Analysis of Expert Readers in Three Disciplines: History, Mathematics, and Chemistry

Journal of Literacy Research

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 393-429

  Shanahan, Cynthia ^a   Shanahan, Timothy ^a   Misischia, Cynthia ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b LEWIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

content area reading; disciplinary literacy; history; mathematics; science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856837452     PISSN: 1086296X     EISSN: 15548430     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1086296X11424071     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Abel, K. L., & Exley, B. E. (2008). Using Halliday's functional grammar to examine early years worded mathematics texts. Australia Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 227-241.
2. ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines. Iowa City, IA: Author.
3. Afflerbach, P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' importance assignment processes. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 35, 30-40.
4. Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). Profiling the differences in students' knowledge, interest, and strategic processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 435-447.
5. Ares, N., Stroup, W. M., & Schademan, A. R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 1-24.
6. Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3-23.
7. Bazerman, C. (1997). Discursively structured activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 296-308.
8. Bazerman, C. (1998). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
9. Bean, T. W. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist dimensions. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 629-644). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Best, L. (1996). The nature of developmental writing: A cognitive explanation with practical implications. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 13, 5-18.
11. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485-522.
12. Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 196-230). London, UK: Cassell.
13. Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15, 230-268.
14. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How people learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. Draper, R. J. (2002). Every teacher a literacy teacher? An examination of the literacy-related messages in secondary methods textbooks. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 357-384.
16. Draper, R. J. (Ed.). (2010). Reimagining content-area literacy instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
17. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
18. Flowerdew, L. (2003). A combined corpus and systemic-functional analysis of the problem-solution pattern in a student and professional corpus of technical writing. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 489-511.
19. Fulda, J. S. (1989). Material implication revisited. American Mathematical Monthly, 96, 247-250.
20. Fulda, J. S. (1992). Material implications. American Mathematical Monthly, 99, 48.
21. Fulda, J. S. (2009a). Rendering conditionals in mathematical discourse with conditional elements. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1435-1439.
22. Fulda, J. S. (2009b). Towards a unified theory of "ifs"-the theory of conditional elements: Further evidence from conditionally self-falsifying utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1440-1448.
23. Garner, R. (1982). Verbal-report data on reading strategies, Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 159-167.
24. Gaultney, J. F. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge and metacognition on the acquisition of a reading comprehension strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 142-163.
25. Gee, J. P. (2001). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 13-32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
26. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
27. Graves, B. (2001). Literary expertise and analogical reasoning: Building global themes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19, 47-63.
28. Guthrie, J. T. (1984). Literacy for science and technology. Journal of Reading, 27, 478-480.
29. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK: Edward Arnold.
30. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
31. Hand, B. (1999). A writing-in-science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1021-1035.
32. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students' answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education, 32, 19-34.
33. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106-1113.
34. Henry, N. B. (1948). Reading in high school and college (Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Vol. 2). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35. Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in the content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36. Holliday, W. G., & Benson, G. (1991). Enhancing learning using questions, adjunct to science charts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 523-535.
37. Holliday, W. G., Yore, L., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-894.
38. Hynd, C. R., McWhorter, J. Y., Phares, V. L., & Suttles, C. W. (1994). The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 933-946.
39. Hynd-Shanahan, C. R. (2008). Reading and writing across multiple texts. In K. A. Hinchman & H. K. Sheridan-Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction (pp. 132-150). New York, NY: Guilford.
40. Hynd-Shanahan, C. R., Holschuh, J. P., & Hubbard, B. P. (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students' reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research 36, 141-176.
41. Johnston, P., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The process of constructing main ideas from text. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 207-232.
42. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London, UK: Sage.
44. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87-113). London, UK: Routledge.
45. Lemke, J. L. (2001). The literacies of science. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33-47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
46. Longo, B. (1994). The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Journal of the Society for Technical Communication, 41, 348-352.
47. Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 221-267). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
48. McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and implications. Journal of Reading, 34, 184-186.
49. Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96-107.
50. Moje, E. B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Education Review, 78, 107-154.
51. Moje, E. B., Stockdill, D., Kim, K., & Kim, H. (2011). The role of text in disciplinary learning. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, P. A. Afflerbach, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 453-486). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
52. Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 400-410.
53. Moore, D. W., Readence, J. E., & Rickelman, R. J. (1983). An historical exploration of content reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 419-438.
54. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
55. Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492-504.
56. Oatley, K., & Djikic, M. (2008). Writing as thinking. Review of General Psychology, 12, 9-27.
57. 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.
58. Olive, T., & Piolat, A. (2005). Le rôle de la mémoire de travail dans la production écrite de textes./The role of working memory in text composition. Psychologie Française, 50, 373-390.
59. Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 235-263.
60. Ravid, D., & Zilberbuch, S. (2003). The development of complex nominals in expert and nonexpert writing. Pragmatics & Cognition, 11, 267-296.
61. Rouet, J. F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85-106.
62. Roussey, J.-Y., & Piolat, A. (2005). La révision du texte: Une activité de contrôle et de réflexion./Text revising: Reflexion and control structure. Psychologie Française, 50, 351-372.
63. Ruban, L. M., McCoach, D. B., McGuire, J., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The differential impact of academic self-regulatory methods on academic achievement among university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal Learning Disabilities, 36, 270-286.
64. Rycik, J. A., & Irvin, J. L. (Eds.). (2001). What adolescents deserve: A commitment to students' literacy learning. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
65. Salmeron, L., Canas, J. J., & Fajardo, I. (2005). Are expert users always better searchers? Interaction of expertise and semantic grouping in hypertext search tasks. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24, 471-475.
66. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67. Shanahan, T. (1992). Reading comprehension as a conversation with an author. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 129-148). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
68. Shanahan, T. (1998). Readers' awareness of author. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The reading-writing connection (Ninety-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Pt. 2, pp. 88-111). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
69. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59.
70. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (in press). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders.
71. Siebert, D., & Draper, R. J. (2008). Why content-area literacy messages do not speak to mathematics teachers: A critical content analysis. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 229-245.
72. Snow, C. E. (1987). The development of definitional skill. Journal of Child Language, 17, 697-710.
73. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
74. Stolarek, E. A. (1994). Prose modeling and metacognition: The effect of modeling on developing a metacognitive stance toward writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 154-174.
75. Vacca, R. T. (2002). Making a difference in adolescents' school lives: Visible and invisible aspects of content area reading. In S. J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 184-204). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
76. Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean-scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161-195). London, UK: Cassell.
77. Wen, J. R., & Shih, W. L. (2008). Exploring the information literacy competence standards for elementary and high school teachers. Computers & Education, 50, 787-806.
78. Wignell, P. (1994). Genre across the curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 6, 355-372.
79. Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-519.
80. Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319-346.
81. Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Mathematical literacy in the middle years. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 9(2), 21-28.