View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Frequency of Informational Text Read-Alouds in Kindergarten and Its Association with Students' Vocabulary and Knowledge Development

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Frequency of Informational Text Read-Alouds in Kindergarten and Its Association with Students' Vocabulary and Knowledge Development
Language: English
Authors: Sen Wang (ORCID 0000-0003-2230-2264), Sonia Q. Cabell, Elizabeth Burke Hadley, Jill M. Pentimonti, Arzu Gungor Leushuis
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2026 54(2):837-849.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2026
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305A170635
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Kindergarten, Young Children, Preschool Teachers, English Instruction, Language Arts, Reading Instruction, Reading Aloud to Others, Vocabulary Development, Social Studies, Mathematics, Scientific Concepts, Teaching Methods, Instructional Effectiveness
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-025-01885-z
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: While informational texts have been shown to enhance vocabulary and content knowledge, most prior research indicates that early childhood teachers seldom read such texts to their students. This study offers an updated perspective on the frequency of informational text use during read-aloud sessions by kindergarten teachers. These teachers work in a large urban U.S. district committed to building content knowledge through read-alouds during ELA instruction. Over the course of a semester, 38 teachers completed 174 reading logs, covering 310 titles, which yielded three key findings: the average proportion of informational text read-alouds was higher than reported in previous studies, there was considerable variation among teachers in how often they used informational texts for read-alouds, and informational texts related to social studies and math were read aloud less frequently than those focused on science concepts. Furthermore, the study examined the relation between the frequency of informational text read-alouds and kindergarten students' gains in vocabulary and content knowledge over one academic year. The results indicated that the frequency of informational text read-alouds did not significantly correlate with students' vocabulary and knowledge gains, suggesting that the current instructional practices during these read-alouds may not be sufficient to effectively support students' learning in these areas.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1507518
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGcEujWI61IbqGppAqjKdXtAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLZj_S23Ay-iqd8CnwIBEICBm7wGMayXyev-w1BLZUcc0r_SUR1hqKN5DvurolEoYWZ1cw20wLHz2FbwGiqJwXBZMufKeEuMGIOszFtQhceaIKVKygpvakcuWzZeuRMJjF4xoG7_xfrWuM_D8f1vpSxzWHPRdtGnh6feGI4onThikJKYzolPYn8UmSF_QZx9Jj66G_IpdqwPLeoaemYGpV4TJ22QTCkjNN3JCDlz
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191573904;5mx01feb.26;2026Feb17.02:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191573904-1">The Frequency of Informational Text Read-Alouds in Kindergarten and its Association with Students' Vocabulary and Knowledge Development </title> <p>While informational texts have been shown to enhance vocabulary and content knowledge, most prior research indicates that early childhood teachers seldom read such texts to their students. This study offers an updated perspective on the frequency of informational text use during read-aloud sessions by kindergarten teachers. These teachers work in a large urban U.S. district committed to building content knowledge through read-alouds during ELA instruction. Over the course of a semester, 38 teachers completed 174 reading logs, covering 310 titles, which yielded three key findings: the average proportion of informational text read-alouds was higher than reported in previous studies, there was considerable variation among teachers in how often they used informational texts for read-alouds, and informational texts related to social studies and math were read aloud less frequently than those focused on science concepts. Furthermore, the study examined the relation between the frequency of informational text read-alouds and kindergarten students' gains in vocabulary and content knowledge over one academic year. The results indicated that the frequency of informational text read-alouds did not significantly correlate with students' vocabulary and knowledge gains, suggesting that the current instructional practices during these read-alouds may not be sufficient to effectively support students' learning in these areas.</p> <p>Keywords: Informational text; Read-alouds; Vocabulary; Content knowledge; Kindergarten; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners have long advocated for the classroom practice of reading aloud to students in the primary grades (Common Core State Standards [CCSS], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>]; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref2">31</reflink>]). Reading aloud to students during the early years of schooling can provide them with quality language exposure to develop their knowledge of words and the world, which in turn leads to successful comprehension of a variety of texts (Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]; Hirsch, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]; Wright & Domke, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref5">54</reflink>]). Experimental research on early childhood content-rich curricula (preschool through grade 2) has demonstrated that the use of these curricula improves students' vocabulary and knowledge (Cabell & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]; Gonzalez et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]; Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref9">29</reflink>]; Neuman & Kaefer, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref10">37</reflink>]). However, in such studies, it is difficult to pinpoint which components drive the effect on students' skills as curricula generally feature multiple components, including texts, activities, discussion questions, and beyond.</p> <p>Regardless of the curriculum, informational texts which convey information about the natural or social world (Duke & Bennett-Armistead, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]), offer unique opportunities for teachers to instruct on specific text features (e.g., labels, maps), cause and effect language (Duke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]), and domain-specific academic vocabulary and knowledge (e.g., science or social studies knowledge; Palincsar, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref13">38</reflink>]; Wright & Domke, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref14">54</reflink>]). Despite their recognized value, research has indicated that informational texts are infrequently read aloud in early childhood classrooms when compared to narrative texts (Conradi Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]; Duke, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]; Croix et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref17">30</reflink>]; Pentimonti et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref18">41</reflink>]). Factors such as teachers' resource availability, school district priorities, professional training (Raines & Cabell, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref19">45</reflink>]) and teachers' preference (Young & Goering, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref20">57</reflink>]) may influence informational text use.</p> <p>In the present study, we provide an updated portrait of kindergarten teachers' informational text read-alouds within the context of a school district that, like some others nationwide (Westall & Cummings, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref21">51</reflink>]), has prioritized building content knowledge through English Language Arts (ELA) instruction. To better understand the role of these instructional practices, this study explored the association between the frequency of teachers' informational text read-alouds and kindergarten students' gains in vocabulary and knowledge (i.e., science and social studies). By addressing these objectives, this study aims to contribute valuable insights into the role of informational texts in early literacy instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-3">Reading Aloud and Students' Language and Knowledge Development</hd> <p>Students' exposure to read-alouds during the early childhood years can help to build an essential foundation of language skills and content knowledge needed for reading acquisition (Wright et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref22">56</reflink>]). The language benefits of reading aloud to students include developing academic vocabulary, gaining familiarity with text and story structure, and receiving exposure to complex syntactic and grammatical language structures (Foorman et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]; Wasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref24">50</reflink>]). For young students who cannot yet decode fluently, read-alouds can function as an intermediary for acquiring content knowledge as teachers or parents read aloud the texts to them (Cabell & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]; Wright et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref26">56</reflink>]). When students listen to texts, they learn new words, especially when teachers explain them in child-friendly ways (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]). Read-alouds are also a valuable source for early knowledge-building, allowing students to become knowledgeable about numerous topics (Wright et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref28">56</reflink>]). However, the benefits that can be gleaned from read-alouds may vary by the type of text or genre chosen for the activity.</p> <p> <emph>Genres</emph> refer to distinctive types of texts, reflecting "different ways language patterns are realized in written texts to meet various social, communicative goals" (Pappas & Pettegrew, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>], p. 36). Typical genres of students' books are narrative, informational, and mixed (Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]). Narrative stories, such as fairy tales, fables, mysteries, true stories, personal narratives, and historical fiction, include main characters, settings, events, and internal reactions (Duke & Bennett-Armistead, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>]). Informational texts contain accurate information about nature and society (Duke & Bennett-Armistead, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]). Mixed genre books combine elements of both narrative stories and informational texts, featuring characters, events, and settings along with information such as diagrams and graphs about the world (Donovan & Smolkin, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]). Since mixed-genre texts share many similarities with informational texts and it is challenging to define informational texts rigidly, aligned with the previous study (Duke, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]), in this study, we defined informational texts as both informational and mixed-genre texts.</p> <p>Literacy scholars suggest that students should be exposed to various text genres during their early years of schooling because students can develop vocabulary and tacit knowledge through different text types (Duke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]). Through exposure to diverse genres, students can receive broader experience with various text types, which allows them to "deeply process lexical sets of content vocabulary and related concepts" (Neuman, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref36">36</reflink>], p.15). Additionally, materials with a diversity of genres may help students increase motivation in reading, leading them to read more widely and frequently (Wigfield & Guthrie, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref37">52</reflink>]). Consequently, being exposed to and learning through a wide range of genres is essential for students to access and use each genre.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-4">The Benefits of Informational Text to Young Children</hd> <p>Informational texts allow students to experience diverse text structures and features because these texts contain text structures such as compare and contrast, problem and solution, and cause and effect, as well as text features such as diagrams and maps (Duke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>]). Exposure to informational texts in the early primary grades is crucial as it helps students become familiar with text structures commonly used in upper grade textbooks (Cervetti & Hiebert, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref39">5</reflink>]). Without this exposure, students may struggle in content areas such as science, which have their own discipline-specific language structures (Armstrong & Collier, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]). Informational texts can also spark students' curiosity about the world and provide answers to their questions (Duke, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]). These texts may motivate students to explore topics more deeply, such as animals, engineering, chemistry, and nature (Wigfield & Guthrie, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref42">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, informational texts may confer particular benefits for learning academic vocabulary and content knowledge (Duke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]; Pappas, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref44">39</reflink>]). For example, the vocabulary used in narrative and informational students' books has been found to be significantly different from one another, with narrative books utilizing more general-purpose words and informational books utilizing more academic and specialized vocabulary (Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>]). During informational text read-alouds, teachers might have more opportunities to engage students in conversation and instruction to learn domain-specific academic vocabulary and connect ideas across sentences for reading comprehension.</p> <p>Additionally, vocabulary and content knowledge are mutually reinforcing (Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>]); students acquire knowledge contained in informational texts, which, in turn, can help bootstrap further vocabulary development (Palincsar, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref47">38</reflink>]). Several studies have shown that integrating language and content knowledge benefits students in the elementary grades, which can build students' vocabulary and knowledge simultaneously (Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]). The simultaneous growth of vocabulary and knowledge may occur because actively inferring the meanings of new vocabulary by using background knowledge can make new words easier to remember (Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>]), and content-rich materials that include informational texts can support students' reading competencies beyond word recognition by increasing background knowledge and conceptual development (Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref51">28</reflink>]; Neuman, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref52">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several studies on students' literacy experiences at home and in school have shown that print exposure can significantly influence language development (Mol & Bus, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref53">32</reflink>]; Zucker et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref54">58</reflink>]). For instance, a meta-analysis of 99 studies found that print exposure from infancy to early adulthood was linked to academic achievement and accounted for 12% of the variation in oral language skills among preschoolers and kindergarteners (Mol & Bus, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]). Given these findings, it is likely that the frequency of informational text read-alouds could impact students' vocabulary and knowledge development. Therefore, one of our research goals was to examine the relation between the frequency of informational text read-alouds and the vocabulary and knowledge growth of kindergarteners over an academic year. Based on both theoretical and empirical evidence (Cabell & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>]; Wright et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref57">56</reflink>]), we hypothesized that there would be significantly positive associations between informational text exposure and kindergarteners' vocabulary and knowledge outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-5">Calls for Increased Use of Informational Texts</hd> <p>However, for too long, the general assumption by educators may have been that students can understand and compose narrative stories before they can understand informational texts, that narrative stories are more engaging than informational texts, and that informational texts contain overly difficult vocabulary and too much academic language (Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref58">6</reflink>]). Research demonstrates that teachers use informational texts relatively rarely in their classrooms (Conradi Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]; Duke, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]; Pentimonti et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref61">41</reflink>]). Duke's ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref62">15</reflink>]) seminal study concerning students' experiences with informational texts in Grade 1 demonstrated that students were only exposed to informational texts for 3.6 min per day, and informational texts constituted only 2.6% of the printed materials and 9.8% of the books in the classroom. Pentimonti et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]) examined preschoolers' exposure to informational texts using reading logs by 13 teachers across a full academic year and found that 85.8% of the books that teachers chose to read aloud to the students were narrative texts.</p> <p>The U.S. Common Core State Standards (CCSS, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref64">11</reflink>]) recommend that students in the primary grades be exposed to a substantial number of informational texts (up to 50% of all texts), which include both expository texts and narrative nonfiction, to prepare them for 21st-century careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref65">34</reflink>]). However, despite the long-standing advocacy for the unique benefits of informational texts (Neuman, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref66">35</reflink>]) and encouragement from the CCSS ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]), teachers' read-aloud selections have not changed dramatically. Wright and Neuman ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref68">55</reflink>]) observed instruction in 55 kindergarten classrooms for a total of 660 h and found that teachers devoted only about 1.7 min per day to informational text read-alouds. A national survey by Conradi Smith et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref69">10</reflink>]) of over 1,000 first to fifth grade teachers, along with another study examining text selection by preschool and kindergarten teachers (La Croix et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref70">30</reflink>]), revealed that narratives remained the predominant choice for read-aloud sessions in classrooms. Both of these recent studies provided a survey snapshot at a single time point asking teachers to name the last book or a recent book they read aloud.</p> <p>The present study complements the existing findings by providing an updated snapshot of how often kindergarten teachers used informational texts during read-aloud sessions on a full day across multiple timepoints in a semester. To our knowledge, the last study to report multiple timepoints in a year was Pentimonti et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref71">41</reflink>]), with data collection occurring in 2005–2008. In the present study, kindergarten teachers provided reading logs of what they read on a given day monthly across one semester, providing a more comprehensive view of teachers' reading practices. Additionally, teachers in this study all taught within a large urban U.S. school district that emphasized building content knowledge through read-alouds during ELA instruction. Specifically, the state standards required an equal proportion of narrative and informational texts in kindergarten to expose students to various text structures. This setting provides valuable insights into what informational text usage currently looks like in contexts where content-rich literacy approaches are prioritized, an approach that many districts nationwide have embraced. Specifically, we examined the genre (i.e., narrative, informational, mixed-genre) and the instructional concepts (i.e., rhyme, alphabet, math, science, and social studies) of the texts. In summary, our research questions were twofold.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How often were informational texts read aloud in kindergarten classrooms, and what instructional concepts did these texts include?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent did the frequency of informational text read-alouds correlate with students' vocabulary and knowledge development?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191573904-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573904-7">Participants</hd> <p>The study included 38 kindergarten teachers and 278 students (133 boys, 145 girls) from 12 schools, all part of a control group in a 2018-19 randomized trial on a literacy curriculum in a large urban Southern district (Cabell et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>]). In the district, teachers commonly utilized content-rich ELA curricula (e.g., <emph>Core Knowledge Language Arts, Wit and Wisdom</emph>). These were supplemented with district-provided read-aloud scope and sequence materials, as well as resources for phonemic awareness and phonics. Science and social studies were integrated into ELA, with additional science lessons from district kits and social studies taught using <emph>Social Studies Weekly</emph>. Two schools were STEAM/STEM-focused.</p> <p>Teachers were included if they taught for at least four months in the Spring semester during data collection and completed at least two reading logs. Of the 35 teachers who reported demographics, all but one were female, all held at least a bachelor's degree and state teaching certification. In total, 17 had master's degrees, 4 held an education specialist or professional diploma, 1 had a master's with an ELL endorsement, and 1 had additional coursework beyond a bachelor's. Teaching experience varied, with 51.4% having over five years, 22.9% with 3–4 years, and 25.7% with 1–2 years. Only 1 teacher was Hispanic/Latino, 6 were Black/African American, and 29 were White/Caucasian.</p> <p>The 278 students, randomly selected from the 38 classrooms, were part of a larger study and included in the present analyses if at least one relevant outcome measure was collected in the spring. At the start of the academic year, their mean age was 66.79 months (SD = 3.67, Range = 60–79 months). Of the 277 students with available race/ethnicity data, 48.2% were African American, 24.5% Caucasian, 17.6% Hispanic/Latino, and 9.7% multiracial or other. Additionally, 13.3% (<emph>n</emph> = 37) were classified as English Language Learners, and 58.7% (<emph>n</emph> = 276) were economically disadvantaged based on the free and reduced lunch data.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-8">Measures and Data Collection Procedures</hd> <p>Data were collected across one academic year of participants in the large trial. Students were individually tested using a battery of assessments designed to measure language and knowledge. The pre-test was conducted in the fall of the academic year, approximately between September and October 2018, while the post-test took place in the spring, roughly between March and May 2019. Trained research assistants (RAs) conducted all assessments in quiet locations within the students' school buildings. The research assistants underwent comprehensive training before the administration, which included detailed instruction on the assessment protocols, practice sessions to ensure consistency and accuracy, and supervised mock assessments to confirm readiness. Additionally, RAs were provided with a manual outlining standardized procedures and were monitored periodically during data collection to ensure fidelity to the assessment process. In the larger project from which these data were drawn, the RAs were blind to conditions during administration. For the present study, measures included (a) genres and instructional concepts of texts read-aloud in kindergarten classrooms, and (b) kindergarten students' pre- and post-vocabulary and content knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-9">Genres and Instructional Concepts</hd> <p>Teachers were instructed to complete reading logs that captured the titles, authors, and duration of the read-alouds they completed on that day or the previous day. These reading logs were intended to provide a snapshot of teachers' typical choices for read-aloud books. Teachers completed up to five brief reading logs over the spring semester, each administered about a month apart to capture read-aloud texts on a specific day. Reading logs were primarily completed via Qualtrics, except for the final one, which was done on hard copies and entered into Qualtrics by research staff. Teachers provided information about any read-alouds done during three instructional blocks: English Language Arts, science or social studies, and other times of the day. Teachers recorded up to three texts per block but could leave items blank if no reading occurred.If no reading was indicated for the day, the survey ended, and the text count was zero for that month's log.</p> <p>All titles were coded using an adapted version of the Reading Log Coding Guide (Pentimonti et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref73">42</reflink>]) to identify text genre and instructional concepts. We used a subset of codes relevant to our research questions, keeping the genre codes identical and adapting the instructional concepts. Coding began with identifying titles from the reading logs, using Amazon's "look inside" feature for initial information. If insufficient, YouTube and Google searches were conducted. Titles that remained unverifiable through these means were coded as unidentifiable.</p> <p> <bold>Genre.</bold> Texts were coded into four mutually exclusive genres: narrative, informational, mixed, and other. Texts were coded as <emph>narrative</emph> if their purpose was to entertain or share experiences, including fairy tales, mysteries, and historical fiction, and texts were coded as <emph>informational</emph> if they conveyed accurate information about the natural or social world (Duke & Bennett-Armistead, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref74">17</reflink>]). Texts were coded as <emph>mixed</emph> if they combined storytelling —whether fiction or nonfiction—with accurate information (Donovan & Smolkin, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref75">14</reflink>]). The "other" category encompassed poetry collections, menus, instructions, and rules (Pentimonti et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref76">42</reflink>]).</p> <p> <bold>Instructional Concepts.</bold> Instructional concepts refer to the text features that teachers select for specific educational goals, adapted from the <emph>Reading Log Coding Guide</emph> (Pentimonti et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref77">42</reflink>]). The codes included rhyme, alphabet, math, science, and social studies. Texts were coded based on prominent features: rhyme present throughout, alphabet features for teaching letters, mathematical topics, science topics, and social studies topics like culture and geography. A single text could be coded for multiple instructional concepts. Figure 1 presents examples of teachers' reading logs, including text titles and authors, along with their coding for genre and instructional concepts.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Examples of teachers' reading logs with text titles, genre and instructional concept codes. Note. Genre codes: 1 = Narrative, 2 = Informational, 3 = Mixed, 4 = Other, 999 = Unknown; Instructional concept codes: 1 = Rhyme, 2 = Alaphabet, 3 = Math, 4 = Science, 5 = Social Studies</p> <p>Coder training included an overview of the coding manual and a practice round using texts from Pentimonti et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref78">41</reflink>]). The first author, acting as the master coder, trained the second coder. The master coder checked the second coder's practice results against the original validated codes. Once the second coder achieved at least 85% agreement, they both independently coded the texts reported by kindergarten teachers. All texts were double-coded, with an overall inter-rater reliability of 90.9%. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion between the two coders.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-10">Measurement of Kindergarteners' Vocabulary and Knowledge</hd> <p> <bold>Vocabulary.</bold> Students were assessed on general vocabulary knowledge using the <emph>Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Fourth Edition</emph> (PPVT-IV; Dunn & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>]), a norm-referenced test of receptive vocabulary. Students were shown four illustrations and asked to select the one matching a target word, with an internal consistency of 0.91 in the sample. The Picture Vocabulary subtest of the <emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> (Woodcock et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref80">53</reflink>]) measured expressive vocabulary. Students were shown illustrations of objects and asked to provide the corresponding label, with an internal consistency of 0.92 in the sample.</p> <p> <bold>Knowledge.</bold> Students' science and social studies knowledge was assessed using the Science and Social Studies subtests from the <emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> (Woodcock et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref81">53</reflink>]). These subtests evaluated knowledge in areas such as biological science, physical science, geography, and history. Examiners read the questions aloud, and students responded orally. The internal consistency for the Science subtest was 0.82, and for the Social Studies subtest, it was 0.86.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-11">Analytic Strategy</hd> <p>To analyze the association between informational text frequency and students' vocabulary and knowledge, we used two-level hierarchical linear modeling computed with HLM 8 software (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref82">46</reflink>]), with students nested within classrooms. We used students' raw scores on all outcome measures, and post-test scores were predicted by the frequency of informational texts read aloud, controlling for pretest scores. Coefficients represented the relations between the frequency of informational texts and pre- and post-test residualized gains.</p> <p>To represent the magnitude of informational texts read aloud in kindergarten classrooms, we used the average frequency of informational text exposure per day. Each reading log represented one day of read-alouds, allowing us to account for variations in the number of logs completed by different teachers. The average was calculated by dividing the total number of informational texts reported by each teacher by the number of reading logs completed, with each log representing one day of read-alouds. For example, if a teacher reported reading two informational texts and had four reading logs, we would divide two by four, resulting in an average frequency of 0.5 informational texts per day.</p> <p>Given the clustered nature of the data, we first conducted a series of unconditional models to determine the variance between students and classrooms. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), representing the proportion of between-group variance to the total variance, were calculated for each dependent variable. The ICCs for receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, science knowledge, and social studies knowledge were 0.040, 0.034, 0.045, and 0.043, respectively. This result indicates that while the majority of variance lay between students, there was some variance between classrooms that needed to be accounted for. Next, we added level-1 variables, which included students' pretest scores for each dependent variable, group-centered at the classroom mean. At level 2, we included the frequency of informational texts and the mean of classroom pretest scores, grand-mean centered, as a covariate.</p> <p>We had complete data on the genre of the texts, because we only included teachers who completed at least two reading logs. There were minimal missing values in the students' data, with missing data on pretest outcomes ranging from 0.7 to 1.1%, and post-test outcomes ranging from 0 to 0.3%. To address the missing values, we used Full Maximum Likelihood estimation in HLM 8 to obtain model coefficients, which incorporates all available data (Peugh & Enders, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref83">43</reflink>]). Additionally, we used robust standard errors to ensure reliable inferences (Hayes & Cai, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref84">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573904-13">Informational Text Read Aloud in Kindergarten Classrooms</hd> <p>We examined 174 reading logs and 310 titles from 38 teachers. The average number of reading logs completed by teachers was 4.58 (SD = 0.72; range = 2–5). Among the 310 titles, 5.2% (<emph>n</emph> = 16) were unidentifiable due to missing author information, and 3.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 11) were not coded due to insufficient details, leaving 283 identifiable texts. Analyses of these texts revealed that they were nearly evenly balanced between narrative and informational texts, albeit with slightly more narrative texts overall: 51.9% (<emph>n</emph> = 147) were narrative texts, 47.0% (<emph>n</emph> = 133) were informational (36.4% informational texts, 10.6% mixed-genre texts), and 1.1% (<emph>n</emph> = 3) were other genres.</p> <p>The average number of reading logs completed by teachers was 4.58 (SD = 0.72; range = 2–5). In total, 26 teachers completed five logs, nine completed four, two completed three, and one completed two. No informational texts were reported in 40.2% (<emph>n</emph> = 70) of the logs. One informational text was reported in 46.6% (<emph>n</emph> = 81), two in 10.3% (<emph>n</emph> = 18), three in 2.3% (<emph>n</emph> = 4), and four in 0.57% (<emph>n</emph> = 1) of the logs. While eight teachers reported informational texts in every log, 19 teachers reported informational texts in over half of their logs. Additionally, 11 teachers reported informational texts in fewer than half of their logs, and one teacher did not report any informational texts.</p> <p>Teachers reported an average of 8.16 texts read aloud across all reading logs (SD = 3.26; range = 4–18), averaging 1.76 texts per day (SD = 0.73; range = 1-3.6). The number of informational texts read per day (<emph>M =</emph> 0.77, SD = 0.51; range = 0.2–2.6) was just slightly less than the number of narrative texts read per day (<emph>M =</emph> 0.88, SD = 0.51; range = 0-2.5).</p> <p>During the English Language Arts block, 205 texts were reported. Excluding 13 uncodable texts (6.3%), narratives were most frequent (51.0%, <emph>n</emph> = 98), followed by informational texts (47.9%, <emph>n</emph> = 92; 36.5% informational, 11.5% mixed-genre), and other genres (1.0%, <emph>n</emph> = 2). During the Science and Social Studies block, 47 texts were reported, with 10 (21.3%) uncodable. Of the 37 identifiable texts, 73.0% (<emph>n</emph> = 27) were informational (67.6% informational, 5.4% mixed), and 27.0% (<emph>n</emph> = 10) were narrative. During other times of the day, 58 texts were reported, with 4 (6.9%) uncodable. Of the 54 identifiable texts, 72.2% (<emph>n</emph> = 39) were narrative, 25.9% (<emph>n</emph> = 14; 14.8% informational, 11.1% mixed-genre) were informational, and 1.9% (<emph>n</emph> = 1) were other genres.</p> <p>Focusing on informational texts (<emph>n</emph> = 133), all included at least one instructional concept (math, science, or social studies), with some, including 10 texts, featuring multiple concepts. Science concepts were present in 80.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 107), social studies in 13.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 18), math in 6.0% (<emph>n</emph> = 8), rhyme in 6.8% (<emph>n</emph> = 9), and alphabet structure in 0.8% (<emph>n</emph> = 1). Figure 1 presents some examples of text titles along with the genre and instructional concept codes. Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate the distribution of genres across instructional blocks and the frequency of informational texts by instructional concepts, respectively.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Frequency of teacher read-alouds by genre in different scheduling blocks</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Frequency of instructional concepts within informational texts</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-14">Associations Between the Frequency of Informational Text Read-Alouds and Kindergarteners' Voc...</hd> <p>The second research question examined the association between the frequency of informational text read-alouds and kindergarteners' gains in vocabulary (i.e., receptive, expressive) and knowledge (i.e., science, social studies). Table 1 presents the correlations, means, and standard deviations for the independent and outcome variables. Table 2 provides detailed hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) results of the association between the frequency of informational text read-alouds and students' vocabulary and knowledge, controlling for pretest scores. The results showed that the frequency of informational text read-alouds was not significantly associated with receptive vocabulary development (<emph>β</emph> = 0.04, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.03, <emph>p</emph> =.27), expressive vocabulary development (<emph>β</emph> = 0.02, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.03, <emph>p</emph> =.64), science knowledge (<emph>β</emph> = 0.06, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.06, <emph>p</emph> =.31), or social studies knowledge (<emph>β</emph>=-0.05, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.04, <emph>p</emph> =.18).</p> <p>Table 1 Correlations, means, and standard deviations of included variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th><th align="left"><p>7</p></th><th align="left"><p>8</p></th><th align="left"><p>9</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Info Text</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PPVT-Pre</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PPVT-Post</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WJP-Pre</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.78<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WJP-Post</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.85<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WJS-Pre</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.71<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WJS-Post</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WJSS-Pre</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.78<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.72<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.72<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WJSS-Post</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.73<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.78<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.77<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>81.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>97.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.65</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.63</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.88</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>25.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.60</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.42</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.03</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. Info Text = Frequency of Informational Text Use; PPVT-Pre = <emph>Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV</emph> receptive vocabulary Pretest; PPVT-Post = <emph>Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV</emph> receptive vocabulary Posttest; WJP-Pre = <emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> Picture Vocabulary Subtest Pretest; WJP-Post = <emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> Picture Vocabulary Subtest Posttest; WJS-Pre = <emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> Science Knowledge Subtest Pretest; WJS-Post = <emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> Science Knowledge Subtest Posttest; WJSS-Pre = <emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> Social Studies Knowledge Subtest Pretest; WJSS-Post = <emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> Social Studies Knowledge Subtest Posttest <emph>*p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <p>Table 2 Hierarchical linear modeling results showing an association between the frequency of informational text read-aloud and students' vocabulary and knowledge</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Predictor</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Receptive Vocabulary<sup>a</sup></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Expressive Vocabulary<sup>b</sup></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Science Knowledge<sup>c</sup></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Social Studies Knowledge<sup>d</sup></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>β (SE)</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>β (SE)</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>β (SE)</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>β (SE)</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.01 (0.03)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01 (0.03)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01 (0.05)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00 (0.04)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.94</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pretest score</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.85 (0.04)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.87 (0.04)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.73 (0.05)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.78 (0.05)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mean of Classroom pretest score</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.71 (0.06)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.77 (0.07)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50 (0.11)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.70 (0.08)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Informational Text Use</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04 (0.03)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02 (0.03)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06 (0.06)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.05 (0.04)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.18</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note.<sups>a</sups><emph>Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV</emph> receptive vocabulary <sups>b</sups><emph>woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> Picture Vocabulary subtest <sups>c</sups><emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> Science Knowledge subtest <sups>d</sups><emph>Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement</emph> Social Studies Knowledge subtest</p> <p>These findings did not support our hypothesis that the frequency of informational text read-alouds would be positively and significantly associated with students' vocabulary and knowledge. Consequently, we conducted post-hoc power analyses to determine the minimal detectable effect sizes (MDES) for the non-significant outcomes. Using an alpha level of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, the MDES for receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, science knowledge, and social studies knowledge were estimated to be 0.28, 0.29, 0.30, and 0.31, respectively. These MDES were greater than the effect sizes found in the study (effect size refers to the reported correlation coefficients), indicating that any effect size smaller than the MDES would have a low probability of being detected at the specified power and significance level.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study makes several salient contributions to the existing literature. Most importantly, we examine teachers' informational text read-aloud practices in a post-Common Core landscape, and specifically within a school district that, like many others nationwide, has emphasized content-rich instruction and whose state standards require equal use of informational and narrative texts. We found that, within this context, the overall percentage of informational text read-alouds reported by teachers in this study was greater than previously reported by earlier studies. Additionally, the frequency of using informational text for read-alouds varied across teachers, and informational texts with social studies and math concepts were read aloud at relatively low rates as compared to informational texts with science concepts. However, the current read aloud practices do not apply that kindergarten teachers neglected these subjects. Rather, it may reflect curriculum priorities, resource availability, or a focus on integrating these subjects through other instructional formats beyond read-alouds.</p> <p>The second main contribution of this study was the finding that, although kindergarten teachers may be reading informational text at greater rates than previously found, teachers' current read-aloud practices with informational texts may not be robust or comprehensive enough to significantly influence students' standardized vocabulary and knowledge development outcomes. For example, instructional strategies may not consistently include practices like explicitly connecting text content to prior knowledge, encouraging active student engagement with the material, or using follow-up discussions to reinforce learning. Similarly, the use of a broader range of strategies targeting vocabulary learning, comprehension skills, and connections across content areas may be limited. The non-significant associations found here suggest that while informational texts are being used, the accompanying instructional practices may not fully leverage their potential to foster measurable gains in students' vocabulary and knowledge outcomes. We discuss each set of key findings in more detail below.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-16">Informational Text Use for Read-Alouds</hd> <p>The findings that informational texts for read-alouds comprised 47% (36.4% informational texts, 10.6% mixed-genre texts) of the total texts read aloud to kindergarteners indicate a shift toward more informational text use compared to previous studies (Conradi Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref85">10</reflink>]; Duke, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref86">15</reflink>]; La Croix et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref87">30</reflink>]; Pentimonti et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref88">41</reflink>]). Even a recent study (La Croix et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref89">30</reflink>]) explored 445 titles that preschool and kindergarten teachers reported reading with their students at a single time point and found that nonfiction texts accounted for only 18% of the read-alouds. Additionally, compared to earlier studies, the data collected across multiple time points in this sample provides a more accurate reflection of teachers' reading practices. Informational text use increase in this study may be attributed to the district's commitment to knowledge building in ELA instruction. Consequently, science and social studies taught as part of ELA saw 73% of read-aloud texts being informational. This emphasis also likely stems from long-term advocacy for more informational text exposure in early grades (e.g., Duke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref90">17</reflink>]) and the recommendation to increase informational text exposure to 50% in primary grades (CCSS, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref91">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the average number of informational text read-alouds was high in these kindergarten classrooms, 40.2% of reading logs did not report any informational texts, even in a district prioritizing knowledge building in ELA. This result indicates that students did not receive daily exposure. Additionally, there was significant variation between teachers, with one classroom lacking any exposure to informational texts. The variation occurred despite all teachers reporting that they taught science and social studies as part of ELA instruction and had access to similar content-rich curricular resources. While differences in science-focused texts may be partly due to the rotating availability of district science kits, the variation in informational text use seemed to depend more on individual teacher instructional choices than on resource availability. These discrepancies in read-aloud practices may lead to gaps in informational text exposure for students, potentially contributing to reading comprehension gaps.</p> <p>Within the informational texts used in these classrooms, 80.5% focused on science concepts, providing students with opportunities to learn both vocabulary and science simultaneously (Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref92">9</reflink>]). However, only 13.5% of the texts covered social studies content, which is concerning given the importance of students developing knowledge about both the natural and social worlds. A recent study highlighted insufficient time spent on social studies in first through fifth Grades(Tyner & Kabourek, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref93">49</reflink>]). Interestingly, La Croix et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref94">30</reflink>]) found that 57% of kindergarten teachers' informational text read-alouds were focused on social studies, with 43% on science. These variations suggest that the content areas emphasized in informational texts are likely influenced more by individual teacher decisions than by resource availability. Additionally, informational texts covering math concepts were even less frequent (<emph>n</emph> = 8).</p> <p>While the low number of informational texts focused on social studies and math is concerning, it is important to acknowledge that this does not necessarily imply that participating teachers neglected these subjects. It is possible that teachers used other materials, rather than read-alouds, to support instruction in social studies and math. Furthermore, the submission of four to five reading logs per teacher across the semester may not fully capture the breadth of their instruction, as social studies and math-related texts may have been used on non-reporting dates or with other materials such as worksheets and hands-on activities.</p> <p>Nevertheless, to address these gaps, professional development for teachers should encourage the incorporation of a broader range of informational texts, including those focused on social studies and math. Social studies topics, such as humanities and social sciences, are crucial for helping students understand their relationships within society (National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref95">33</reflink>]), while learning math concepts can also enhance language skills (Sarama et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref96">47</reflink>]). Using a variety of informational texts in read-alouds allows for interdisciplinary learning, making the learning experience more effective (Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref97">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-17">Current Informational Text Read-Alouds Practices and Students' Vocabulary and Knowledge Devel...</hd> <p>The second research question explored the relations between the frequency of informational text read-alouds and students' vocabulary and knowledge development. Although no significant associations were found, these null findings are crucial. They suggest that the current instructional practices during informational text read-alouds may not be sufficient to impact student outcomes.</p> <p>Informational texts often include complex, domain-specific vocabulary and require a strong foundation of students' content knowledge (Duke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref98">17</reflink>]), making the instruction during these read-alouds critically important. Previous studies have shown that during informational text read-alouds, adults tend to focus more on academic vocabulary, engage in longer extratextual utterances, and ask more cognitively demanding questions (Deitcher, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref99">13</reflink>]; Price et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref100">44</reflink>]). However, a study conducted by Hadley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref101">24</reflink>]) on teachers' explicit vocabulary instruction during informational text read-alouds revealed significant variability in instructional practices, leading to inequitable learning opportunities for students. While teachers occasionally leveraged the vocabulary-rich nature of informational texts, they did not fully exploit these opportunities. For instance, although vocabulary in informational texts most often has conceptual links (Cervetti & Hiebert, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref102">5</reflink>]), teachers explicitly connected vocabulary to other words or concepts in only 6% of the instructional instances. In addition, teachers' instructional practices during informational text read-alouds, aside from vocabulary instruction, have seldom been observed. Additional research is necessary to gain a more comprehensive understanding of these instructional approaches beyond vocabulary.</p> <p>Moreover, previous studies have highlighted the challenges teachers face when incorporating informational text read-alouds in young children's classrooms (Young & Goering, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref103">57</reflink>]). One significant challenge is the complexity of concepts often presented in informational texts (Hoffman et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref104">27</reflink>]), which makes it difficult for kindergarten teachers to support students' comprehension of both the concepts and the texts. Additionally, some teachers resist integrating informational texts, either because they do not perceive their value or believe their students are not yet developmentally ready for them. This resistance leads to variability in how and to what extent informational texts are utilized in the classroom.</p> <p>Given the importance and challenges of teaching with informational texts during read-alouds, professional development and ongoing support are strongly recommended to help teachers fully harness the potential of these texts. Research by Raines and Cabell ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref105">45</reflink>]) found a significant correlation between the amount of professional development related to vocabulary instruction and teachers' use of informational texts. This finding underscores the dual benefits of professional development. As teachers become more proficient in using informational texts for read-alouds, they are likely to incorporate them more frequently, thereby enhancing student learning outcomes. Other factors beyond teachers' current practices regarding the use of informational text, such as student engagement, instructional time, or the complexity of the texts used, may also contribute to these results. Future studies are encouraged to explore teachers' instructional practices when using informational texts in greater depth.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-18">Limitations and Conclusion</hd> <p>A limitation of this study is that teachers provided only snapshots of their text selections during the second half of the year, completing a log about once per month to avoid overburdening them. While we believe these snapshots serve as a reasonable proxy for what teachers read aloud during the second semester of kindergarten, the texts reported may not fully represent the range of text genres to which students were exposed throughout the entire academic year. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of teachers' long-term use of informational texts across different grade levels, further research is needed in various school districts with differing policies and instructional emphases. Regarding the non-significant association between informational text exposure and students' vocabulary and knowledge development, the minimum detectable effect sizes (MDES) for the outcomes were larger than the correlation coefficients observed in this study. The MDES suggest that the study may have been underpowered to detect smaller effect sizes, indicating the need for future studies with larger sample sizes to obtain more precise estimates of the true effect sizes.</p> <p>Scholars and policymakers have long advocated for the inclusion of informational texts in students' reading development, emphasizing their crucial role in helping students develop the skills needed to navigate and extract knowledge from these materials, which are essential for success in the 21st century. With growing emphasis from states, there is potential for a significant increase in the use of informational texts in classrooms. Although this study did not find significant correlations between the use of informational texts and gains in students' vocabulary and knowledge, the null finding does not diminish their importance. Instead, these findings suggest that professional development and ongoing support are necessary to help teachers fully harness the potential of informational texts. While increasing informational text use is a crucial first step in promoting language and knowledge growth, it is by no means the final step.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-19">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We thank Marcy Wyatt and Ansley Kramer at the Florida Center for Reading Research for their contributions to this study, and James Kim of Harvard University and Thomas G. White of the University of Virginia for their contributions to the larger project from which these data were drawn. We also thank Ashley Edwards, Qian Zhang, and Christopher Schatschneider of Florida State University, and Jamie DeCoster of University of Virginia for their advice on data analysis. The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A170635 awarded to Florida State University (PI: Cabell). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-20">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573904-21">Competing Interests</hd> <p>The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0191573904-22">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191573904-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref40" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong, J. E, & Collier, G. E. (1990). Science in biology: An introduction. Waveland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I. L, McKeown, M. G, & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cabell SQ, Hwang H. Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly. 2020; 55: S99-S107. 10.1002/rrq.338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref72" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cabell SQ, Kim JS, White TG, Gale CJ, Edwards AA, Hwang H, Petscher Y, Raines RM. Impact of a content-rich literacy curriculum on kindergarteners' vocabulary, listening comprehension, and content knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2024; 117; 2: 153-175. 10.1037/edu0000916</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref39" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cervetti GN, Hiebert EH. Knowledge at the center of English language arts instruction. The Reading Teacher. 2019; 72; 4: 499-507. 10.1002/trtr.1758</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref58" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cervetti GN, Bravo MA, Hiebert EH, Pearson PD, Jaynes CA. Text genre and science content: Ease of reading, comprehension, and reader preference. Reading Psychology. 2009; 30; 6: 487-511. 10.1080/02702710902733550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref30" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cervetti GN, Barber J, Dorph R, Pearson PD, Goldschmidt PG. The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2012; 49; 5: 631-658. 10.1002/tea.21015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cervetti GN, Wright TS, Hwang H. Conceptual coherence, comprehension, and vocabulary acquisition: A knowledge effect?. Reading and Writing. 2016; 29; 4: 761-779. 10.1007/s11145-016-9628-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref92" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Connor CM, Dombek J, Crowe EC, Spencer M, Tighe EL, Coffinger S, Petscher Y. Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI). Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 109: 301-320. 10.1037/edu0000128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conradi Smith K, Young CA, Core Yatzeck J. What are teachers reading and why? An analysis of elementary read aloud titles and the rationales underlying teachers' selections. Literacy Research and Instruction. 2022; 61; 4: 383-401. 10.1080/19388071.2021.2008558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council Of Chief State School Officers & National Governors' Association. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. https://learning.ccsso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ELA_Standards1.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Core Knowledge Foundation and Amplify Education (2017). Core knowledge language arts: Knowledge strand. https://amplify.com/programs/amplify-core-knowledge-language-arts/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deitcher, D. B. (2014). A comparison of vocabulary learning from joint reading of narrative and informational books with dual language learner children. City University of New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donovan CA, Smolkin LB. Children's genre knowledge: An examination of K-5 students' performance on multiple tasks providing differing levels of scaffolding. Reading Research Quarterly. 2002; 37; 4: 428-465. 10.1598/RRQ.37.4.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke NK. 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly. 2000; 35; 2: 202-224. 10.1598/rrq.35.2.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke NK. Reading to learn from the very beginning: Information books in early childhood. Young Children. 2003; 58: 14-20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N, & Bennett-Armistead, V. (2003). Reading and writing informational text in the primary grades: Research-based practices. Scholastic Teaching Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K, Lindsey, J. B, & Wise, C. N. (2023). Feeding two birds with one hand (p. 186). Handbook on the Science of Early Literacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M, & Dunn, L. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, IV. American Guidance Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B, Beyler, N, Borradaile, K, Coyne, M, Denton, C. A, Dimino, J, Furgeson, J, Hayes, L, Henke, J, Justice, L, Keating, B, Lewis, W, Sattar, S, Streke, A, Wagner, R, & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd Grade. Educator's practice guide. NCEE 2016–4008. What Works Clearinghouse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner D. Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words found in children's narrative and expository reading materials. Applied Linguistics. 2004; 25; 1: 1-37. 10.1093/applin/25.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzalez JE, Pollard-Durodola S, Simmons DC, Taylor A, Davis MJ, Kim M, Simmons L. Developing low-income preschoolers' social studies and science vocabulary knowledge through content-focused shared book reading. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2011; 4: 25-52. 10.1080/19345747.2010.487927</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Great Minds (2017). Wit & Wisdom curriculum. https://greatminds.org/english/wit-wisdom</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hadley, E. B, Wang, S, & Cabell, S. Q. (2025). Building knowledge or reinforcing gaps? Kindergarten teachers' vocabulary instruction during informational text read-alouds [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Language. Literacy, ED.D.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes AF, Cai L. Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods. 2007; 39: 709-722. 10.3758/BF03192961</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch ED. Reading comprehension requires knowledge of words and the world. American Educator. 2003; 27; 1: 10-13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman JL, Collins MF, Schickedanz JA. Instructional challenges in developing young children's science concepts: Using informational text read-alouds. The Reading Teacher. 2015; 68; 5: 363-372. 10.1002/trtr.1325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang H, Cabell SQ, Joyner RE. Effects of integrated literacy and content-area instruction on comprehension and vocabulary in the elementary years: A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2022. 10.1080/10888438.2021.1954005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang H, Cabell SQ, Joyner RE. Does cultivating content knowledge during literacy instruction support vocabulary and comprehension in the elementary school years? A systematic review. Reading Psychology. 2023; 44; 2: 145-174. 10.1080/02702711.2022.2141397</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> La Croix, L, Ward Parsons, A, Klee, H. L, Vaughn, M, & Yun, S. (2023). A snapshot of early childhood teachers' read-aloud selections. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01534-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonigan CJ, Shanahan T. Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Executive Summary. A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. National Institute for Literacy. 2009. 10.3102/0013189x10369172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mol SE, Bus AG. To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin. 2011; 137; 2: 267-296. 10.1037/a0021890</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council for the Social Studies. Early childhood in the Social Studies context: A position statement of the National Council for the Social studies. Social Education. 2019; 83; 3: 167-170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman SB. The knowledge gap: Implications for early education. Handbook of Early Literacy Research. 2006; 2: 29-40</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman SB. Comprehension in disguise: The role of knowledge in children's learning. Perspectives on Language and Literacy. 2019; 45; 4: 12-17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman SB, Kaefer T. Developing low-income children's vocabulary and content knowledge through a shared book reading program. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2018; 52: 15-24. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palincsar, A. S. (2005). Reading in science: Why, what, and how (brief). National Science Resources Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pappas CC. The information book genre: Its role in integrated science literacy research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly. 2006; 41: 226-250. 10.1598/rrq.41.2.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pappas CC, Pettegrew B. The role of genre in the psycholinguistic guessing game of reading. Language Arts. 1998; 75: 36-44. 10.58680/la19983268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pentimonti JM, Zucker TA, Justice LM. What are preschool teachers reading in their classrooms?. Reading Psychology. 2011; 32; 3: 197-236. 10.1080/02702711003604484</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pentimonti, J. M, Zucker, T. A, & Justice, L. M. (2018). Reading Log Coding Guide.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peugh JL, Enders CK. Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74; 4: 525-556. 10.3102/00346543074004525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price LH, Bradley BA, Smith JM. A comparison of preschool teachers' talk during storybook and information book read-alouds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2012; 27; 3: 426-440. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raines, R, & Cabell, S. (2023, July). Teacher and classroom factors that predict the use of informational text and instructional strategies in elementary reading instruction. Presented at the annual conference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Port Douglas, Queensland, Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, S. W, & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sarama J, Lange AA, Clements DH, Wolfe CB. The impacts of an early mathematics curriculum on oral language and literacy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2012; 27; 3: 489-502. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Studies Weekly (2018). Social Studies Weekly: [Kindergarten]. https://<ulink href="http://www.studiesweekly.com/">www.studiesweekly.com/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyner, A, & Kabourek, S. (2020). Social studies instruction and reading comprehension: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasik BA, Hindman AH, Snell EK. Book reading and vocabulary development: A systematic review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2016; 37: 39-57. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westall, J, & Cummings, A. (2023). The Effects of Early Literacy Policies on Student Achievement. Available at SSRN 4427675. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4427675</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield A, Guthrie JT. Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1997; 89; 3: 420-432. 10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W, McGrew, K. S, & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson®III Test. Riverside Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright TS, Domke LM. The role of language and literacy in K-5 science and social studies standards. Journal of Literacy Research. 2019; 51; 1: 5-29. 10.1177/1086296X18821141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright TS, Neuman SB. Paucity and disparity in kindergarten oral vocabulary instruction. Journal of Literacy Research. 2014; 46; 3: 330-357. 10.1177/1086296X14551474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright TS, Cervetti GN, Wise C, McClung NA. The impact of knowledge-building through conceptually-coherent read alouds on vocabulary and comprehension. Reading Psychology. 2022; 43; 1: 70-84. 10.1080/02702711.2021.2020187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young HD, Goering CZ. Teachers' increased use of informational text: A phenomenological study of five primary classrooms. Educational Considerations. 2018; 44; 1: 2. 10.4148/0146-9282.1870</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zucker TA, Cabell SQ, Justice LM, Pentimonti JM, Kaderavek JN. The role of frequent, interactive prekindergarten shared reading in the longitudinal development of language and literacy skills. Developmental Psychology. 2013; 49; 8: 1425-1439. 10.1037/a0030347</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sen Wang; Sonia Q. Cabell; Elizabeth Burke Hadley; Jill M. Pentimonti and Arzu Gungor Leushuis</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref104"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1507518
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Frequency of Informational Text Read-Alouds in Kindergarten and Its Association with Students' Vocabulary and Knowledge Development
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sen+Wang%22">Sen Wang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2230-2264">0000-0003-2230-2264</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sonia+Q%2E+Cabell%22">Sonia Q. Cabell</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elizabeth+Burke+Hadley%22">Elizabeth Burke Hadley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jill+M%2E+Pentimonti%22">Jill M. Pentimonti</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Arzu+Gungor+Leushuis%22">Arzu Gungor Leushuis</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 54(2):837-849.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305A170635
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Instruction%22">English Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Arts%22">Language Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Aloud+to+Others%22">Reading Aloud to Others</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Studies%22">Social Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics%22">Mathematics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Concepts%22">Scientific Concepts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-025-01885-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: While informational texts have been shown to enhance vocabulary and content knowledge, most prior research indicates that early childhood teachers seldom read such texts to their students. This study offers an updated perspective on the frequency of informational text use during read-aloud sessions by kindergarten teachers. These teachers work in a large urban U.S. district committed to building content knowledge through read-alouds during ELA instruction. Over the course of a semester, 38 teachers completed 174 reading logs, covering 310 titles, which yielded three key findings: the average proportion of informational text read-alouds was higher than reported in previous studies, there was considerable variation among teachers in how often they used informational texts for read-alouds, and informational texts related to social studies and math were read aloud less frequently than those focused on science concepts. Furthermore, the study examined the relation between the frequency of informational text read-alouds and kindergarten students' gains in vocabulary and content knowledge over one academic year. The results indicated that the frequency of informational text read-alouds did not significantly correlate with students' vocabulary and knowledge gains, suggesting that the current instructional practices during these read-alouds may not be sufficient to effectively support students' learning in these areas.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1507518
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1507518
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-025-01885-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 837
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Arts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Aloud to Others
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Concepts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Frequency of Informational Text Read-Alouds in Kindergarten and Its Association with Students' Vocabulary and Knowledge Development
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sen Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sonia Q. Cabell
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elizabeth Burke Hadley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jill M. Pentimonti
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Arzu Gungor Leushuis
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1