Text genre and science content: Ease of reading, comprehension, and reader preference

Reading Psychology

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 487-511

  Cervetti, Gina N ^a   Bravo, Marco A ^b   Hiebert, Elfrieda H ^c   Pearson, P David ^c   Jaynes, Carolyn A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d Leap Frog Enterprises   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 71749103087     PISSN: 02702711     EISSN: 15210685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02702710902733550     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Boyd, C. D., Cheyney, W., Juel, C., Kame'enui, E., et al. (2007). Reading street. Glenview, IL: Pearson/Scott Foresman.
2. Alexander, P. A. (1997). Knowledge-seeking and self-schema: A case for the motivational dimensions of exposition. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 83-94.
3. Ansberry, K. R., & Morgan, E. (2005). Picture-perfect science lessons: Using children's books to guide inquiry. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
4. Bernhardt, E. B. (2006, July). Helping ELLs learn to read. Paper presented at the University of California, Berkeley Summer Institute in Reading, Berkeley.
5. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Bruner, J. S. (2003). Making stories: Law, literature, life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. California State Board of Education. (2006). Criteria for evaluating instructional materials: Reading/language arts. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/im/
8. Camp, D. (2000). It takes two: Teaching with twin texts of fact and fiction. The Reading Teacher, 53(5), 400-408.
9. Carlson, K. (2005). Reading science. Science Scope, 28(6), 40-41.
10. Casteel, C. P., & Isom, B. A. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 47(7), 538-544.
11. Collard, S. B. (2003). Using science books to teach literacy-and save the planet. The Reading Teacher, 57(3), 280-284.
12. Dixey, B. P., & Baird, K. A. (1996, December). Students' entry into science through literature. Paper presented at the Global Summit on Science and Science Education, San Francisco.
13. Douglas, R., Klentschy, M. P., Worth, K., & Binder, W. (2006). Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
14. Dreher, M. (2006). Motivating struggling readers by tapping the potential of informational books. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 25-38.
15. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 Minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224.
16. Duke, N. K., & Bennett-Armistead, V. S. (Eds.). (2003). Reading and writing informational text in the primary grades: Research-based practices. New York: Scholastic.
17. Duke, N. K., Bennett-Armistead, V. S., & Roberts, E. M. (2003). Bridging the gap between learning to read and reading to learn. In D. M. Barone & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Literacy and young children: Research-based practices (pp. 226-242). New York: Guilford.
18. Ebbers, M. (2002). Science text sets: Using various genres to promote literacy and inquiry. Language Arts, 80(1), 40-50.
19. Edmunds, K. M., & Bauserman, K. L. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading motivation through conversations with children. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 414-424.
20. El-Hindi, A. E. (2003). Integrating literacy and science in the classroom: From ecomysteries to readers theatre. The Reading Teacher, 56(6), 536-538.
21. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In W. E. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 13-32). Arlington, VA: NSAT Press.
22. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Von Secker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331-341.
23. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 465-483.
24. Hiebert, E. H. (2007). The word zone fluency curriculum: An alternative approach. In M. Kuhn & P. Schwanenflugel (Eds.), Fluency in the classroom (pp. 154-170). New York: Guilford.
25. Jetton, T. L. (1994). Information-driven versus story-driven: What children remember when they are read informational stories. Reading Psychology, 15(2), 109-130.
26. Lamartino, A. (1995). Science and reading. Unpublished master's thesis, Kean College, Union, NJ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 380 770)
27. Maria, K., & Junge, K. (1993, December). A comparison of fifth graders' comprehension and retention of scientific information using a science textbook and an informational storybook. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 364 864)
28. Mayer, D. A. (1995). How can we best use children's literature in teaching science concepts? Science and Children, 32(6), 16-19.
29. McClure, A. A., & Zitlow, C. S. (1991). Not just the facts: Aesthetic response in elementary content area studies. Language Arts, 68(1), 27-33.
30. McGee, L. M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children's recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 581-590.
31. Meyer, B. J., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of 9th grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103.
32. Mohr, K. A. J. (2006). Children's choices for recreational reading: A three-part investigation of selection preferences, rationales, and processes. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 81-104.
33. Monson, D. L., & Sebesta, S. (1991). Reading preferences. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp, & R. J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 664-673). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
34. Moser, S. (1994). Using storybooks to teach science themes. Reading Horizons, 35(2), 138-150.
35. Moss, B. (1991). Children's nonfiction trade books: A complement to content area texts. The Reading Teacher, 45(1), 26-32.
36. Moss, B. (1995). Using children's nonfiction tradebooks as read alouds. Language Arts, 72(2), 122-125.
37. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
38. National Science Teachers Association. (2006). Outstanding science trade books for students K-12. Reston, VA: Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://www.nsta. org/ostbs06
39. O'Sullivan, C. Y., Lauko, M. A., Grigg,W. S., Qian, J., & Zhang, J. (2003). National assessment of educational progress: Science. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
40. 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. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty five years of progress (pp. 151-194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
42. Rice, D. C. (2002). Using trade books in teaching elementary science: Facts and fallacies: Trade books can be a valuable addition to the science curriculum, if teachers know how to select good ones. The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 552-565.
43. Rice, D. C., & Rainsford, A. (1996, March). Using children's trade books to teach science: Boon or boondoggle. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 700)
44. Ross, E. P. (1994). Using children's literature across the curriculum (Fastback 374). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374 467)
45. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 291-304.
46. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 85-95.
47. Short, K. G., & Armstrong, J. (1993). Moving toward inquiry: Integrating literature into the science curriculum. New Advocate, 6(3), 183-200.
48. Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2001). The context of comprehension: The information book read aloud, comprehension acquisition, and comprehension instruction in a first-grade classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 97-122.
49. Soalt, J. (2005). Bringing together fictional and informational texts to improve comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(7), 680-683.
50. Spache, G. (1953). A new readability formula for primary-grade reading materials. The Elementary School Journal, 53(7), 410-413.
51. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
52. 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.
53. Yore, L. D. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts? In W. E. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 71-94). Arlington, VA: NSAT Press.
54. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. (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.