Student-accessible science texts: Elements of design

Reading Psychology

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 213-227

  McTigue, Erin M ^a   Slough, Scott W ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953166269     PISSN: 02702711     EISSN: 15210685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02702710903256312     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Worthy, J. (1995). Giving a text voice can improve students' understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 220-238.
3. Bernard, R. M. (1990). Using extended captions to improve learning from instructional text. British Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 215-225.
4. Best, R. M., 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, 65-83.
5. Chall, J. S. (1988). The beginning years. In B. L. Zakaluk & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its past, present, and future (pp. 14-34). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
6. Evans, J. D. (1974). Vocabulary problems in teaching science. The School Science Review, 55, 585-590.
7. Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus leveling. Reading Teacher, 56, 286.
8. Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of "seductive details" on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41-57.
9. Glencoe Science. (2002). Texas science: Grade six. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10. Gunning, T. G. (2003). The role of readability in today's classrooms. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 175.
11. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 199-205.
12. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
13. Hannus, M., & Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low-and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123.
14. Henderson, G. (1999). Learning with diagrams. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 45(2), 17-25.
15. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465-483.
16. Jenkins, J. R., Heliotis, J., Haynes, M., & Beck, K. (1986). Does passive learning account for disabled readers' comprehension deficits in ordinary reading situations? Learning Disability Quarterly, 9(1), 69-76.
17. Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway? Poetics, 9, 87-89.
18. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
19. Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1270-1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
20. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
22. McCrudden, M. T., & Corkhill, A. J. (2010). Verbal ability and the processing of scientific text with seductive detail sentences. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 282-300.
23. McTigue, E., Coleman, J., & Carlin, B. (2007, August). Analysis of graphical representations in science tradebooks. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
24. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
25. Meyer, B. J. F. (2003). Text coherence and readability. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 204.
26. Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1989). Prose processing in adulthood: The text, the reader, and the task. In L. W. Poon, D. C. Rubin, & B. A. Wilson (Eds.), Everyday cognition in adulthood and later life (pp. 157-194). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Moline, S. (1995). I see what you mean. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishing.
28. Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227-238.
29. Pozzer, L. L., & Roth, W. M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1089-1114.
30. Prentice Hall. (2002). Prentice Hall science explorer: Grade six. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Author.
31. Sadoski, M. (2001). Resolving the effects of concreteness on interest, comprehension, and learning important ideas from text. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 263-281.
32. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). A causal model of sentence recall: Effects of familiarity, concreteness, comprehensibility, and interestingness. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 5-16.
33. 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.
34. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (1994). A dual coding view of imagery and verbal processes in reading comprehension. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 582-601). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
35. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Vol. 5, pp. 1329-1362): Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
37. Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 463-484.
38. Settel, J. (1999). Exploding ants. New York: Anthenum Books.
39. Slough, S., McTigue, E., Kim, S., & Jennings, S. (2010). Science textbooks' use of graphical representation: Analysis of four sixth grade science texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 301-325.
40. Smolkin, L. B., McTigue, E., Donovan, C. A., & Coleman, J. (2009). Explanation in science trade books recommended for use with elementary students. Science Education, 93, 587-610.
41. Wade, E., & Adams, B. (1990). Effects of importance and interest on recall of biographical text. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 22, 331-353.
42. Wade, S. E., Buxton, W., & Kelly, M. (1999). Using think alouds to examine reader-text interest. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 194-216.
43. Yeh, Y., & McTigue, E. (2009). Frequency, variation, and function of graphical representations within standardized state science tests. School Science and Mathematics, 109, 435-450.