Running Head: INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
Interactive Read-Alouds and Cross-Curricular Learning:
Bridging an Implementation Gap in Today’s Classrooms
Caitlin Steeb
Vanderbilt University
Capstone Essay
1
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
2
Abstract
Interactive read-alouds are an integral part of any elementary classroom literacy block, with
research touting their significance in the development of students’ love of reading and their
benefits in building students’ language skills, vocabulary, comprehension, and ability to think
deeply about texts in a collaborative setting. Despite the multitude of benefits, interactive readalouds are being implemented less frequently and without best practices due to the current state
of education, in which time and data are overpowering teachers’ ability to bring authentic,
interactive read-alouds into the classroom. This Capstone Essay will explore the disconnect
between best-practice implementation of interactive read-alouds and their current presentation in
today’s classrooms. Keeping in mind the present need for efficiency, recommendations for
cross-curricular read-alouds, particularly of science texts, will illustrate a means of providing
students with the neglected content of science in an engaging and multi-functional medium.
These interactive read-alouds of science texts will allow students to access abstract, scientific
content in a way that improves their content knowledge, vocabulary, and problem-solving
abilities. This Capstone Essay will show how melding interactive read-alouds with science
content ensures that students are receiving a comprehensive knowledge base of multiple subjects
while developing their overall collaboration and critical thinking abilities.
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
3
Introduction
While on the outset seen as just a “simple and pleasurable activity,” the classroom readaloud, when implemented effectively, is a planned and purposeful strategy that positively affects
children’s academic and literacy success (Dorion, 1994; Kindle, 2004). Specifically, interactive
read-alouds, in which students are actively engaged with a text—making connections, problemsolving, and asking and answering questions—with the support of their peers and teacher, have
numerous benefits (Heisey & Kucan, 2010; Kindle, 2009; Fisher et al., 2004) and have been
recommended as a valid instructional practice by the International Reading Association (Kindle,
2009) and National Association for the Education of Young Children (Kindle, 2009). Across the
literature, I’ve found the two overarching benefits of read-alouds to be that they build students’
early literacy skills as well as their motivation in and engagement with reading (Fox, 2013;
Kindle, 2009; Fisher et al., 2004). Children’s oral language skills, vocabulary, print awareness,
and knowledge base of various experiences are built through classroom read-alouds (Fox, 2013;
Kindle, 2009; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007; Fisher et al., 2004). These skills and awareness are
cultivated due to the nature of the interactive read-aloud experience, in that it excites students
about books and information through listening and interaction, motivating them to read and
explore themselves (Fox, 2013; Kindle, 2009; Fisher et al., 2004).
While the current research points to the strengths of using interactive read-alouds in the
classroom to foster deep learning of content, literacy skills, and strategy usage, as well as to
develop cooperative learning and shared understandings, there is a great barrier to its
implementation. This restriction is the current educational context, in which structured, skillbased reading programs and lack of time reign. My synthesis of research and classroom
experiences, have revealed first-hand how these limitations are negatively affecting teachers’
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
4
implementation of read-alouds in their classroom, and subsequently, their students’ learning
(Baker et al., 2013; Kindle, 2009; Lane & Wright, 2007; Barber, Nagy-Catz, & Arya, 2006;
Copenhaver, 2001). Given this current state of education and my desire, as a teacher, to
implement interactive read-alouds due to the abundance of research proving its significance and
beneficial effects, the purpose of this Capstone Essay is to prove the benefits of implementing
interactive read-alouds and to provide recommendations on how teachers can remedy today’s
classroom challenges by using interactive read-alouds for cross-curricular integration,
particularly with science. In the following sections, I present support for interactive read-alouds,
rather than teacher-initiate-evaluate read-alouds, and their roles in the context of today’s
classroom. A synthesis of the research on interactive read-alouds’ benefits and constraints, and
best practices will follow. Then, I will use this knowledge to make sound recommendations for
cross-curricular interactive read-alouds, using science as an example, to the benefit of all
learners.
Interactive versus Teacher’s Monologue
The structure of a classroom read-aloud, particularly the conversations and discussions
initiated by the teacher and students before, during, and after a read-aloud, is vastly inconsistent
(Oyler & Barry, 1996). This variability, due to classroom limitations and a lack of knowledge of
sound implementation practices, impacts the effectiveness of classroom read-alouds (Baker et al.,
2013; Copenhaver, 2001). This section will provide a reference for two read-aloud styles and
tout the greater effectiveness of interactive read-alouds over teacher’s monologue.
Benefits of read-alouds are compounded and most attainable when teachers perform
interactive read-alouds as, “merely reading books aloud is not sufficient for accelerating
children’s oral vocabulary development and listening comprehension. Instead, the way books
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
5
are shared with children matters” (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007, p. 742). Interactive read-alouds
engage students throughout the reading process, creating a community of learners amongst the
teacher, student, and their classmates as they learn beyond the text presented on the page
(Varelas & Pappas, 2006; Barrentine, 1996). These interactions and personalized engagement
inherent in interactive read-alouds are representative of Louise Rosenblatt’s transactional theory
of reading, in which students use their unique schema to create interpretations of texts (Mills,
Stephens, O’Keefe, & Waugh, 2004). Students are engaged in constant, spontaneous dialogue,
providing their insights, interpretations, connections, and questions about the text, upon which
the teacher provides extensions and supports (Baker et al., 2013; Varelas & Pappas, 2006;
Barrentine, 1996). Teachers facilitate students’ continuous thinking and awareness of the
learning process by demonstrating and modeling what good readers do, including providing
explicit instruction and strategy use (Morrison & Wlodarczyk, 2009; Barrentine, 1996).
An interactive read-aloud is in contrast to a teacher-centered approach, known as initiateresponse-evaluate, IRE, or the teacher’s monologue (Varelas & Pappas, 2006; Copenhaver,
2001). While IRE is “not by default an inappropriate pedagogical practice,” it is limited in the
type of engagement and interactions students can have and in reaching a diverse group of
students (Varelas & Pappas, 2006, p. 214). In this type of read-aloud, students are restricted
from engaging spontaneously with the text, having to wait until after the teacher has finished the
entire text or until the teacher has given permission to the child to speak (Copenhaver, 2001).
This restriction of student talking can lead some students to misbehave, doing whatever it takes
to gain the attention they desire (Copenhaver, 2001). Instead of engaging students with the
reading process, IRE limits students to gaining content knowledge of the text itself, without the
expanded understanding of strategies and deep thinking. Further, this restricted interaction style
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
6
isolates students from diverse backgrounds, including those from minority cultures, races, and
low socioeconomic backgrounds, especially in urban schools, from engaging in and feeling
comfortable with conversing (Varelas & Pappas, 2006).
What separates interactive read-alouds from IRE, or teacher’s monologue, is the melding
of content and strategy knowledge within an engaging and authentic environment (Barrentine,
1996). Students are free to express both aesthetic and efferent responses to the text, as they arise,
which supports the diverse needs and experiences of all learners (Varelas & Pappas, 2006;
Barrentine, 1996). This continuous, push-and-pull interaction with text builds metacognitive
awareness and processing ability that goes beyond any one reading of a text (Barrentine, 1996).
Despite their expansive reach in positively impacting students of all backgrounds, in a
constructivist, student-centered approach most suitable for today’s varied classrooms, interactive
read-alouds are being compromised. Given this understanding of interactive and teachers’
monologue read-alouds, the current state of education and the role of read-alouds within it will
now be described to make evident the disconnect between research and current practice.
Current State of Interactive Read-Alouds: Learning Context
The tight hold over teacher’s classroom time has led to rushed, inauthentic read-alouds in
which students’ voices and thoughts are not heard. The administration in many schools, because
of the pressure to produce data and progress in such short amounts of time, is unsupportive of
interactive read-alouds (Fox, 2013; Copenhaver, 2001). Time, rather than student conversations
and learning of vocabulary and strategies, is dictating the progression of interactive read-alouds
(Kindle, 2009).
The lack of time teachers have in the classroom for interactive read-alouds is due to
mandated reading programs which segment teachers’ time into small, skill-based sections of
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
7
instruction (Fox, 2013; Copenhaver, 2001). This skill-centered focus is especially prevalent in
the younger grades when students are beginning to learn to read (Copenhaver, 2001). However,
students in the primary grades need more access to authentic literature to develop a love of and
interest in reading, both cultivated through interactive read-alouds (Kindle, 2009; Lane &
Wright, 2007).
Teacher Compromise
To account for these restrictions on time and instruction, teachers are implementing far
from best practices for classroom read-alouds; the discussion and engagement inherent in
interactive read-alouds is lost. This severely compromised read-aloud instruction was captured
in Copenhaver’s study of an experienced elementary teacher of diverse students, Ms. Kathy,
across 44 classroom read-alouds (2001). Students’ affective responses to the text, including
connections, wonderings, and interactions with classmates, were cut short (Copenhaver, 2001).
To keep within the limited time frame, Ms. Kathy refrained from asking open-ended questions,
reverting to literal comprehension questions asked primarily after the reading (Copenhaver,
2001). Students’ initiation of questions or comments during the reading were ignored or asked to
be kept until after Ms. Kathy was finished reading (Copenhaver, 2001). Only those students who
raised their hands were acknowledged and even these students’ comments were limited to being
brief and on topic (Copenhaver, 2001).
Not only are teachers forced to limit the engagement and authentic talk associated with
interactive read-alouds, but they are reducing the amount and quality of teaching when
implementing read-alouds (Copenhaver, 2001). Because of the strict time allotments, teachers
are less likely to “pursue the teachable moment, the wondering moment, the reflective moment”
(Copenhaver, 2001, p. 156). Teachers are skimming the surface of content and strategy
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
8
instruction, choosing books that are easier and more predictable, rather than thought-provoking,
rich texts best suited for interactive read-alouds (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007; Copenhaver,
2001). This trend is even more widespread with students who are identified as at risk (McGee &
Schickedanz, 2007). Teacher’s current tendencies to favor hasty read-alouds have a trickle down
effect on their students.
Effects on Students
The limited engagement in this classroom context hinders students’ learning and
willingness to question and engage in deep thinking (Copenhaver, 2001). Students get a
misguided sense of what a read-aloud is, believing that it means to be quiet and only speak when
spoken to by the teacher (Fox, 2013; Copenhaver, 2001). Therefore, these experiences are
building negative attitudes about reading, further restricting students’ interest in participating
(Copenhaver, 2001).
While all students are affected by the lack of engagement of these limited, IRE readalouds, students considered marginalized by Copenhaver, specifically those of minority and low
socioeconomic background, suffer the most (2001). These students’ behaviors and responses do
not fit the narrow expectations of IRE read-alouds, quietly listening and only responding when
called on at the end of the story (Copenhaver, 2001). Because these students’ behaviors do not
fit the expected practices, they become further isolated from their class, identified as troublemakers (Copenhaver, 2001). Overall, teachers are limiting or watering down their use of
interactive read-alouds to compensate for the current expectations in schools (Fox, 2013;
Copenhaver, 2001). The current context of read-aloud learning does not take into consideration
the many benefits of the interactive strategy. These benefits are described to engrain the
necessity of interactive read-alouds in today’s classrooms, in spite of time and testing pressures.
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
9
Benefits of Interactive Read-Alouds
Interactive read-alouds are beneficial in primary classrooms because they build students’
motivation for reading, understanding of literary elements, multiple literacy skills, and a sense of
cooperation and community (Lane & Wright, 2007; Copenhaver, 2001).
Motivation
Based on my compilation of research, students’ participation in interactive read-alouds
can have a great impact on their attitudes towards reading and the types of books they are
motivated to read independently (Kindle, 2009; Morrison & Wlodarczyk, 2009; Lane & Wright,
2007; Fisher et al., 2004). The books teachers choose for read-alouds impact the book choices
students make for independent reading (Fisher et al., 2004). In addition to the books chosen for
interactive read-alouds, the relationships and communications built throughout the read-aloud
process are satisfying for students, boosting their attitude towards reading and sparking their
interest in other literacy activities (Fox, 2013; Lane & Wright, 2007). These positive attitudes
towards read-alouds go so far as to motivate students to read more in general (Fisher et al.,
2004).
Vocabulary and Language
Beyond the important motivation factor, interactive read-alouds have a measurable
impact on students’ vocabulary (Baker et al., 2013; Fox, 2013; Kindle, 2009; Lane & Wright,
2007; Fisher et al., 2004). Because of the direct teaching and dialogue inherent in interactive
read-alouds, students are exposed to new words, explicitly and incidentally, especially academic
vocabulary, that positively affect students’ reading, writing, and vocabulary knowledge (Kindle,
2009). This exposure to new vocabulary further improves students’ oral language ability,
including that of English Language Learners (Fisher et al., 2004).
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
10
A study conducted by Baker and colleagues deepens the evidence for interactive readalouds’ benefits on vocabulary growth (2013). In this comprehensive study of interactive readalouds in 12 first grade classrooms, students who received the interactive read-aloud
intervention, in which prescribed lessons included explicit vocabulary and strategy instruction
and encouraged student interaction throughout the read-aloud, had significantly improved
vocabulary compared to students in the comparison group (Baker et al., 2013). To measure the
intervention’s success in improving vocabulary knowledge, students were assessed based on
their understanding of 16 vocabulary words - three academic vocabulary words and 13 words
from the read-aloud text (Baker et al., 2013). Students in the intervention group, including those
students identified as language and literacy at risk, scored an average of 9.35 points higher than
students in the comparison group, equivalent to a 35-percentage point variance (Baker et al.,
2013). With explicit vocabulary instruction within an interactive read-aloud, students of all
ability levels can improve their vocabulary (Baker et al., 2013; Kindle, 2009).
In addition to impacting students’ knowledge of vocabulary, interactive read-alouds also
improve students’ awareness of text language and structure (Fox, 2013; Kindle, 2009; Morrison
& Wlodarczyk, 2009; Fisher et al., 2004). Interactively reading aloud a variety of texts exposes
students to the syntactic structure of different genres, thus helping to “promote their syntactic
development” (Lane & Wright, 2007, p. 668). Students begin to recognize patterns, making
comparisons and insights about different text genres and learning about their differing elements
and purposes (Fox, 2013; Fisher et al., 2004). The language of books chosen for interactive
read-alouds is rich with detailed descriptions and playful word use that students have not yet
been exposed to in their independent reading (Kindle, 2009). Teachers’ expressive reading of
these texts, by varying tone, including gestures, and using precise pronunciation of words, helps
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
11
all students better grasp the content of the text and the enjoyment of reading (McCormick &
McTigue, 2011; Morrison & Wlodarczyk, 2009). These presentation elements have particular
benefits for English Language Learners (McCormick & McTigue, 2011). Interactive readalouds, with their scaffolded teacher support, expose all learners to a variety of language and
vocabulary that is then translated to their own reading, writing, and oral language experiences
(Lane & Wright, 2007; Fisher et al., 2004).
Comprehension
Interactive read-alouds also improve students’ comprehension of texts (Baker et al.,
2013; Lane & Wright, 2007; Barrentine, 1996). The Baker study, described above, also explored
interactive read-alouds’ effects on comprehension through narrative and information retell
assessments, finding significant, positive impacts for narrative comprehension (2013). Students
who engaged in interactive read-alouds performed around 16 percentile points higher than
students in the comparison groups, with those students identified as language and literacy at risk
showing the most significant gains (Baker et al., 2013). Through the dialogue of an interactive
read-aloud, students are engaging in higher order thinking, which translates to their ability to
better comprehend texts (Baker et al., 2013; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007).
Connections and Shared Understanding
Interactive read-alouds have broader implications for students’ abilities to make
connections and create shared learning experiences with peers. A study focusing on interactive
read-alouds’ effects on students’ intertextuality was conducted with a class of urban, minority
first graders, many of whose primary language was Spanish (Oyler & Barry, 1996). Over the
course of 14 interactive read-aloud sessions with information texts, researchers made
ethnographic observations focusing on students’ abilities to initiate conversations and make
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
12
connections (Oyler & Barry, 1996). When engaged in an interactive read-aloud, and thus
allowed to make connections during the reading, students are more likely to notice details and
specific aspects of the text than if they were only engaging at the end of the reading (Barrentine,
1996; Oyler & Barry, 1996).
Consistent with Rosenblatt’s transactional theory, the environment created through
interactive read-alouds gives all students, including minority students or those often described as
being “‘deprived’ of lifeworld experiences,” the ability to make personal and generalized
connections to and interpretations of the text (Varelas & Pappas, 2006, p. 251; Mills et al., 2004;
Oyler & Barry, 1996). As students work together to make sense of a text in an interactive readaloud (Mills, et al., 2004), they learn to work cooperatively, respect each other’s opinions, and
share ownership and control (Varelas & Pappas, 2006). This shared sense of power builds a
community of learners, where all students are capable of contributing to the group’s deepened
understanding (Fox, 2013; Varelas & Pappas, 2006; Barrentine, 1996; Oyler & Barry, 1996).
Constraints of Interactive Read-Alouds
Despite these numerous benefits of interactive read-alouds, there are constraints to this
method including variance in teacher implementation, narrow student connections and possible
distractions, literacy effects, and the need for further research. These limitations point to the
necessity of proper implementation in order to draw the most success from this viable means of
learning in an elementary classroom.
Teacher Variance in Implementation
One of the major concerns of interactive read-alouds is the inconsistency in how teachers
are structuring and implementing them in their classrooms and how this affects students’
learning (Baker et al., 2013; Kindle, 2009). One study discovered this when researching the best
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
13
practices of interactive read-alouds (Fisher et al., 2004). Twenty-five expert teachers, identified
by their principals as conducting successful read-alouds and whose students performed
consistently well on reading achievement assessments, from 25 schools were observed by two
researchers (Fisher et al., 2004). The practices of these teachers were compared with 120
additional teachers, not identified as experts (Fisher et al., 2004).
Non-expert teachers failed to include the following vital aspects of an interactive readaloud: previewing and practicing reading the text prior to instruction, modeling what fluent
readers do, and connecting the interactive read-aloud to other literacy or classroom activities
(Fisher et al., 2004). These errors in implementation can be synthesized into a lack of planning
(Baker et al., 2013; Fisher et al., 2004). Teachers must be intentional in preparing an interactive
read-aloud, not viewing it as “an optional activity or a break from the routine of the classroom”
for it to be a valuable means of literacy learning (Fisher et al., 2004).
Many of these variations in implementation are due to a gap in the amount of research
dedicated exclusively to instructional methods for interactive read-alouds (Lane & Wright, 2007;
Fisher et al., 2004). There is a great deal of research focused on interactive read-alouds’ positive
effects, but less on how to clearly go about using them in the classroom (Lane & Wright, 2007).
For example, it was found, as described in the sections above, that discussions throughout the
read-aloud are more effective than just after reading, but the particular aspects of this discussion,
such as teacher mediation, deemed most beneficial are not as well established (Kindle, 2009).
Student Tangents
Another concern of interactive read-alouds is the time dedicated to student discussion or
the potential for tangents that may take away from the text itself (Kindle, 2009; Barrentine,
1996). Teachers must be cognizant of how much time is spent with students making
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
14
connections, asking questions, or clarifying understandings throughout the read-aloud (Kindle,
2009; Barrentine, 1996). Sometimes, this extended talk can interrupt the flow of the reading and
the overall positive experience of the read-aloud (Kindle, 2009; Barrentine, 1996). These
tangents, when they stray too far from the story content, can even lower students’ comprehension
(Barrentine, 1996).
Interactive Read-Aloud Best Practices
While additional study is always necessary to continue to improve educational practice,
there are notable commonalities across the research on how to best implement interactive readalouds in a way that is meaningful and beneficial for all learners. In order to be successful and
further students’ understanding of content knowledge and their reading and processing strategies,
teachers must act as knowledgeable and prepared facilitators, imparting good judgment and time
management (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007; Fisher et al., 2004; Barrentine, 1996). This
facilitation of purposeful learning, with active participation from all students, should occur
before, during, and after the reading of a text, with multiple texts on a particular topic of interest
read repeatedly (Baker et al., 2013; Kindle, 2009; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007; Fisher et al.,
2004). Above all, interactive read-alouds should engage students in deep, connective thinking
while staying committed to fostering a love of reading in all students (Lane & Wright, 2007).
Teacher’s Role
The role of the teacher in an interactive read-aloud is to guide students’ thinking and
connection making by building bridges between what students already know and what they can
learn (Oyler & Barry, 1996). Throughout an interactive read-aloud, the teacher is pushing
further thought by asking questions, prompting conversations, and providing meaningful points
of instruction (Kindle, 2009). The teacher has the power to validate students by acknowledging
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
15
their contributions and situating them within a meaningful context for the rest of the class
(Copenhaver, 2001; Oyler & Barry, 1996). Thoughtful facilitation is the key to a successful
interactive read-aloud (Kindle, 2009).
According to the literature, teachers must prepare systematic and detailed interactive
read-aloud lessons in order for students to gain from the experience, as meaningful think-alouds
about a text take practice (Baker et al., 2013; Fisher et al., 2004; Barrentine, 1996). Practicing
reading the text aloud allows teachers to become more fluent, adding necessary expression and
intonation, and to prepare meaningful stopping points for discussion and instruction (Fisher et
al., 2004). The nature of interactive read-alouds, in which authentic and spontaneous
interactions occur, does not mitigate the need for thoughtful preparation (Baker et al., 2013). By
organizing points of interest and planning ahead, teachers can anticipate students’ questions and
responses to allow for more meaningful and focused dialogue throughout the reading (Baker et
al., 2013; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007; Barrentine, 1996).
Implementation
When implementing an interactive read-aloud, expert teachers, such as those studied by
Fisher, read with expression and animation, varying their voice’s volume and tone to fit the text
and, therefore, creating students who love listening to texts (2004). Including hand gestures,
movement, and props are additional ways to make a read-aloud engaging and to enhance
students’ comprehension (Lane & Wright, 2007; Fisher et al., 2004). Reading with animation
shows students how spoken language and book language is different and how the way one reads
impacts the audience’s retrieval of information (Fisher et al., 2004).
Beyond reading with animation, teachers must be mindful of how they engage students
with the texts. Successfully implementing an interactive read-aloud can include print referencing
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
16
and dialogic reading, which simultaneously engage students in learning about and from texts and
in enjoying text (Lane & Wright, 2007). Print referencing calls students’ attention to specific
aspects of a text, such as its structure or function, through cues while reading, like tracking print
(Lane & Wright, 2007). By print referencing, students gain an understanding of words and the
alphabet, and a metalinguistic awareness of texts (Lane & Wright, 2007). Dialogic reading
encourages active engagement and learning through specific question prompts that challenge
students’ understanding and through feedback that encourages more sophisticated language and
discussion (Lane & Wright, 2007). These methods are most effective when they are
incorporated after short amounts of text have been read, rather than at the end of a whole text, so
more thoughtful and focused discussion, questioning, and clarifying can take place (Heisey &
Kucan, 2010).
The cornerstone of interactive read-alouds is the rich and authentic conversation between
students and the teacher that take place before, during, and after a reading of a text. As students
continue to talk about a text, they gain a more sophisticated understanding, validating the use of
spontaneous discussion while reading (Copenhaver, 2001). Interruptions are common and
acceptable as students are actively constructing their knowledge, leading to a more meaningful
reading experience (Lane & Wright, 2007; Oyler & Barry, 1996). Students’ connections all
demonstrate their attempts to better make sense of the text and create, what Rosenblatt deems,
their poem (Mills et al., 2004).
Teachers should provide feedback to students’ ongoing sense-making, implementing
responsive teaching by acknowledging students’ contributions and extending their thinking
through further questioning and prompts for peer discussion (Baker et al., 2013; Barrentine,
1996). Paying special interest to students’ comments and questions allows teachers to “use them
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
17
as windows for peering into their [students’] thinking,” thus, a valuable means of informal
assessment (Barrentine, 1996, p. 42). The teacher’s facilitation of these spontaneous discussions
ensures that there are fewer misconceptions or confusions than when discussion takes place only
after reading (Baker et al., 2013; Lane & Wright, 2007). This consistent involvement ensures
that students are taking an active role in their learning and understanding.
Recommendations: Interactive Read-Alouds for Cross-Curricular Integration
Based on the above research and synthesis indicating the strengths and implementation of
interactive read-alouds and the reality teachers are facing in today’s classrooms, in which time
and deep learning are limited, I recommend using interactive read-alouds as a medium for crosscurricular learning. The startling contrast between what interactive read-alouds should be and
how they actually are being implemented in schools today is too great to not take action.
Teachers “have an ethical and professional obligation to speak out [as]...the costs of not fighting
to slow down, read, and really talk are simply too high” (Copenhaver, 2001, p. 157). Crosscurricular read-alouds are a way to provide students with the additional content they need, such
as the diminishing subject of science in primary classrooms, in a context that is authentic,
engaging, and interactive for all students (Barber et al., 2006; Doiron, 1994). This integration
ensures that interactive read-alouds are being implemented according to best practices, while
accounting for the need to use instructional time efficiently and wisely (Lane & Wright, 2007).
Interactive read-alouds as a means for cross-curricular integration, particularly of science
whose information is presented as nonfiction, allows for multiple skills and topics to be taught
concurrently, thus saving instructional time (Lane & Wright, 2007). With the Common Core
State Standards’ heavy emphasis on students of all ages reading more nonfiction texts, this
strategy becomes even more relevant. By incorporating factual information in the form of
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
18
literature into our interactive read-alouds, students will learn to value and enjoy nonfiction,
subject-specific information (McCormick & McTigue, 2011; Doiron, 1994). To support my
research-based recommendations, I will next present the benefits of cross-curricular read-alouds,
both broadly and explicitly related to science instruction. I will then provide suggestions for
implementing these integrated read-alouds in the current classroom.
Benefits of Cross-Curricular Integration
As the content of informational texts can be harder to grasp, interactive read-alouds
provide a desirable medium to engage students in this rigorous content (Heisey & Kucan, 2010).
Interactive read-alouds of informational texts tap into students’ natural curiosity about the world
and present this factual information in a way that excites and peaks their interest (Doiron, 1994).
Teacher facilitation of interactive read-alouds of informational texts provides students the
support they need while encouraging active discussion of neglected informational subjects
(Baker et al., 2013). The context of an interactive read-aloud provides the bridge to
incorporating more informational texts into students’, especially primary students’, instruction
and independent reading interests (Baker et al., 2013; Heisey & Kucan, 2010; Doiron, 1994).
By incorporating subject-specific information with the strategies and skills of literacy
through an interactive read-aloud, students benefit in a number of ways. Interactive read-alouds
allow for more cohesion across the curriculum, thus students’ language across all subject areas
improves (Fisher et al., 2004). Students’ comfort level with reading and comprehending
informational texts is enhanced due to the focused instruction and increased exposure (Doiron,
1994). And, as with all interactive read-alouds, students’ ability to problem-solve and think
critically is heightened (Varelas & Pappas, 2006; Doiron, 1994).
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
19
Benefits of Science Interactive Read-Alouds
Science, one of the most neglected subjects in primary school, can be taught successfully
through interactive read-alouds (Barber et al., 2006). Integrating science with literacy has
multiple benefits over teaching literacy and science in isolation, thus saving time and using
instructional opportunities wisely. Students in 2nd and 3rd grades, over 8 weeks and 62
classrooms, participated in a study to measure the impact of combined science and literacy
approaches, through interactive read-alouds, as opposed to science-only or literacy-only
comparison approaches, on science content knowledge (Barber et al., 2006). Students who were
involved in interactive read-alouds of science texts, with discussions occurring before, during,
and after reading, had increased literacy skills and understanding of science concepts when
compared to peers involved in the science-only or literacy-only activities (Heisey & Kucan,
2010; Barber et al., 2006). When time is so limited in today’s classrooms, interactive readalouds of science texts should be utilized, as they are effective in improving students’ science
content knowledge and literacy processes (Barber et al., 2006; Varelas & Pappas, 2006)
Science interactive read-alouds expose young learners to complex scientific concepts and
vocabulary that they wouldn’t access if just reading independently (Heisey & Kucan, 2010;
Barber et al., 2006). The nature of an interactive read-aloud is conducive to the type of
exploration and inquiry that is promoted by science education standards (Varelas & Pappas,
2006). As students wonder throughout a reading, they are able to co-construct scientific
knowledge with their peers and teacher, learning important scientific discourses (Varelas &
Pappas, 2006). Teachers’ readings expose students to authentic thinking about science, modeling
scientific questioning, observation, and explanations (McCormick & McTigue, 2011; Varelas &
Pappas, 2006). Students can merge their own hands-on science experiences with the content of
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
20
the read-aloud to further develop their understanding (Varelas & Pappas, 2006). The interactive
read-aloud portion of the learning makes the science content concrete and accessible for students
(McCormick & McTigue, 2011). Students learn the particular structures and vocabulary specific
to scientific writing and are able to explore these qualities through authentic text discussions
(Varelas & Pappas, 2006).
Implementation of Science Interactive Read-Alouds
To implement an effective, science interactive read-aloud, teachers must choose books
that bring science concepts to life through an engaging voice, as opposed to dryly presenting
scientific information from textbooks (McCormick & McTigue, 2011). The barometer for a
quality science trade book for an interactive read-aloud is “how well the author transforms the
abstract science topics into a meaningful, attention-grabbing, and digestible form for the novice
(and possibly reluctant) scientist to absorb” (McCormick & McTigue, 2011, p. 46). These
science trade books, “not only inform but also challenge, motivate, and stimulate the reader to
read more about a subject” (Doiron, 1994, p. 620). Books of this sort can be found on the
National Science Teachers Association yearly list of chosen quality science trade books
(McCormick & McTigue, 2011).
Implementing an interactive read-aloud of a science text requires the same features as
implementing an interactive read-aloud of any other text. Teachers must prepare ahead of the
reading, set and share a purpose for reading, read expressively, and engage students in
continuous, authentic discussion throughout a reading, acknowledging students’ contributions
and encouraging critical thinking (McCormick & McTigue, 2011; Varelas & Pappas, 2006).
Particular nuances of reading a science text include the types of questions asked and the great
importance of engaging students during reading (Heisey & Kucan, 2010). In addition to
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
21
questions focused on the content and themes of the text, asking students to make connections
between the focus text and other texts and experiences is particularly valuable (Heisey & Kucan,
2010). When students are asked to make connections across science texts teachers are building
“students’ developing representation of scientists at work by prompting them to explicitly
compare, contrast, and connect information” (Heisey & Kucan, 2010, p. 669).
This questioning and further engagement should occur during a reading, evidenced by
Heisey & Kucan’s study of two 1st/2nd grade classrooms of diverse students (2010). One class
discussed the science text after-reading and the other during-reading. The during-reading group,
based on a pre- and post-test questioning assessment, displayed a more comprehensive
understanding of the science concepts, providing more textual evidence to support their claims,
and thus, a deeper understanding than the after-reading group (Heisey & Kucan, 2010). Because
the students in the during-reading group were given more prompts and opportunities to express
their wonderings and connections, they developed a greater understanding of the science texts
and their underlying concepts (Heisey & Kucan, 2010). This cross-curricular integration of
science and literacy in interactive read-alouds illustrates the benefits of implementing this multifaceted strategy in today’s classroom.
Conclusion
With their widespread ability to reach learners of all backgrounds in an engaging,
motivating, and instructionally beneficial way, interactive read-alouds should have a distinct
place in today’s elementary classrooms. But, their implications for practice in today’s pressureridden classrooms require teachers to be more strategic and cognizant of interactive read-alouds’
implementation. With the current restrictions of time sensitive schedules and prescribed
programs weighing heavily on teachers, adjustments need to be made to meaningfully
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
22
incorporate this aspect of a reading program. Cross-curricular interactive read-alouds allow for
efficient and beneficial use of classroom time, while preserving best practices and providing
students with necessary scaffolding of content knowledge and literary strategy use. Despite this
feasible route, I question whether the research on this solution will be enough to overcome
teachers’ daily conflicts. Will teachers be able to look beyond interactive read-alouds’ limitation
of time consumption and focus instead on the greater picture of student success in literacy and
science, therefore overcoming contextual pressures? Or will teachers resort to the easier, though
insufficient IRE read-alouds or no read-alouds at all, leaving students without needed
opportunities for analytic thinking and development of science content knowledge? This
conflicted context implies that teachers must be dedicated problem-solvers, working past their
structural limitations to provide the best means of instruction for all their students.
Through interactive read-alouds, students are able to push their thinking, engage in active
discussions, and develop an authentic relationship with reading. Extending interactive readalouds to science texts only furthers students’ ability to problem-solve and make sense of
abstract content. By utilizing interactive read-alouds, teachers are putting students first,
developing them into the type of deep thinking, collaborative individuals necessary to be
successful in today’s complex world. I hope further research will be done to explore additional
cross-curricular strategies that will help develop students’ literacy and subject-specific
knowledge in an efficient and engaging context. Given teachers’ limited time, integrative
teaching methods need to be researched so students are provided with rich content and a more
realistic view of learning. Building from the successes of interactive read-alouds of science
texts, I believe more seamless cross-curricular learning will allow for more effective use of class
time and make learning increasingly authentic and meaningful for all students.
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
23
References
Baker, S. K., Santoro, L. E., Chard, D. J., Fien, H., Park, Y., & Otterstedt, J. (2013). An
evaluation of an explicit read aloud intervention taught in whole-classroom formats in
first grade. The Elementary School Journal, 113(3), 331-358. doi: 10.1086/668503.
Barber, J., Nagy-Catz, K., & Arya, D. (2006, April). Improving science content acquisition
through a combined science/literacy approach: A quasi-experimental study. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research
Association, Berkeley, CA.
Barrentine, S. (1996). Engaging with reading through interactive read-alouds. The Reading
Teacher, 50(1), 36-43.
Copenhaver, J. F. (2001). Running out of time: Rushed read-alouds in a primary classroom.
Language Arts, 79(2), doi: 10.2307/41483218.
Doiron, R. (1994). Using nonfiction in a read-aloud program: Letting the facts speak for
themselves. The Reading Teacher, 47(8), 616-624.
Fisher, D., Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Frey, N. (2004). Interactive read-alouds: Is there a common set
of implementation practices?. The Reading Teacher, 58(1), 8-17. doi: 10.1598/RT.1.1.
Fox, M. (2013). What next in the read-aloud battle?. The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 4-8.
Heisey, N., & Kucan, L. (2010). Introducing science concepts to primary students through readalouds: Interactions and multiple texts make the difference. The Reading Teacher,
63(8), 666-676. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.8.5.
Kindle, K. (2009). Vocabulary development during read-alouds: Primary practices. The Reading
Teacher, 63(3), 202-211. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.3.3.
INTERACTIVE READ-ALOUDS
24
Lane, H. B., & Wright, T. L. (2007). Maximizing the effectiveness of reading aloud. The
Reading Teacher, 60(7), 668-675. doi: 10.1598/RT.60.7.7.
McCormick, M. K., & McTigue, E. M. (2011). Teacher read-alouds make science come alive.
Science Scope, 34(5), 45-49.
McGee, L. M., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2007). Repeated interactive read-alouds in preschool and
kindergarten: the repeated interactive read-aloud technique is a research-based
approach to comprehension and vocabulary development in preschool and
kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 742-751.
Mills, H., Stephens, D., O'Keefe, T., & Waugh, J. R. (2004). Theory in practice: The legacy of
Louise Rosenblatt. Language Arts, 82(1), 47-55.
Morrison, V., & Wlodarczyk, L. (2009). Revisiting read-aloud: Instructional strategies that
encourage students' engagement with texts. The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 110-118.
Oyler, C., & Barry, A. (1996). Intertextual connections in read-alouds of information books.
Language Arts, 73(5).
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy
units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and
language. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 211-259.