Reading in science: Developing high-quality student text and supporting effective teacher enactment

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 109, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 162-180

  Sutherland, LeeAnn M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54949130248     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/590524     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Executive summary and paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.
2. American Association for Advancement in Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Content area textbooks. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts (pp. 193-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Armbruster, B. B. (1996). Considerate texts. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning strategies (pp. 47-57). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5. Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1982). Idea-mapping: The technique and its use in the classroom or simulating the "ups" and "downs" of reading comprehension (Reading Education Report No. 36). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Baranek and Newman.
6. Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1985). Producing "considerate" expository text: Or easy reading is damned hard writing. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 247-263.
7. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331-346.
8. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 403-428.
9. Bromley, K. (2007). Nine things every teacher should know about words and vocabulary instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(7), 528-537.
10. Carter, B. (2000). Formula for failure. School Library Journal, 46(7), 34-37.
11. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, K. Worth, & M. P. Klentschy (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221-244). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
12. Chall, J., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448-456.
14. Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (2003). Text organization and its relation to reading comprehension: A synthesis of the research. Eugene: University of Oregon, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators [Online]. Available: http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/ techrep/tech17.html
15. Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62-88.
16. Douglas, R., Klentschy, M. P., & Worth, K. (Eds.). (2006). Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
17. DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information.
18. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2006). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
19. Erlich, M-F., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Loridant, C. (1993). Cognitive and motivational determinants of reading comprehension in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(4), 365-381.
20. Fang, Z. (2008). Going beyond the fab five: Helping students cope with the unique linguistic challenges of expository reading in intermediate grades. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(6), 476-487.
21. Fink, R. P. (1995). Successful dyslexics: A constructivist study of passionate interest reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(4), 268-280.
22. Fink, R. P. (1997, November). Sixty successful dyslexics: Gender differences and literacy development. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Orton Dyslexia Society, Minneapolis.
23. Fisher, D., & Ivey, G. (2006). Evaluating the interventions for struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(3), 180-189.
24. Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus leveling. Reading Teacher, 56(3), 286-291.
25. Garner, R., Alexander, P. A., Gillingham, M. G., Kulikowich, J. M., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 643-659.
26. Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357-398.
27. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Hall, L. A. (2005). Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 403-414.
29. Hand, B. M., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B. J., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2003). Message from the "Island Group": What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 607-615.
30. Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 172-193.
31. 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(6), 522-549.
32. Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 67-85.
33. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27, 12-21.
34. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
35. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Inman, W. E. (1993). Effects of signaling topic structure on text recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 281-290.
36. Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Learning from text designed to model scientific thinking in inquiry-based instruction. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 316-339). Arlington, VA: International Reading Association.
37. Moje, E. B., Sutherland, L. M., Cleveland, T., & Heitzman, M. (2005, December). Reading and writing in science: Multiple text types in scientific literacy learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami.
38. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation's report card. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationasreportcard/
39. National Council of Teachers of English. (2006). NCTE principles of adolescent literacy reform. Policy Research Brief. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
40. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. O'Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463.
42. Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and text-based investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 152-193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Pearson, P. D. (1975). The effects of grammatical complexity on children's comprehension, recall, and conception of certain semantic relations. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 155-192.
44. Pearson, P. D., & Raphael, T. E. (1990). Reading Comprehension as a dimension of thinking. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 207-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children's memory and comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 3-32.
46. Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V. (2003). Theory and research into practice: Oral reading in the school literacy curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 510-522.
47. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1969). Towards a transactional theory of reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1, 31-49.
48. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). Impact of concreteness and comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 291-304.
49. Santa, C. M. (2006). A vision for adolescent literacy: Ours or theirs? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(6), 466-476.
50. Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
51. Schellings, G. L. M., & VanHout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (1995). Main points in an instructional text, as identified by students and by their teachers. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 742-756.
52. Sutherland, L. M., & George, M. A. (2005, April). Teachers' use of text to support students' science literacy learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
53. Sutherland, L. M., Moje, E. B., Cleveland, T., & Heitzman, M. (2006, April). Incorporating literacy learning strategies in an urban middle school chemistry curriculum: Teachers' successes and dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
54. Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 134-146.
55. Textual Tools Study Group. (2006). Developing scientific literacy through the use of literacy teaching strategies. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 261-285). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
56. Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1981). Learning to learn from text: A framework for improving classroom practice. In E. K. Dishner, T. W. Bean, J. E. Readence, & D. W. Moore (Eds.), Reading in the content areas: Improving classroom instruction (pp. 85-100). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
57. Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Learning to learn from text: A framework for improving classroom practice. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 496-513). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
58. Tovani, C. (2005). The power of purposeful reading. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 48-51.
59. Yager, R. E. (2004). Science is not written, but it can be written about. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 95-108). Arlington, VA: International Reading Association.
60. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 347-352.