),40–44.

Duke, N., & Bennett-Armistead, V. S. (2003). Reading & writing informational textin the primary grades: Research-based practices. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Duke, N., Bennett-Armistead, V. S., & Roberts, E. (2003). Filling the great void:Why we should bring nonfiction into the early-grade classroom. American Ed-ucator, 27(1), 30–35, 46.

Duke, N., & Kays, J. (1998). “Can I say ‘once upon a time’?”: Kindergarten chil-dren developing knowledge of information book language. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 13(2), 295–318.

Duke, N., Martineau, J., Frank, K., & Bennett-Armistead, V. (2003). 33.6 Min-utes per day: What happens when we include more informational text in first grade

50 M. Ness

classrooms? Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing,MI.

Duke, N. K., & Purcell-Gates, V. (2003). Genres at home and at school: Bridgingthe known to the new. The Reading Teacher, 57, 30–37.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–171). NewYork, NY: Macmillian.

Farest, C., Miller, C., & Fewin, S. (1995). Lewis & Clark: An incredible journeyinto the world of information books. New Advocate, 8(4), 271–288.

Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1986). Types of text: The match between what studentsread in basals and what they encounter in tests. Reading Research Quarterly,21(3), 284–297.

Hall, K., & Sabey, B. (2007). Focus on the facts: Using informational texts effec-tively in early elementary classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2),261–268.

Heller, M. (2006). Telling stories and talking facts: First graders’ engagements ina nonfiction book club. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 358–369.

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—Ofwords and the world. American Education, 27(1), 7–14.

International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English.(1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE: Authors. Re-trieved from http://www.reading/org/resources/issues/reports/learningstandards.html

Jacobs, J. S., Morrison, T. G., & Swinyard, W. R. (2000). Reading aloud to stu-dents: A national probability study of classroom reading practices of elemen-tary school teachers. Reading Psychology, 21(3), 171–193.

Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relations between children’s literacy diets and genre de-velopment: You write what you read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 7–53.

Kamil, M. L., & Lane, D. M. (1998). Researching the relation between technol-ogy and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna,L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transforma-tions in a post-typographic world (pp. 323–341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of Web andmail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101.

Kletzien, S. B., & Szabo, R. (1998, December). Informational text or narrative text?Children’s preferences revisited. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theNational Reading Conference, Austin, TX.

Leal, D. J. (1994). A comparison of third grade children’s listening comprehen-sion and retention of scientific information using an informational book andan informational storybook. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimen-sional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice (Vol. 43, pp. 135–147). TheNational Reading Conference, Oak Creek, WI.

Leal, D. J., Cunningham, J., & Mawrer, K. (2006). Riding the informational bookwave: Identifying terms of engagement for different types of informational text. Un-published manuscript.

Leal, D., & Moss, B. (1999). Encounters with information text: Perceptions andinsights from four gifted readers. Reading Horizons, 40(2), 81–101.

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 51

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in edu-cational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Lenox, M. F., & Walker, M. L. (1993). Information literacy in the educationalprocess. The Educational Forum, 57(3), 312–324.

Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of informational texts in a secondgrade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(3), 315–362.

Meyer, B. J. (1985). Prose analysis: Purpose, procedures, and problems. In B. K.Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11–64). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Moss, B. (1997). A qualitative assessment of first graders’ retelling of expositorytext. Reading Research and Instruction, 37(1), 1–13.

Moss, B. (2003). Exploring the literature of fact: Children’s nonfiction trade books in theelementary classroom. New York, NY: Guilford.

Moss, B. (2004a). Fabulous, fascinating fact books: Using informational tradebooks as models for kids’ writing can yield rich results. Instructor, 113(8),28–29, 65.

Moss, B. (2004b). Teaching expository text structures through information tradebook retellings. The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 710–719.

Moss, B., & Hendershot, J. (2002). Exploring sixth graders’ selection of nonfic-tion trade books. The Reading Teacher, 56(1), 6–17.

Moss, B., & Leal, D. J. (1994, November). A comparison of children’s written responsesto science-related information books & informational storybooks. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA.

Moss, B., Leone, S., & DiPillo, M. L. (1997). Exploring the literature of fact:Linking reading and writing through information trade books. Language Arts,74(6), 418–429.

Moss, B., & Newton, E. (1998, December). An examination of the informationaltext genre in recent basal readers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theNational Reading Conference, Austin, TX.

National Education Association. (2003). Status of the American Public School Teacher2000–2001: Highlights. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 20, 2009,from http://www.nea.org/edstats/images/statushighlights.pdf

Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping studentscomprehend informational text. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Com-prehension instruction: Research-based best practice (pp. 359–274). New York, NY:Guilford.

Oyler, C., & Barry, A. (1996). Intertextual connections in read-alouds of infor-mation books. Language Arts, 73(5), 324–329.

Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,1(2), 117–175.

Pappas, C. C. (1986, December). Exploring the global structure of “information books.”Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference,Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278 952).

Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative “primary?”: Some insights from kindergart-ners’ pretend readings of stories and informational books. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 25(1), 97–129.

52 M. Ness

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices ofprimary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. The ElementarySchool Journal, 96(4), 363–384.

Richgels, D. (2002). Informational texts in kindergarten. The Reading Teacher,55(6), 586–595.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of theliterary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard e-mailmethodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 378–397.

Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2002). “Oh excellent, excellent question!”Developmental differences and comprehension acquisition. In C. C. Block& M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices(pp. 140–157). New York, NY: Guilford.

Venezsky, R. L. (2000). The origins of the present-day chasm between adult lit-eracy needs and school literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(1),1–19.

Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2000). Sharing informational text with young chil-dren. The Reading Teacher, 53(5), 410–423.

Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2006). Informational texts as read-alouds at schooland home. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 37–51.

Young, T., & Moss, B. (2006). Nonfiction in the classroom library: A literacy ne-cessity. Childhood Education, 82(4), 207–212.

Appendix A—Questionnaire

Thank you for your willingness to participate. The following ques-tionnaire will ask you several questions about how you use infor-mational text in your K–5 classroom. Informational text is a type ofnonfiction that conveys information about the natural or socialworld (Duke & Bennett-Armistead, 2003).

Fill in the following information.State where you currently teachNumber of years you’ve been teachingType of certification you holdState where you received certificationYour current teaching placement (grade level,etc.Your ageGenderDoes your current school receive Title I funding? Yes/No

Teachers’ Use of Informational Text 53

1. In a typical day of classroom instruction, how frequently doyou use informational text/nonfiction text? Fill an approxi-mate number of minutes.

2. Estimate the percentage of your classroom library that is in-formational text. %

3. In what ways is informational text beneficial for your stu-dents?

4. List some reasons why your students might struggle with in-formational text.

5. Are there any factors that currently limit your ability to useinformational text in your classroom? If so, please explainthese factors.

Copyright of Reading Psychology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.