Reading achievement and science proficiency: International comparisons from the programme on international student assessment

Reading Psychology

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 89-118

  Cromley, Jennifer G ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67651216039     PISSN: 02702711     EISSN: 15210685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02702710802274903     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Best, R., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text.Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65-83.
2. Braunger, J., Donahue, D. M., Evans, K., & Galguera, T. (2005). Rethinking preparation for content area teaching: The reading apprenticeship approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Bray, G. B., Pascarella, E. T., & Pierson, C. T. (2004). Postsecondary education and some dimensions of literacy development: An exploration of longitudinal evidence. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 306-330.
4. Cromley, J. G., Snyder, L. E., Luciw, U. A., & Tanaka, J. (2009, June). Testing the fit of the DIME model of reading comprehension with biology text. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boston, MA.
5. Demps, D. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). The relationship between eighth-grade reading scores and achievement on the Georgia High School Graduation Test. Research in the Schools, 8(2), 1-9.
6. Dempster, E. R., & Reddy, V. (2007). Item readability and science achievement in TIMSS 2003 in South Africa. Science Education, 91(6), 906-925.
7. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395.
8. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423.
9. Hapgood, S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2006-2007). Where literacy and science intersect. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 56-61.
10. Haught, P. A., & Walls, R. T. (2004). Relationships of reading, MCAT, and USMLE Step 1 Test results for medical students. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 25(2), 83-92.
11. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12. Lee, O., Fradd, S. H., & Sutman, F. X. (1995). Science knowledge and cognitive strategy use among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 797-816.
13. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.; pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Liu, X. (2004). Using concept mapping for assessing and promoting relational conceptual change in science.Science Education, 88(3), 373.
15. Medina, M., & Mishra, S. (1994). Relationships among Spanish reading achievement and selected content areas for fluent- and limited-Spanish- proficient Mexican Americans. Bilingual Review/Revista Bilingue, 19(2), 134-141.
16. National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. Washington, DC: Author.
17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. (2001).
18. Nolen, S. B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation, and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 347-368.
19. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from the OECD programme for international student assessment (PISA) 2000. Paris: Author.
21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: Author.
22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: Author.
23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005a). PISA 2003 technical report. Paris: Author.
25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005b). PISA 2003 data analysis manual. Paris: Author.
26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: Author.
27. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional "high-stakes" measures of high school students' science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 161-196.
28. Otero, J., León, J. A., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2002). The psychology of science text comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching.Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.
30. Ritchie, S., Rigano, D., & Duane, A. (2008). Writing an ecological mystery in class: Merging genres and learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 143-166.
31. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2008, March). Science IDEAS: A knowledge-based model for accelerating reading/literacy through in-depth science learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
32. Roth, K. J., Drucker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., et al. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study statistical analysis report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.nces.ed.gov
33. Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Anderson, J. O. (2004). Impact of a school district's science reform effort on the achievement and attitudes of third- and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 771-790.
34. Smith, M. C. (2000). The real-world reading practices of adults. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(1), 25-52.
35. Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford.
36. Trefil, J. (2007). Why science? New York: Teachers College Press.
37. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39(2), 299-316.
38. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
39. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy - Empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 291-314.
40. Zmach, C. C., Sanders, J., Patrick, J. D., Dedeoglu, H., Charbonnet, S., Henkel, M., et al. (2007). Infusing reading into science learning. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 62-66.