Patterns of selectivity in drawing on sources: Examining students’ use of intertextuality across literacy events

Reading Research and Instruction

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 51-63

  Many, Joyce E ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039922448     PISSN: 08860246     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19388079609558227     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Alvermann, D. E. (1987). Integrating oral and written language. In D. E. Alvermann, D. W. Moore, & M. W. Conley (Eds.), Research with reach: Secondary school reading(pp. 109-129). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
2. Beach, R. (1985). Discourse conventions and researching response to literary dialogue. In C. R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature(pp. 103-127). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
3. Beach, R. W., Appleman, D., Dorsey, S. (1990). Adolescents’ use of intertextual links to understand literature. In R. Beach &S. Hynds (Eds.)Developing discourse practices in adolescence and adulthood(pp. 224-245). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4. Beaugrande, R. (1980).Text, discourse, and process.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
5. Bloome, D. (1989). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom literacy learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
6. Bloome, D., &Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons.Reading Research Quarterly, 28,304-333.
7. Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud-modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension.Journal of Reading, 21,44-47.
8. Glaser, B., &Strauss, A. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory.New York: Aldine.
9. Hartman, D. K. (1991). The intertextual links of readers using multiple passages: A post-modem/semiotic/cognitive view of meaning making. In J. Zutell &S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction(pp. 49-66). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
10. Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., &Burke, C. L. (1984).Language stories and literacy lessons.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
11. Many, J. E. (1994). The effect of reader stance on students’ personal understanding of literature. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, &H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading(pp. 653-667). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
12. Many, J. E., &Anderson, D. L. (1992). The effects of grade and stance on readers’ intertextual and autobiographical responses to literature.Reading Research and Instruction, 31,60-69.
13. Many, J. E., Fyfe, R., Lewis, G., &Mitchell, E. (1996). Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students’ self directed reading-writing-research processes.Reading Research Quarterly, 31,12-35.
14. Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., &Baldwin, R. S. (1992).Content area reading: An integrated approach.Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
15. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978).The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
16. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1985). The transactional theory of the literary work. In C. R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature(pp. 33-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
17. Short, K. B. (1986).Literacy as a collaborative experience.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
18. Short, K. B. (1992). Intertextuality: Searching for patterns that connect. In C. K. Kinzer &D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives(pp. 187-197).Forty-first Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
19. Smith, M. W. (1992). Submission versus control in literary transactions. In J. E. Many and C. Cox (Eds.), Reader stance and literary understanding: Exploring the theories, research and practice(pp. 143-161). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.