Reading comprehension for information text: Theoretical meanings, developmental patterns, and benchmarks for instruction

Motivating Reading Comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 192-211

  Guthrie, John T ^a,b   Scafiddi, Nicole T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b Maryland Literacy Research Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84917276458     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410610126     Document Type: Chapter

References (20)

1. Alao, S., & Guthrie, J.T. (1999). Predicting conceptual understanding with cognitive and motivational variables. Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 243-254.
2. Alexander, P.A., & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M.L.Kamil, P.B.Mosenthal, P.D.Pearson, & R.Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C.C.Block & M.Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 77-95). New York: Guilford.
4. Beach, R., & Wendler, L. (1987). Developmental differences in response to a story. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 286-297.
5. Chi, M.T.H., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
6. Glynn, S.M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. In S.Glynn & R.Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. (2002). Increasing reading comprehension, motivation and science knowledge through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction in a district-wide experiment. Annual report to Interagency Education Research Initiative. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
8. 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.
9. Jonasson, D. (1999), Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M.Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol II (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Mintzes, J.J., Trowbridge, J.E., Arnaudin, M.W., & Wandersee, J.H., (1991). Children's biology: Studies on conceptual development in the life sciences. In S.M.Glynn, R.H.Yearny, & B.K.Britton (Eds.), Psychology of learning science (pp. 179-205), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., & Novak, J.D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 118-125.
12. Narvaez, D. (1998), The effects of moral schemas on the reconstruction of moral narratives in 8th grade and college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 13-24.
13. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read-An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No, 00-4769). Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
14. Novak, J.D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Education Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.
15. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1991). The reading transaction: What for? In B.M.Power & R.Hubbbard (Eds.), Literacy in process (pp. 114-127). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16. Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257-279.
17. Snow, C.E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA: RAND.
18. Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1985). A conceptual change-in-view of learning and understanding. In L.H.West & A.L.Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-230). New York: Academic Press.
19. van den Broek, P., & Kremer; K.E. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B.M.Taylor, M.F.Graves, & P.van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1-31). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
20. Williams, J.P. (2002). Using the theme scheme to improve story comprehension. In C.C. Block & M.Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 126-139). New York: Guilford.