Learning to read scientific text: Do elementary school commercial reading programs help?

Science Education

Volumn 92, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 765-798

  Norris, Stephen P ^a   Phillips, Linda M ^a   Smith, Martha L ^a   Guilbert, Sandra M ^a   Stange, Donita M ^a   Baker, Jeff J ^a   Weber, Andrea C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51149093087     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20266     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Abell, S., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching science: A case study of a science teacher enthusiast. Science Education, 76, 581-595.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Atkin, J. M., Black, P., & Coffey, J. (Eds.). (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
6. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Characterizing children's spontaneous interests in science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 803-826.
7. Bordt, M., de Broucker, P., Read, C., Harris, S., & Zhang, Y. (2001). Determinants of science and technology skills: Overview of the study. Education Quarterly Review, 8(1), 8-12.
8. Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 15(4), 13-18.
9. Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 40-43.
10. Christie, F. (1987). Genres as choice. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 22-34). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University (Centre for Studies in Literacy Education).
11. Coffey, J. E. (2003). Involving students in assessment. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 75-87). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
12. Cohen, J. H., & Wiener, R. B. (2003). Literacy portfolios: Improving assessment, teaching, and learning (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
13. Collections. (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Prentice-Hall Ginn.
14. Collins Block, C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford.
15. Cornerstones Canadian Language Arts. (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Gage Educational Publishing Company.
16. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
17. Craig, M. T., & Yore, L. D. (1996). Middle school students' awareness of strategies for resolving reading comprehension difficulties in science reading. Journal of Research in Development in Education, 29, 226-238.
18. Cullinan, B. E. (1987). Inviting readers to literature. In B. E. Cullinan (Ed.), Children's literature in the reading program (pp. 2-13). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
19. Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys' and girls' interests in science: Have they changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 557-570.
20. Dillon, D. R., & Hoffman, K. A. (2002). Discussion. In B. J. Guzzetti (Ed.), Literacy in America (pp. 143-146). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
21. Doiron,R. (1994). Using nonfiction in a read-aloud program: Letting the facts speak for themselves. The Reading Teacher, 47, 616-624.
22. Dole, J. A., & Osborn, J. (2003). Elementary language arts textbooks: A decade of change. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 631-639). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224.
24. Duke, N. K., & Bennett-Armistead, S. (2003). Reading and writing informational text in the primary grades: Research-based practices. New York: Scholastic.
25. Duthie, C. (1994). Nonfiction: A genre study for the primary classroom. Language Arts, 71, 588-595.
26. Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1987). Forms of discourse in basal readers. The Elementary School Journal, 87, 299-306.
27. Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Flood, S. (1984). Types of writing found in the early levels of basal reading programs: Preprimers through second-grade readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 241-255.
28. Ford, D. J. (2004). Scaffolding preservice teachers' evaluation of children's science literature: Attention to science-focused genres and use. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 133-153.
29. Ford, D. J., Brickhouse, N. W., Lottero-Perdue, P., & Kittleson, J. (2006). Elementary girls' science reading at home and school. Science Education, 90, 270-288.
30. Gaskins, I. W., Guthrie, J. T., Sallow, E., Ostertag, J., Six, L., Byrne, J., et al. (1994). Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Goals, teacher development, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1039-1056.
31. Gott, R., & Johnson, P. (1999). Science in schools: Time to pause for thought? School Science Review, 81(295), 21-28.
32. Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.
33. Graesser, A. C., Hauft-Smith, K., Cohen, A. D., & Pyles, L. D. (1980). Advanced outlines, familiarity, and text genre on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 281-290.
34. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., Alao, S., Anderson, E., & McCann, A. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 261-278.
35. Heselden, R., & Staples, R. (2002). Science teaching and literacy, part 2: Reading. School Science Review, 83, 51-62.
36. Hoffman, J. V., McCarthey, S. J., Abbott, J., Christian, C., Corman, L., Curry, C., et al. (1994). So what's new in the new basals? A focus on first grade. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 47-73.
37. Hoyt, L. (2002). Make it real: Strategies for success with informational texts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
38. Hoyt, L., Mooney, M., & Parkes, B. (Eds.) (2003). Exploring informational texts: From theory to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
39. International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English. (1994). Standards for the assessment of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English Joint Task Force on Assessment.
40. Johnston, P., & Costello, P. (2005). Principles for literacy assessment. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 256-267.
41. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522-549.
42. Littlefair, A. B. (1991). Reading all types of writing: The importance of genre and register for reading development. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
43. Mallett, M. (2003). Early years non-fiction: A guide to helping young researchers use information texts. London: Routledge.
44. McCarthey, S. J., Hoffman, J. V., Abbott, J., Elliott, B., Stahle, D., Price, D., et al. (1995). Learning to read with the "new" literature-based basal reading programs: Some initial findings. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (pp. 295-304). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
45. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London, School of Education.
46. Millard, E. (1997). Differently literate. London: Falmer Press. Morrow, L. M., & Gambrell, L. B. (2000). Literature-based reading instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 563-586). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Moss, B., & Newton, E. (2002). An examination of the informational text genre in basal readers. Reading Psychology, 23, 1-13.
48. Moss, B., Leone, S., & Dipillo, M. (1997). Exploring the literature of fact: Linking reading and writing through information trade books. Language Arts, 74, 418-429.
49. Murphy, S. (1991). Authorship and discourse types in Canadian basal reading programs. Reflections on Canadian literacy, 9, 133-138.
50. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
51. National Science Teachers Association. (2001). Position statement: Assessment. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from http://www.nsta.org/about/ positions/assessment.aspx/.
52. Nelson Language Arts. (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Nelson Thomson Learning.
53. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535-563.
55. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1987). Explanations of reading comprehension: Schema theory and critical thinking theory. Teachers College Record, 89, 281-306.
56. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994a). The relevance of a reader's knowledge within a perspectival view of reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 391-412.
57. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994b). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947-967.
58. Norris, S. P., & Phillips. L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
59. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Global science forum: Evolving student interest in science and technology studies policy report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
60. Osborne, J., Driver, R., & Simon, S. (1998). Attitudes to science: Issues and concerns. School Science Review, 79(288), 27-33.
61. Palinscar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151-187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Pappas, C. C. (1991). Fostering full access to literacy by including information books. Language Arts, 68, 449-462.
63. Pappas, C. C. (2006). The informational book genre: Its role in integrated science literacy research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 226-250.
64. Peacock, A., & Weedon, H. (2002). Children working with text in science: Disparities with 'literacy hour' practice. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20, 185-197.
65. Penney, K., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M.,& Clark, G. (2003). The anatomy of junior high school science textbooks: An analysis of textual characteristics and a comparison to media reports of science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3, 415-436.
66. Phillips, L. M., & Morris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader's world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21, 317-327.
67. Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., Smith, M. L., Buker, J., & Kasper, C. (2007). Assessment techniques corresponding to scientific texts in commercial reading programs: Do they promote scientific literacy? Manuscript submitted for publication.
68. Phillips, L. M., Smith, M. L., & Norris, S. P. (2005). Commercial reading programs: What's replacing narrative? In B. Maloch, J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, & J. Worthy, (Eds.), 54th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 286-300). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
69. Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its development through instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 448-467.
70. Reutzel, D. R., & Larsen, N. S. (1995). Look what they've done to real children's books in the new basal readers! Language Arts, 72, 495-507.
71. Roscoe, K., & Mrazek, R. (2005). Scientific literacy for Canadian students: Curriculum, instruction and assessment. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig.
72. Rowell, P. M., & Ebbers, M. (2004). School science constrained: Print experiences in two elementary classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 217-230.
73. Schmidt, W. H., Caul, J., Byers, J. L., & Buchmann, M. (1984). Content of basal text selections: Implications for comprehension instruction. In G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 144-162). New York: Longman.
74. Shanahan, C. (2004). Better textbooks, better readers and writers. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 370-382). Arlington, VA: International Reading Association and the National Science Teachers Association.
75. Smith, B. D. (1991). A descriptive analysis of the content in three basal readers. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.
76. Smith, M. L., Phillips, L. M., Leithead, M. R., & Norris, S. P. (2004). Story and illustration reconstituted: Children's literature in Canadian reading programs. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50, 391-410.
77. Smith, M. L., Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. L., & Stange, D. L. (2006). Scientific literacy and commercial reading programs: An analysis of text and instructional guidance. In J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch (Eds.), 55th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 293-308). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
78. Statistics Canada. (2003). Measuring up: Canadian results of the OECD PISA study (pp. 36-41). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
79. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 758-765.
80. Stiggins, R. J. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 324-328.
81. Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
82. Voss, J., Wiley, J., & Sandak, R. (1999). On the use of narrative as argument. In S. Goldman, A. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 235-253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
83. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
84. Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2000). Sharing informational text with young children. The Reading Teacher, 53, 410-423.
85. Zabrucky, K. & Moore, D. (1999). Influence of text genre on adults' monitoring of understanding and recall. Educational Gerontology, 25, 691-710.