Improving middle and high school students' comprehension of science texts

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 19-31

  Johnson, Brandi E ^a   Zabrucky, Karen M ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension of science texts; Reading comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857079342     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13079298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we don't understand? Standards for evaluating comprehension. In D. L. Forrest, G. E., MacKinnnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp 155-205). New York: Academic Press.
2. Best, R. M., Flyod, R. G., & McNamara, D. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137-164.
3. 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, 65-83.
4. Calhoon, M. (2005). Effects of peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 424-433.
5. Carnine, L., & Carnine, D. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 203-218.
6. Caverly, D., Mandeville, T., & Nicholson, S. (1995). PLAN: A study-reading strategy for informational text. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39, 190-199.
7. Chambliss, M. & Calfee, R. (1989). Designing science textbooks to enhance student understanding. Educational Psychologist, 24, 307-322.
8. Cook, L. & Mayer, R. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448-456.
9. Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students' science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 262-273.
10. Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through point & query, autotutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40, 225-234.
11. Graesser, A., Jeon, M., Dufty, D. (2008). Agent technologies designed to facilitate interactive knowledge construction. Discourse Processes, 45, 298-322.
12. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
13. Kroeger, S., Burton, C., & Preston, C. (2009). Integrating evidence-based practices in Middle science reading. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41, 6-15.
14. Magliano, J., Todaro, S., Millis, K., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Kim, H., & McNamara, D. (2005). Changes in reading strategies as a function of reading training: a comparison of live and computerized training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 185-208.
15. McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 5-25.
16. McNamara, D., O'Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students' reading comprehension with iSTART. Educational Computing Research, 31, 147-171.
17. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010, March 12) The Nation's Report Card: The NAEP Reading Achievement Levels by Grade. Retrieved June 25, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp
18. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002, June 19) The Nation's Report Card: The NAEP Science Achievement Levels. Retrieved June 25, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/achieveall.asp
19. Radcliff, R., Caverly, D., Hand, J., & Franke, D. (2008). Improving reading in a middle school science classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 398-408.
20. Radcliff, R., Caverly, D., Peterson, C., & Emmons, M. (2004). Improving textbook reading in a middle school science classroom. Reading Improvement, 41, 145-156.
21. Rogevich, M., & Perin, D. (2008). Effects on science summarization of a reading comprehension intervention for adolescents with behavior and attention disorders. Exceptional Children, 74, 135-154.
22. Zimmerman, C., Gerson, S., Monroe, A., & Kearney, A. M. (2007). Physics is harder than psychology (or is it?): Developmental differences in calibration of domain-specific texts. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1683-1688). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/csjarchive/proceedings/2007/docs/p1683.pdf